Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8258302" data-attributes="member: 7023840">In another thread, I saw this comment by [USER=7025897]@Marc_C[/USER] (discussing Savage Worlds RPG):"TPK without any reason for it. PCs didn't do anything wrong. I was turned off."And that resonated with me, as it had me thinking about a specific application to a general concept I had been considering. I often think about the difference in general style between the TSR-era editions of D&D (especially OD&D / early 1e) and the more recent editions (such as 4e and 5e), as well as the difference between older game design and more recent game design.Now, putting aside one-shot adventures or games that are specifically designed to kill characters (such as Paranoia), I've been thinking about the sentiment expressed in the comment I just read. Not that it's good, or bad, but contemplating it ... and contrasting it with the famous example from Star Trek of the Kobayashi Maru.A brief explanation for those five people who do not fit within the Venn diagram of the overlapping circles of, (1) people who read these forums; and (2) people who get the Kobayashi Maru reference ... Kobayashi Maru refers to a training exercise at Star Fleet academy that, famously, was impossible to win; they wanted to see how cadets react when they know they can't prevail. Famously, James T. (the T stands for TERRRRRRR-IFFIC!) Kirk "won" the exercise by cheating- because he didn't believe that there is such a thing as a no-win scenario. Putting this back into the context of D&D, I was thinking about whether or not it is "fair" to have players die due to events over which they have no control. A famous example of this, in early versions of D&D, is the "save or die" type of situations- sometimes, you just roll a 1. For the most part, 5e has replaced most of these "save or die" (and similar really bad effect) with various types of "save or suck" type of things, and replaced the "death" with "death saves" and so on. But at the core of the issue, while 5e is much more forgiving that 1e, it is still possible, through pure bad dice rolling, to not do anything wrong and die/TPK. They have not eliminated dice swinginess altogether, although they have ameliorated it a great deal. In contrast, there are TTRPGs and other systems that are resolutely "fail forward" - that there is narrative control of not just good events, but bad events, such that there will not be an ultimate sanction when the "PCs didn't do anything wrong."I was genuinely curious what people thought about these different styles in D&D. So I'm putting up a poll, and hoping for a great discussion in the comments.</blockquote>

Verification