D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Tell me, then, what the Dragonlance modules do.

I just looked at DL1 and there are no instructions to keep the PCs alive. Not even a hint at that. So then I looked at DL Classics Vol 1, which has the first 4 modules in it.

That tells the DM to have important NPCs die mysterious "deaths" so they can return later, or else kill them off for good and then have a different NPC doing their job later, so no anti-death rules there.

For PCs it says they can play the heroes or of the lance or their own PCs. It says to limit level gaining for heroes of the lance. It says to lower personal PCs levels and items if they are too high or too powerful. It says not to make them do the events in the order of the books. Nowhere does it say not to let the PCs die.

I'm not sure what you are referring to now.

 

[Maxperson]

Lol. We aren't narrative, I have no real experience with playing narrative games. I'd be doing a massive disservice to that style I think. It's only what I've picked up from here, links provided by narrative players and some youtubes.
We've got a hybrid thing going on in a traditional D&D sandbox. There's a lot of GM decides still but we do our best to work with these gamist + narrative techniques in an attempt to better enjoy our hobby.

Sure. I was just pointing to a type of game that I don't think I'd like, not saying you are narrative.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not seeing rising conflict across a moral line.

Here is my example, from upthread:
I haven't spelled out any rising conflict, but I think it's fairly clear how rising conflict across a moral line is implicit in this situation: violation of a treaty, forfeiting our honour, etc; or the prophecy hanging over us like Damocles's sword, making each choice a potential self-sacrifice.

Where's the rising conflict in your example? For instance, suppose that the PCs kill the prisoners, where - in the typical D&D module, which was the context of your reply to me - is the rising conflict?

I'm not saying that there can't be rising conflict across a moral line involving the treatment of prisoners - I've seen it. But I didn't get it out of typical D&D modules. And if the D&D table also uses GM-adjudicated alignment, then it is not player-authored conflict.

It sounds like you're saying that for there to be a rising conflict, there needs to be some sort of sacrifice in both options. If that's the case, then what I'm describing qualifies, since if sacrifice was only on one side of it, there wouldn't be a conflict between the two choices. You just don't sacrifice and go on your merry way.

In the case of the murder vs. letting the prisoner go, if they murder the prisoner, perhaps they are a group of good aligned heroes, perhaps even with a paladin. Murder goes against their very being. It's a murder, and even in D&D murder is against the law, so perhaps the PCs don't want to be on the run for a crime that could very well get them executed. On the other hand, letting the guy go could get them killed and/or compromise what they are doing if he warns others in time.

When I'm presenting these things as conflicts, it's because the choice is a tough one(some sort of sacrifice) on both sides, as well as some sort of benefit on both sides.

 

[Enrahim]

Look, you misunderstood what most of these actually mean, so even though I linked to the site where the list was explained, you don't seem to have actually read it fully.

For the principles, I used the heading for the first 3, then I went to the site and read the full description before commenting on the rest.

Are you sure it is not you that is misunderstanding something here?

 

[Enrahim]

I think the difference in the actual rules would mean that there would be big changes. But wth that in mind, you can use a very similar mindset.

Well, if that is what you think, I guess that might explain a thing or two. Let me just say then that I have encountered people with a somewhat different stance in the past..

 

[Micah Sweet]

Tell me, then, what the Dragonlance modules do.

It's a pretty straightforward narrative "played" using the AD&D 1st edition system (which itself certainly has death rules).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a pretty straightforward narrative "played" using the AD&D 1st edition system (which itself certainly has death rules).

Yes.

Meaning, the idea that the everpresent threat of death is a "structural necessity" for something to be "D&D" in the first place does not compute when Dragonlance has clearly shown that this isn't a necessity.

My entire argument was simply against this claim that the game (a) stops being D&D and (b) loses all stakes/tension/etc. if death is in any way not a "structural" part of the experience. It doesn't have to be. Yes, many playstyles strongly emphasize it. Yes, it remains part of the rules (though to varying degrees! Consider how a lot of folks feel about death saves.) But it is not a necessity, structural or otherwise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

Meaning, the idea that the everpresent threat of death is a "structural necessity" for something to be "D&D" in the first place does not compute when Dragonlance has clearly shown that this isn't a necessity.

My entire argument was simply against this claim that the game (a) stops being D&D and (b) loses all stakes/tension/etc. if death is in any way not a "structural" part of the experience. It doesn't have to be. Yes, many playstyles strongly emphasize it. Yes, it remains part of the rules (though to varying degrees! Consider how a lot of folks feel about death saves.) But it is not a necessity, structural or otherwise.

It may not have to be, but I don't want to play D&D (or any edition or derivative) without it. Other people can play how they want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It may not have to be, but I don't want to play D&D (or any edition or derivative) without it. Other people can play how they want.

I'm not, and have never been, saying you should.

I have been responding to someone else who had said that it was a "structural necessity". And then to people twisting that response to what that person said as though it were some grand unified theory of all gaming ever, some pronouncement from on high.

For goodness' sake, does no one bother to read the context that a statement comes from? This is the third time people have twisted my words into something ridiculous simply because they either didn't read the whole post or didn't read the person to whom I was responding originally.

 

[FrogReaver]

Conflict across a moral line.

Here's an example of conflict that is not across a moral line: do we go overland, risking frostbite, or through the underdark, risking getting lost?

Here's an example of conflict that is across a moral line: do we go overland, violating the ancient treaty never to enter <their lands>, or through the underdark, even though it is prophesied that one of our number will die should we attempt such a journey?

This example (2nd example) sounds very much like something that could occur in one of my d&d games. It’s a great illustration of what conflict across a moral line is, which is what the example was an answer to.

Though I’m not really seeing any rising conflict here. There’s certainly conflict, but rising? There’s some potential for rising conflict but it could also be uneventful. You cross without being noticed. You face the prophecy head on and discover the prophecy/prophet is false. Both success options that end this particular conflict before it ever rises.