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

[clearstream]

If we accept that our culture justifies mass slaughter to itself, one still has to establish that the game is used for that same justification, and that the game's justification then causes further harm.

For example, you would have to empirically demonstrate that the set of folks causing harm with the justification is not disjoint from the set of people playing the game.

A paper a few years ago from UC Santa Cruz found that "procedural rhetoric has psychological reality, with players accurately understanding that two games meant to have arguments have them, and the purely abstract game [that] did not". I recall other evidence of measurable psychological effects being cited in this regard, too.

Cherry-picking a single mechanic, in the 50 year history of game violence, is going to seem at best like missing the forest for one particular tree.

Asserting that a game mechanic, in and of itself, regardless of application, is an ethical or moral failure calls for an argument that remains coherent however it is applied.

Changing tack, it's hard to think of another mechanic with such a specific aim of effortless (confident and powerful) mass slaughter. A few spells seem tailored to that purpose... fireball, stinking cloud. Keep in mind that I am differentiating between violence and mass slaughter.

The players are not required or expected to have read the encounter building rules, or, in fact, anything in the DMG or MM. So, this is not accurate. They do not have to be aware of it, much less assimilate it.

I like your thought here, as D&D rules are engaged with by players through the DM. How aware are players that minions have 1 hit point? Some posters have written that they let players know which monsters are minions. The question would be whether and how players internalize and operationalize this information. I believe some research shows analogic transfers but most or all is in the context of videogames.

As in - even if minion mechanics are ethically questionable. If the net result of the game is dedication to building a more ethical world, then the mechanic is justified. The ethical whole can be more than the sum of the parts.

Agreed. Something I have noticed in this thread is that analyzing individual mechanics doesn't necessarily explain them without the fuller context of the rest of the game text. I can picture a game in which a minions mechanic would -- together with other mechanics -- have the sort of results you may be envisioning. I don't know that I take 4e D&D to be an example, although as I wrote upthread, that's only finally settled in play.

We might accept that narratives are shaped in part by rules, but that does not support narratives "emerge from" rules.

I mean that they emerge from people using the rules in a way that would be inexplicable were the rules considered inert in this equation. The rules serve as instructions that shape the narratives: stifling some, prompting others.

 

[Hussar]

If they are commoners they would not be proficient with crossbows and would need a 19 to hit



I am not sure they are supposed to be terrifying any more. They took away their fear ability in the 2024 rules and if they still had that this would be a much easier fight for them.

NPC's do not have proficiencies.

 

[Hussar]

The party only obliterates with that magic items help. Without it they're sludge. The opening breath attack will hit 2 or 3 of them since they don't have novel plot armor like in the books, and that will kill those 2 or 3 whether they save or not.

As for simulation being poor in D&D, that's part of why 3e did it better. Those 100 commoners with longbows are doing pretty much 0 damage to young adult or older dragon attackers. And no damage at all against mature adult or older dragons.

Sorry, not true.

Make a save and that black dragon breath doesn't do much damage at all. All the fighter types will survive it.

Please stop trying to nit pick every example I bring up. it's incredibly frustrating to have to "prove" everything to someone who cannot be bothered to actually look up the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, not true.

Make a save and that black dragon breath doesn't do much damage at all. All the fighter types will survive it.

Please stop trying to nit pick every example I bring up. it's incredibly frustrating to have to "prove" everything to someone who cannot be bothered to actually look up the rules.

It's not a nitpick. Khisanth had 64 hit points. In that module Tanis had 35 hit points. Dead on a failed save and almost dead on a successful one. Tasslehoff had 15 hit points. Dead no matter what he rolled. Caramon had 36 hit points. Dead on failed save and almost dead on a successful one. Raislin had 8 hit points. Dead no matter what. Goldmoon had 19 hit points. Dead no matter what. Riverwind had 34 hit points. Dead on failed save. Almost dead on a successful one. Sturm had 29 hit points. Dead no matter what. Flint had 42 hit points. Dead on failed save and almost dead on a successful one.

Of the 8 heroes of the lance, 4 of them Tasslehoff, Raistlin, Goldmoon and Sturm are dead if hit by the breath even if they do save. The other 4 could survive if and only if they successfully saved.

To live Tanis, Caramon, and Riverwind need a 13 or better on the d20. So 60% chance of instant death. Flint needs a 16 or better, so he dies 75% of the time.

If Goldmoon is hit, she dies instantly and the instant win staff is out of commission since only she can use it. If 3 or 4 are hit by the breath, the odds are that most them will die. Half the party dies even if they do save, the other have die most of the time since they fail the save on most rolls.

This is not the easy fight you are portraying it to be. They won as easily as they did in the books only because of plot armor.

Remember, it already breathed on them twice in the Plaza of Death, so there's a good chance multiple members are dead before they get to the lair where it breathes on them some more.

 

[Umbran]

A paper a few years ago from UC Santa Cruz found that "procedural rhetoric has psychological reality, with players accurately understanding that two games meant to have arguments have them, and the purely abstract game [that] did not".

Who decided that a game was "meant to have arguments", and how did they make that determination?

I recall other evidence of measurable psychological effects being cited in this regard, too.

Well, when you can clearly tell us what those effects were, and cite sample sizes and such, then get back to us.

Changing tack, it's hard to think of another mechanic with such a specific aim of effortless (confident and powerful) mass slaughter.

Weird. My example used a whole whopping two minions. And I set that up before knowing your beef.

So, I question that assertion.

Keep in mind that I am differentiating between violence and mass slaughter.

And the audience must limit their consideration to that... why, exactly?

More to the point, the game implies a potential for many, many deaths even without minions and fireball. Focusing on these mechanics seems like a quibble.

Or... perhaps the restriction is there because without it, the entire game starts to look ethically indefensible, which is going to be a hard sell on a gaming messageboard.

I believe some research shows analogic transfers but most or all is in the context of videogames.

Jargon. Means nothing to me

I can picture a game in which a minions mechanic would -- together with other mechanics -- have the sort of results you may be envisioning. I don't know that I take 4e D&D to be an example, although as I wrote upthread, that's only finally settled in play.

I am still not on board that there is a clear ethical or moral value to the game separate from the fiction enacted.

So, it isn't a matter of 3e, 4e, or 5e, or Savage Worlds, or Cypher. All ethics are settled in play in the narrative context.

 

[clearstream]

Weird. My example used a whole whopping two minions. And I set that up before knowing your beef.

So, I question that assertion.

My assertion is based on the designers writing that is their aim for the mechanic. As I've consistently said, the use of a game text is ultimately settled in play.

To check understanding, is your view that this gives any possible inclusion in a TTRPG text a pass?

Or... perhaps the restriction is there because without it, the entire game starts to look ethically indefensible, which is going to be a hard sell on a gaming messageboard.

Very true. I read an article about Textual Rebellion and the Rejection of RPGs which says some interesting things using DitV as its example.

And God do I have the same feelings about playing Dogs in the Vineyard with people who refuse to acknowledge defiance. Within this discussion, Dan states that “it is rare to find someone who will entirely reject the idea of approaching film broadly from a thematic or metaphorical point of view, but all too common to find people who will lightly sneer at attempts to do so, and suggest that it’s overthinking things.” And that is, unfortunately, also Tabletop RPG culture. One only needs to look at every OSR blog determined to “keep politics out of my games”, or rather to never look at those ever, or at every indie RPG that refuses to engage with the idea of metaphor at all, playing hard and straight down the line with its message with little room for textual analysis.​

I am still not on board that there is a clear ethical or moral value to the game separate from the fiction enacted.

Would you say that the fiction enacted is separate from the game?

All ethics are settled in play in the narrative context.

I think that's a view well worth considering. Not one I dismiss by any means... albeit I'm curious to read your answer to my above question. The problem I think your nicely pithy statement skirts is suggesting that the narrative is independent of the game, which seems to make inexplicable what function the rules are serving?

 

[Lanefan]

Meh - sometimes in the game you just gotta kill 'em all and let their gods sort 'em out.

 

[AlViking]

Meh - sometimes in the game you just gotta kill 'em all and let their gods sort 'em out.

Considering the thousands of NPCs I've mowed down in video games and that study after study has shown no ill effect, I'm not too concerned either.

 

[Hussar]

It's not a nitpick. Khisanth had 64 hit points. In that module Tanis had 35 hit points. Dead on a failed save and almost dead on a successful one. Tasslehoff had 15 hit points. Dead no matter what he rolled. Caramon had 36 hit points. Dead on failed save and almost dead on a successful one. Raislin had 8 hit points. Dead no matter what. Goldmoon had 19 hit points. Dead no matter what. Riverwind had 34 hit points. Dead on failed save. Almost dead on a successful one. Sturm had 29 hit points. Dead no matter what. Flint had 42 hit points. Dead on failed save and almost dead on a successful one.

Of the 8 heroes of the lance, 4 of them Tasslehoff, Raistlin, Goldmoon and Sturm are dead if hit by the breath even if they do save. The other 4 could survive if and only if they successfully saved.

To live Tanis, Caramon, and Riverwind need a 13 or better on the d20. So 60% chance of instant death. Flint needs a 16 or better, so he dies 75% of the time.

If Goldmoon is hit, she dies instantly and the instant win staff is out of commission since only she can use it. If 3 or 4 are hit by the breath, the odds are that most them will die. Half the party dies even if they do save, the other have die most of the time since they fail the save on most rolls.

This is not the easy fight you are portraying it to be. They won as easily as they did in the books only because of plot armor.

Remember, it already breathed on them twice in the Plaza of Death, so there's a good chance multiple members are dead before they get to the lair where it breathes on them some more.

Sigh.

This is what I mean about talking about stuff when you don't know what you are talking about. Caramon and Sturm both had their HP errata'd in DL5. The numbers you are using are wrong. Which you would know if you actually used the modules. Which I have run multiple times over the years. Why on earth has it already breathed on them twince in the Plaza of Death? Any PC's worth anything have killed Khisanth before it's even taken a turn. 64 points of damage with 5 fighter types? Not really too difficult.

But, I guess my actual play experience just pales before your 30 second reading from Anyflip.

Again, it's really, really frustrating to have to constantly deal with this. Note, to be fair, we did do the "breath weapons deal current HP" damage rule. Which would make the fight considerably easier. Then again, I also ran this in 2e (as well as running it in 1e) which mean that the 6th level PC's obliterated Khisanth in the first round. Never minding that by this point, Sturm (or someone) should have the double damage against dragons two handed sword. 6d6 damage on a hit makes pretty short work of something with 64 HP.

 

[Hussar]

Considering the thousands of NPCs I've mowed down in video games and that study after study has shown no ill effect, I'm not too concerned either.

While I do disagree with you on a number of things, this is one that I'm not actually too concerned about. I mean, they've been trying to link video game play to anti-social behaviour for most of my life, and it's never actually shown any correlation. The notion that RPG's could be linked in this manner is very likely in the same barrel.