D&D General They were all dead. The final arrow was an exclamation mark on everything that had led to this point.

[Cap'n Kobold]

This comes back to the old combat-as-war vs combat-as-sport debate. I (and others, I think) am approaching this from a very C-as-W perspective, where combat probably shouldn't be option 1 or even option 2 or 3 because combat is where the greatest risk lies.

I find that combat isn't the top option even in modern games. The "Combat-as-War" aesthetic worked in early D&D, where sneaking into a humanoid encampment and killing them all in their sleep in order to loot them was regarded as laudable and actively encouraged.

Nowadays, adventures are based less on the gaining of loot/XP and more on plot objectives. Parties will often try to talk it out with antagonists if they can, which does open them up to more risk if things go bad. The idea that a player might consider "sacrificing a party member or two" as acceptable so their character will survive is also pretty rare in modern play.

For some of us, "gotcha" is sometimes a feature rather than a bug. Danger awaits around every corner and sometimes you don't - or can't - see it coming.

An awful lot of those early edition hazards are just instant death if you make a mistake - and "mistake" can often mean "not rolling high on a d20". Later editions allow for more learning experiences, where you have a chance to recover from just a single mistake. - death is a consequence of multiple bad rolls when no mitigating actions are taken, or severe mistakes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The OP sums up my feelings about Older editions well.
I have played plenty campaigns where at some point noone was there that cared about the goal.
I actually had those in later editions too.

One way to increase the stakes is less generous stats for players. If your spells stick less, your average HP and/or AC is lower. Your concentration more easily broken. Your special abilities can be used less often.

Our AD&D characters were quite good, because somehow every fighter had 18/70+ strength. Our Paladins could also afford other high stats than charisma. And so on.

The effect of stats are hard to estimate. For single encounters they don't matter that much. But on average over the campaign, there happen to be more situations where an enemy survives with 1 or two hp, your crucial disable breaks etc. A single +1 bonus difference means a difference every 20 rolls. For a single character it is hard to notice. But if 5 characters have their main stats reduced by 1, you will see the difference every encounter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

what fighter are you playing that has a 20 con...ever? you playing without feats or something?

We are using feats, and in actual fact I made them more attractive than the official ones into order for them to choose them over the ASI.

We have a Barbarian-Fighter (with an 18 CON) and an Eldritch Knight-Battlesinger (16 CON).
They're currently 15th level. My example of 20 CON was for a 20th level character....

 

[W'rkncacnter]

We are using feats, and in actual fact I made them more attractive than the official ones into order for them to choose them over the ASI.

We have a Barbarian-Fighter (with an 18 CON) and an Eldritch Knight-Battlesinger (16 CON).
They're currently 15th level. My example of 20 CON was for a 20th level character....

did they not boost their attack stat? did they not take feats (or take several con boosting feats)? are you using some sort of house ruled point buy/array? did they roll well for their starting stats? because i'm not doubting you, i'm just kind of confused how they got there given how standard array and point buy normally work.

i mean, i have a level 8 PC with an 18 CON, but that's because i'm specifically focusing on the character's CON and letting his strength suffer for it. is it like that?

 

[Lanefan]

I find that combat isn't the top option even in modern games. The "Combat-as-War" aesthetic worked in early D&D, where sneaking into a humanoid encampment and killing them all in their sleep in order to loot them was regarded as laudable and actively encouraged.

Nowadays, adventures are based less on the gaining of loot/XP and more on plot objectives. Parties will often try to talk it out with antagonists if they can, which does open them up to more risk if things go bad. The idea that a player might consider "sacrificing a party member or two" as acceptable so their character will survive is also pretty rare in modern play.

A - "...sneaking into a humanoid encampment and killing them all in their sleep..."
B - "...adventures are based less on the gaining of loot/XP and more on plot objectives..."

These things are not mutually exclusive. B merely provides A with more backstory and rhyme-reason-rationale.

My point is more that sneaking into the encampment and whacking them while they sleep (because if you meet them face on you'll probably die) has become pooh-poohed in favour of face-charging into the encampment while they're awake for a jolly good old punch-up where the PC-side risk is more imagined than real.

An awful lot of those early edition hazards are just instant death if you make a mistake - and "mistake" can often mean "not rolling high on a d20". Later editions allow for more learning experiences, where you have a chance to recover from just a single mistake. - death is a consequence of multiple bad rolls when no mitigating actions are taken, or severe mistakes.

Agreed that early editions need more of a spectrum of options between "you're fine" and "you're dead" for outcomes, but that still doesn't mean "you're dead" has to come off the table entirely.

 

[AnotherGuy]

nvm

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A - "...sneaking into a humanoid encampment and killing them all in their sleep..."

. . . in order to loot them.
(Previous editions based game rewards at least partially on gold gained from loot, and sometimes the gaining of said gold was the primary driving force of party actions.)

B - "...adventures are based less on the gaining of loot/XP and more on plot objectives..."

Generally more recent adventures will have a reason that the party might come into conflict with said tribe other than "They have stuff and we want it." One of the tribe might have stolen something (or at least been accused of that), the tribe might have moved into an area that the party's patron wants them off etc.

These things are not mutually exclusive. B merely provides A with more backstory and rhyme-reason-rationale.

My point is more that sneaking into the encampment and whacking them while they sleep (because if you meet them face on you'll probably die) has become pooh-poohed

Yeah. The concept of murdering an entire tribe of people while they sleep in order to take their stuff has lost its lustre somewhat since Gygax's time.

in favour of face-charging into the encampment while they're awake for a jolly good old punch-up where the PC-side risk is more imagined than real.

I've seen other posters make similar claims here about parties nowadays just face-charging stuff, or the equivalent (along with other complaints about the "youth of today".)
I've yet to actually experience it myself however. Most of the groups I'm aware of would generally at least try to parlay or otherwise investigate, which does give up a strategic advantage if some members of the tribe are irredeemably hostile.

"Face-charging" an enemy encampment would be way too dynamic and decisive for some groups, several of which I've witnessed have ten-minute-plus discussions as to how to open a door.

Agreed that early editions need more of a spectrum of options between "you're fine" and "you're dead" for outcomes, but that still doesn't mean "you're dead" has to come off the table entirely.

I'd want the "You're dead" to at least be preceded by a well-signposted mistake. Losing a cherished character on a single roll of a 13 where you needed a 15 with no indication that there was a risk and no way you or the rest of the party could mitigate it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.