Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9613741" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Not assumed. It's literally what the books tell us, and what Gygax himself wrote in the earliest texts. That's why I invoked that bit about how he describes HP, how a high-level Fighter being more durable than a trained warhorse makes it utterly ridiculous to argue that HP are meat.Whereas for me, if "survival being the underlying first priority" is the name of the game, you've killed it. You've destroyed everything beautiful about D&D, and turned it into yet another dull meatgrinder where nothing interesting happens except by the fluke of the dice. Everything is just people being horrible to each other, grubbing for every last coin and a morsel. I deal with far, far too much of that in my daily life. Worries about whether we can make ends meet. Worries about whether we can put food on the table. Worries about violence near and far--wars and terrorism and gangs. Worries about drugs, both the prescribed and the proscribed.When you reduce the world to nothing more than the grim algebra of necessity, when you treat heroism as a silly distraction, all you do is kill the joy and beauty that could come from the experience. At least for me.I don't see either of those things as a positive, so yeah, of course I'm talking about that. I find there are (much, much, MUCH) better ways to represent the kind of thing you speak of, without all of the massive UNpleasant side effects of a "curve" that is functionally flat. Because that's what people keep pushing toward, over and over and over and over, as though that would somehow be amazing. It wouldn't be. There is, in fact, actual value in a curve that really does observably grow, in the level range people regularly play, rather than one where the threats you faced at first level remain incredibly dangerous at 10th.Edit: Also? Your point is basically "but what about the other ways?"...when mine was about "this way is by far what most people actually want." I am fairly certain you disagree with this point--and I'm also equally certain that all available data shows you are wrong. Some players love a good challenge. Some players love a game that is gritty down to its bones and never becomes anything else, where heroics are at most a sometimes food.But most people? Most people want a reasonable challenge that feels like their choices made a difference, where random luck doesn't $#!+ all over them half the time, where they really are doing great (and usually good) things. Statistics conclusively show that players prefer good/noble/heroic endings over evil/selfish/gritty endings when they can choose between them. Statistics conclusively show that people like hard but fair conflicts (see: Elden Ring and other "Souls-like" games). Statistics clearly show that only a very slim minority (~10%) even attempts brutally-difficult, no-holds-barred, permadeath type challenges, and even fewer succeed.However, as I have so often said before, none of this means that the gritty style of play should be abandoned. It's just not the primary focus of D&D's design, and hasn't been since at the very least 3e, and probably since mid-2e. Hence, options should be available to support this style, since it is classic and definitely has its fans (many of whom are, like you, diehard fans--which is a good thing!) That's why I advocate for novice-level rules that are baked in from the very beginning and presented as no more nor less good and right and true than any other part of the game. That's why I advocate for stealing the 13A "incremental advance" rules, so players like you who want a near-flat levelling curve can absolutely have it and have it sing for you, while those who want a moderate curve can have it, and those who want a steep one can also have it, all without forcing anyone to play less of the game as a consequence. It's why I praise solutions like DCC's "funnels" and 13A's Druid, where truly clever game design manages to resolve seemingly impossible conflicts.Your way is good. It deserves to be part of D&D. But it is not, and cannot be, the default that everyone must be forced to march through or else spend hours and hours slamming their faces against the game's design to try to squeeze what they want out of it.And, to loop that back to magic (since I've gotten off-topic again): Magic is a part of this whole conundrum. The high-cost, incredibly-open-ended magic that some folks have advocated for in this thread actively encourages bad behavior. It actively encourages DMs to be punitive and harsh, to dangle tempting carrots and then slam down on every attempt at creativity lest that attempt be used as a foot in the door. It actively encourages players to be manipulative and coercive to their DMs and their fellow players (not the characters, the players); to finagle and trick and lie to their fellow players and their DM, to do everything they can to wrest ultimate power while paying nothing at all. And that whole time, the archetypes that don't have access to that magic are locked in the cage of not-even-mundane, but still suffer the negative consequences of punitive DMs and all the rest.</blockquote>

Verification