Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3774541" data-attributes="member: 198">Sure. I wouldn't doubt that the attrition model is superior at modelling that sort of fiction. But then I'm firmly in the camp which says D&amp;D is lousy at modelling most classic/adventure fiction beyond D&amp;D, so I'd probably think even &quot;superior&quot; is only comparative and it doesn't model it well at all.Marginally. In my game (esp. when I'm writing it up in story hour format), I may describe a character who's damaged as having been tired and less functional than usual. But, in reality, he was just as functional as before, since in D&amp;D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell. So a description which doesn't really have any mechanical effect doesn't count that much to me. If Conan says he was near defeat from tiredness, then he wasn't tired enough for it to count.Agreed about the gaming style issue. I just think that without heavy house-ruling, D&amp;D (esp. from the double-digit levels) in all editions has always been much closer to Cuchulainn than Conan. What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes. And from what little I've played of 2e and heard of earlier editions, PCs at the same level were even more powerful, since they tended to be able to defeat comparatively greater threats (a 13th lvl fighter in 2e could take apart a bunch of fire giants, whereas one in 3e will have some problems with them). D&amp;D, in my estimation, does superheroes and myth much better than it does traditional fantasy/adventure stories. And I think that's a good thing. Many others may of course disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shilsen, post: 3774541, member: 198"] Sure. I wouldn't doubt that the attrition model is superior at modelling that sort of fiction. But then I'm firmly in the camp which says D&D is lousy at modelling most classic/adventure fiction beyond D&D, so I'd probably think even "superior" is only comparative and it doesn't model it well at all. Marginally. In my game (esp. when I'm writing it up in story hour format), I may describe a character who's damaged as having been tired and less functional than usual. But, in reality, he was just as functional as before, since in D&D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell. So a description which doesn't really have any mechanical effect doesn't count that much to me. If Conan says he was near defeat from tiredness, then he wasn't tired enough for it to count. Agreed about the gaming style issue. I just think that without heavy house-ruling, D&D (esp. from the double-digit levels) in all editions has always been much closer to Cuchulainn than Conan. What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes. And from what little I've played of 2e and heard of earlier editions, PCs at the same level were even more powerful, since they tended to be able to defeat comparatively greater threats (a 13th lvl fighter in 2e could take apart a bunch of fire giants, whereas one in 3e will have some problems with them). D&D, in my estimation, does superheroes and myth much better than it does traditional fantasy/adventure stories. And I think that's a good thing. Many others may of course disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification