D&D's Problematic Lore That Still Needs Fixing
(archive.fo)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
"Deadly" is not good. If you want "deadly", play a difficult video game. Punish stupid decisions with deadly encounters, but a player that's doing everything correctly should not overly fear death unless the dice really fuck them over. Most of my sessions are just pure roleplay and in-character conversations anyway.
To each their own. I'm not a fan of roleplay. I'm also a firm believer in having the players lose a couple of characters early own. Makes the game a lot more interesting and their characters special. It takes more then just skill and good stats to be a hero, you also need luck.
In addition, the world must be dangerous in order to justify having heroes. If a group of 4-5 heroes can effortless solve everything then you do not need heroes. The world must feel unbalanced in favor of the monsters, many heroes and innocent people find their end in this world, it makes being a hero so much more deserving of praise.
This is why I like AD&D, a lot of save or death, low level monsters that can paralyze and character death is common, actual death not dying and then stabling and all that.
But everyone plays how they feel they want to, that is the beauty of DnD.
And of course, the characters are encouraged to look for alternative ways to deal with encounters that make some encounters easier or skippable. Investigation is necessary and unfortunately this does lead to role playing.
3'd edition is great as well, you can play it on a the harder side and it works great.
Objectively 3d edition is the best.
Buddy, nobody enjoyed the level 1 experience in Baldur's Gate of having to save scum each and every single encounter with a gibberling. You've got some weird goggles on.
Maybe I'm in a minority but I like early levels but not first level. The point was that even later some ghouls can wipe out a party via paralyze attacks. Kind of cool. Keeps things interesting.
I get it that you guys like roleplaying, is fine. I'm ok with roleplaying to some extent but I think combat should be the main part of the game and heroes should not be superheroes. Clearly my ideas are not popular, :)) but honestly I do not care.
Happy new years.
That sounds just terrible. I'm glad you enjoy/enjoyed it, but that sounds like a DM trying to flex how powerful he is (no shit, he's basically a god) due to his own insecurities. 4-5 heroes can't effortlessly save everything, 4-5 heroes can save everything if they do almost everything right and are charismatic and competent at diplomacy (and that's fully roleplayed out, not something you can roll for).
It's basically a social game more than anything. Complex stories and in-depth conversations with interesting NPCs that last for hours upon hours, discussions of strategy where players negotiate the help that influential people can lend them, etc.
Much more engaging than a video game but with dice and cardboard cutouts.
Is basically what you want, combat vs roleplaying. DnD is great because it can offer both and you can chose how you want to run. Most people have like 1/3 combat, 1/3 investigation, 1/3 role playing but you can mix and match however you want.