On more than a few blogs, I've seen people claiming that D&D is about "Kill monsters and take their stuff." It's fine if this is the way people want to play, but I find it hard to believe this is the consensus of people who have been playing D&D for many years.
Doesn't that style of play get boring very fast?
I like D&D that includes:
Exploring fantastic locations
Meeting a variety of interesting NPCs
Developing my PC through level ups
Finding solutions to adventure problems/obstacles that require brains, finesse, or other alternate routes to just bashing heads
|
I've been DMing for 4 or so years now, and everytime I ask my players what they want (I like to keep the game geared towards the players's wants), they always respond with "More random mosters to fight". so no. i don't think it get's old, it just depends on the players. Some see this as a way of getting out all their built up aggression from the week, like punching a pillow, only they get to do so with violent expressions like stabbing random hostile critters in the spleen or firebombing buildings. it's probly considered a form of therapy. and like any therapy, if the play style works for them then they are going to want to stay with it.
As an addendum to the above, my players don't just want me to open the MM to a random page and pull out something and say that it attacks. they want more fighting, but in the context of the story.
|
On more than a few blogs, I've seen people claiming that D&D is about "Kill monsters and take their stuff." It's fine if this is the way people want to play, but I find it hard to believe this is the consensus of people who have been playing D&D for many years.
Doesn't that style of play get boring very fast?
I would not say that "kill monsters and take their stuff" is the only way to play but D&D is designed for that to be the heart of the game. Character advancement requires it.
|
|
...Character advancement requires it.
I'd say that statement is false on the grounds as that obtaining role-playing xp is (while difficult in the extreme) possible. this means that in theory characters that never lift a single sword can advance. like politicians. how do you get a politician over level one (assuming they have never faught)? It does make it easeir though, and the game was designed with combat integral to advancement.
|
|
...Character advancement requires it.I'd say that statement is false on the grounds as that obtaining role-playing xp is (while difficult in the extreme) possible. this means that in theory characters that never lift a single sword can advance. like politicians. how do you get a politician over level one (assuming they have never faught)? It does make it easeir though, and the game was designed with combat integral to advancement.
True but roleplaying XP has not been explicit in the rule IIRC until very recently. The DNA of the game is kill monsters and take their stuff.
|
|
a bunch of stuff
I'm not disagreeing with Combat being important. only saying that it's the only way. and you are right about the RP XP being a newish develpoment. IIRC, the earlier editions only gave xp for combat and obtaining treasure, which is where the whole kill and loot mentality came from. XP for looting? that's like a 2 for 1 deal. I might be wrong since i never actually read the older editions, but i think i heard that somewhere.
On more than a few blogs, I've seen people claiming that D&D is about "Kill monsters and take their stuff."
That has been my entire experience with D&D some 20 years.
Doesn't that style of play get boring very fast?
Yes.
True but roleplaying XP has not been explicit in the rule IIRC until very recently. The DNA of the game is kill monsters and take their stuff.
I thought 3.x stated somewhere, that you get XP for overcoming an encounter. True, the word encounter implies a fight, but why do some DM's speak of social encounters then?
As kessukoofah said: your not wrong. The DNA of the game IS 'kill monsters and take their stuff'. That's where the game comes from.
To be fair, 3.0 did finally take notice that people were doing more with their role playing games. There is still a lot of baggage though.
|
On more than a few blogs, I've seen people claiming that D&D is about "Kill monsters and take their stuff." It's fine if this is the way people want to play, but I find it hard to believe this is the consensus of people who have been playing D&D for many years.
Doesn't that style of play get boring very fast?
Depends. 1st edition was almost entirely 'kill for exp, take loot for even more exp!'
2nd edition introduced XP rewards for actions other than killing stuff. (Clerics got XP for healing, Rogues for traps overcome, etc.) But the XP award for 'loot' vanished.
3rd edition continued with a much less codified 'story award' or non-combat 'encounter challenge rating' system, but also rewarded experience for things *other* than killing monsters, and entire 'adventures' were written about grand balls where information must be gathered and alliances forged, with not a single combat roll (I believe there was one in the last Dungeon Adventure Path...). And still, no XP for loot. In fact, you know had to *spend XP* to craft magical loot!
I have no idea about 4E, as I haven't read it yet.
For campaign play, I want a story, not just Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth 2.0, with endless rooms full of monsters with no rhyme or reason.
For a 15 minute sit-down game, the Dungeon Delves at last years Origins were *freaking awesome,* and they were entirely 'kill monsters in X amount of time.' (No loot at all, nor any experience, 'though, and it was irrelevant, since they were self-contained one-shot sets of three encounters.) I didn't get bored with them because there were many variations, multiple DMs, and many of the groups were different, so we got to meet some pretty darn awesome people. Would I want to do this with my friends, eight times in a two hour game session? Uh, no.
But some might. I've watched people replay video games they've beaten *hundreds of times* on auto-pilot, and seem to be having fun. I'm sure that endlessly killing monsters over and over would be great fun for these people, because the monsters would be different, unlike in their static video games.
To be fair, 3.0 did finally take notice that people were doing more with their role playing games. There is still a lot of baggage though.
I guess I never strictly followed the rules. In 2.0 and 3.0/5 I would always give XP for story awards, roleplaying awards, and encounter awards, no matter how those encounters were overcome.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's ridiculous.
D&D is a game about the epic struggle of the DM and his quest to beat the players into submission such that they actually follow the plot. DM of the Rings is how D&D should be played.
If you really needed to click this to confirm that I was being sarcastic, or worse yet, replied to the above comment in seriousness, I fear for your ability to avoid deadly peril and function in human society. And yet, I find that I need to put this here or else someone will inevitably treat the above as serious.
Despite your sarcasm, SB, one only needs to check out the DM Kill Thread to see there is truth in this.
|
On more than a few blogs, I've seen people claiming that D&D is about "Kill monsters and take their stuff." It's fine if this is the way people want to play, but I find it hard to believe this is the consensus of people who have been playing D&D for many years.
Doesn't that style of play get boring very fast?
I don't mind killing monsters and taking their stuff, and I agree that this has long been a major point of the game.
But there always was more to it than just that.
And I believe EXPLORATION ! is the key word.
Let's take a look at the cover some of 1e modules :
"Led by Mordenkainen, wizard without peer, they have come to mysterious Maure Castle, a forlorn and foreboding place, source of wonderment and awesome advenutre, following a strange and terrible story. For, somewhere deep beneath Maure castle, from whence no person has returned alive, there stand ...."
Need I say more ?
"Led by Mordenkainen, wizard without peer, they have come to mysterious Maure Castle, a forlorn and foreboding place, source of wonderment and awesome advenutre, following a strange and terrible story. For, somewhere deep beneath Maure castle, from whence no person has returned alive, there stand ...."
...a 1d6 chance of a random wandering monster check.
...a 1d6 chance of a random wandering monster check.
Maybe I shouldn't be so put off. I never played with truly random wandering monsters/encounters either.
|
I always give experience for a myriad of things...from a good in character idea, or joke...to role playing, to solving a problem...and yes for 'overcoming an encounter' (Ill give the exact same experience if they talk the monster into allowing them to do whatever they came to...as I would if they fight it...in fact, if the idea is good enough ...maybe even more.
So that being said, I think this is more a Root issue with the DM...if there's a lack of imagination, then 'killing them and taking their stuff' is what it boils down to.
So that being said, I think this is more a Root issue with the DM...if there's a lack of imagination, then 'killing them and taking their stuff' is what it boils down to.
How boring. How sad. Might as well play online.
|
|
...a 1d6 chance of a random wandering monster check.Maybe I shouldn't be so put off. I never played with truly random wandering monsters/encounters either.
Lucky you.
Our first attempt at Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. *Fourth level party.*
Night one;
Stone Giants begin bombarding your campsite with giant boulders (auto-missing on round one, so that we all get a chance to wake up and prepare). Thanks to a True Strike spell, the archer manages to hit one during the 'fighting retreat.' Once. Everybody dies, even the Paladin, on his horse, galloping full speed in the opposite direction (he was willing to become a Fighter at that point).
Night one, take two (after pretending that this encounter didn't happen);
A White Dragon attacks the party, it decides to eat someone's horse first, so we get a chance to wake up and prepare for combat. The archer is again the only one to actually damage it before everybody dies.
Night two (the third attempt at 'night one' had no encounter);
Either one or two (I don't recall) Wyverns attack the party. The guy on watch dies *instantly* from hit point loss from the Con damage of the single poison-sting that hit him (combined with the damage of the sting itself). Everybody dies, although the party actually gets some hits on and one of them takes about 20% of it's hit points in damage.
Apparently, these monsters were all at the very high end of the random monster chart, and we were just horribly unlucky.
Note that we couldn't run away from any of these encounters. Two were with flying creatures, and the third was with creatures that could hit us with boulders with a *180' range increment!*
Random encounters drove us back to Vampire for two years.
How boring. How sad. Might as well play online.
That has been my argument for years. Better graphics and you do not have to organize a group.
IIRC, the earlier editions only gave xp for combat and obtaining treasure, which is where the whole kill and loot mentality came from.
I think this is the cause of the proliferation of magic items.
|
|
IIRC, the earlier editions only gave xp for combat and obtaining treasure, which is where the whole kill and loot mentality came from.I think this is the cause of the proliferation of magic items.
Most likely. It's kind of boring when every hoard has a bunch of coins and the coins can't buy anything...well, except land and castles and ale and whatnot. all those coins gotta go somewhere, and magic items are fun to put in hoardes and spend money one. see, i don't think the players need them so much as they need something to spend money on.
What is with hoards too? O.k. Dragons were given some reason or other, although it was pretty flimsy. Why does nearly every monster in D&D feel the need to acquire a hoard? I mean, could you paint a bigger target on your head?
|
|
...a 1d6 chance of a random wandering monster check.Maybe I shouldn't be so put off. I never played with truly random wandering monsters/encounters either.
Honestly, I've run random encounters before, but some of the tables do require some action on behalf of the DM.
In Set's above situations, he points out that the higher encounters were quite hard and TPKed the party, with little chance of winning. After the first unsuccessful attack, I personally would have used a lower EL fight, or perhaps used different dice that didn't roll very high.
The same thing happened to a group I had on a trip to the Astral plane. Upon rolling up "astral dreadnought", which only happens on a "1" and is a EL 17, I decided that a group of 5th level adventurers wouldn't have fun fighting it, so I re-rolled. Granted, it's not true random encounters per say, but that would require me spending more on balanced dice.
Heh. On the whole XP argument, my way has always been simple. Everyone in the group gets 300 XP per session for an average session. If the session was slow and undirected, that number can drop as low as 100. If awesomeness has happened, like the end of a big storyline or some fantastic bit of daring luck has won them a huge fight that should have killed them, I can sometimes be known to chip out a couple of thousand. I don't track XP based on every rat they kill or love letter they deliver. As a result, the game ends up being a lot more about story and drama.
I don't do established plotlines or random encounters. Never. I let the characters tell their own stories. I draw all my DM material from the PC's backstories and from their reactions to hooks that present themselves in game. Likewise what I get from this is story and drama. You would be suprised how much more depth a player puts into a character when he understands it's going to actually become a big part of the story. Nothing kills my interest like getting dragged along on the DM railroad, where nothing about my character beyond his combat stats makes any difference at all. I hate modules. I hate playing monster whack-a-mole in some stupid maze.
So yeah, safe to say the whole "kill monster, take loot" is not a universal thing. I, for one, hate the crud out of it.
|
|
What is with hoards too? O.k. Dragons were given some reason or other, although it was pretty flimsy. Why does nearly every monster in D&D feel the need to acquire a hoard? I mean, could you paint a bigger target on your head?
I would actually agree with you here. dragon hoards make sense. and the leaders of gangs usually have one too, but msot of the monsters don't make sense with time. like, say, a nest of owlbears. what's the logic in finding any gold at all, let along gems or a rod of leadership (pulled a random name out of my head) in that cave? that's more wealth then many cities have IIRC. although a city of owlbears is something to consider. a treetop villiage/city. still wouldn't be welathy, but a fun image.
|
|
What is with hoards too? O.k. Dragons were given some reason or other, although it was pretty flimsy. Why does nearly every monster in D&D feel the need to acquire a hoard? I mean, could you paint a bigger target on your head?
My players in Warhammer are getting used to the "What!?! No treasure?" moments. Besides - would you really want to touch anything that a Skaven has stuffed in their nest?
I just had an image of the Fellowship of the Ring looting bodies. I guess that is why it always rocked my sense of immersion. I want to recreate stories from books and movies. With the exception of Malek, I can not think of any protagonists looting fallen foes. And that was part of his character.
Saying that D&D is just about killing monsters and taking their stuff is like saying the Brady Bunch is about the blending of two families - one with 3 boys and one with 3 girls. It starts out that way and it remains relevant as a story generator for a while, but it eventually becomes something else when that particular element fades into the past.
So, yes. Early D&D, both as a game and for new gamers, is interesting as a killing monsters and taking their stuff game. Then, once you've done that for a while, it's time to broaden the focus and the game very much becomes something else. Late first and second edition put in a lot more story into the modules (some think a bit TOO much of the railroady kind) and gamers matured into playing with more complex stories and plots.
But to limit D&D to just that idea - killing monsters and taking their stuff - does it a horrible disservice.
Again, with regard to treasure, it is what it is. If the guys kill a bunch of owlbears, they get what owlbears have--a big stick nest with some fluffball pokemon-lookin' owlbear chicks in it. Can they sell the owlbear chicks? Sure. Probably get a fair share for them actually. Were they put there as loot? Heck no.
You kill an evil wizard, expect to find a load of loot far beyond your CL. You're likely to find scrolls and potions and wands and all sorts of stuff.
Kill an ogre and you're likely to get a grimy set of leather armor and a cruddy wooden club.
Do I care about tracking all that junk so it comes in even allotments based on character level? Not a chance. You get what you get.
Story and drama baby.
|
Contributor
|
As a person who frequently says that D&D is about killing monsters and taking there stuff, I feel compelled to comment that I usually do so with tongue in cheek.
OTOH, Gary Gygax said many times that D&D was about killing monsters and taking there stuff, albeit not exactly in those words.
And a further note... I stopped playing 2E for many reasons, one of which was that it was boring because it was frequently just about killing monsters and taking their stuff. I came back to D&D for 3E because it made killing monsters and taking their stuff fun again.
I just had an image of the Fellowship of the Ring looting bodies. I guess that is why it always rocked my sense of immersion. I want to recreate stories from books and movies. With the exception of Malek, I can not think of any protagonists looting fallen foes. And that was part of his character.
Read more Thieves World anthologies.
Read more Thieves World anthologies.
Why?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What is with hoards too? O.k. Dragons were given some reason or other, although it was pretty flimsy. Why does nearly every monster in D&D feel the need to acquire a hoard? I mean, could you paint a bigger target on your head?
Way way way back in the day, when I only had experience playing oD&D, I picked up a copy of Shadowrun. For the life of me, I could not figure out how to play the game. The only thing I knew how to play was D&D. As a result, the first adventure consisted of robots taking over a school and the PCs having to go room to room finding and destroying the robots. Inside the rooms were either safes (the modern equivalent of treasure chests) or satchels full of money.
Damn, that adventure sucked...
What is with hoards too? O.k. Dragons were given some reason or other, although it was pretty flimsy. Why does nearly every monster in D&D feel the need to acquire a hoard? I mean, could you paint a bigger target on your head?Way way way back in the day, when I only had experience playing oD&D, I picked up a copy of Shadowrun. For the life of me, I could not figure out how to play the game. The only thing I knew how to play was D&D. As a result, the first adventure consisted of robots taking over a school and the PCs having to go room to room finding and destroying the robots. Inside the rooms were either safes (the modern equivalent of treasure chests) or satchels full of money.
Damn, that adventure sucked...
But, but . . . "Hitting Stuff Is Fun!"
Our first attempt at Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. *Fourth level party.*
Night one;
Stone Giants begin bombarding your campsite with giant boulders (auto-missing on round one, so that we all get a chance to wake up and prepare). Thanks to a True Strike spell, the archer manages to hit one during the 'fighting retreat.' Once. Everybody dies, even the Paladin, on his horse, galloping full speed in the opposite direction (he was willing to become a Fighter at that point).
Night one, take two (after pretending that this encounter didn't happen);
A White Dragon attacks the party, it decides to eat someone's horse first, so we get a chance to wake up and prepare for combat. The archer is again the only one to actually damage it before everybody dies.
Night two (the third attempt at 'night one' had no encounter);
Either one or two (I don't recall) Wyverns attack the party. The guy on watch dies *instantly* from hit point loss from the Con damage of the single poison-sting that hit him (combined with the damage of the sting itself). Everybody dies, although the party actually gets some hits on and one of them takes about 20% of it's hit points in damage.
Apparently, these monsters were all at the very high end of the random monster chart, and we were just horribly unlucky.
Note that we couldn't run away from any of these encounters. Two were with flying creatures, and the third was with creatures that could hit us with boulders with a *180' range increment!*
Random encounters drove us back to Vampire for two years.
Man...that was a sucky way to experience random encounters!
I've been running random encounters for 20 years in my campaigns, and only once was it cause for character death! That incident was when the party decided at level 4 to cross mountains that armies didn't cross due to the monsters living there, and well the easiest encounter for those mountains was a CR 8! They died at the hands of an ettin!
Otherwise random encounters are used to add a little excitement to overland travel. Knowledge skills or information gathering should let players know the danger of various creatures found in a given wilderness, and there-by restrict overland transit to level of creatures found there. I also like to add a few random encounters to some typical "dungeons" (if you're invading a keep, there should be a chance to encounter guards and guests in various hallways).
Having said all of that, I don't believe that the core enjoyment of D&D has ever been hack and slash mayhem over and over. Most times I find it most enjoyable to have a few combats along with some mysterious events, and some traps, leading to a main encounter (read an evil boss that must be defeated!). I was giving xp for good role-playing long before there were any specific rules for doing so, and I have always thought that this was a core part of the game!
I've found that the pathfinder adventures are not all that high in loot anyways; leastways, that's been a conplaint from a couple players! I like low magic grit, with a lot of trouble shooting and planning to defeat enemies, and I'm seeing that a lot more here than many printed editions!
Wow Sebastian. You really suck as a DM.
I just wish there was rules for a DM to get EXP for killing player characters and taking their stuff.
;)
True but roleplaying XP has not been explicit in the rule IIRC until very recently.Well then, you either don’t recall very well, you define “recently” as 19 years ago… or you chose to ignore what’s been around for a long time.
To help you out, since you claim to hate misinformation being spread:
From the 2E DMG (1989), page 45: …He tries to improve his role-playing and to develop his character every time he plays. Experience points are a measure of this improvement, and the number of points given a player for a game session is a signal of how well the DM thinks the player did in the game- a reward for good role-playing.
From the 2E DMG (1989), page 48: Individual Experience Awards Individual experience point awards are given for things a player does in play or things he has his character do: intelligent play is worth experience; good role-playing is worth experience points; actions that fit the group’s style are worth experience…
Table 33: COMMON INDIVIDUAL AWARDS
Player has a clever idea 50-100
Player has an idea that saves party 100-500
Player role-players his character well* 100-200
Player encourages others to participate 100-200
Defeating a creature in single combat XP value/creature
* This award can be greater if the player character sacrifices some game advantage to role-play his character. A noble fighter who refuses a substantial reward because it would not be in character qualifies.From the 3.0 DMG (2000), page 168: [i]Roleplaying awards A player who enjoys playing a role makes decisions that fit his or her character but don’t necessarily lead to the most favorable outcome for that character. Good roleplayers might peform some deeds that seem particularly fitting for their characters. Someone playing a bard might compose a short poem about events in the campaign. A smart-aleck sorcerer might crack an in-game joke that sends the other players to the floor laughing. Another player might have his character fall in love...
Does that kind of direction exist in the current rules (4th Edition)?
|
|
True but roleplaying XP has not been explicit in the rule IIRC until very recently.Well then, you either don’t recall very well, you define “recently” as 19 years ago… or you chose to ignore what’s been around for a long time.
Well, I had successfully ignored 2e - skipped it completely. But you are correct it does include RP XP. I stand corrected.
|
|
Way way way back in the day, when I only had experience playing oD&D, I picked up a copy of Shadowrun. For the life of me, I could not figure out how to play the game. The only thing I knew how to play was D&D. As a result, the first adventure consisted of robots taking over a school and the PCs having to go room to room finding and destroying the robots. Inside the rooms were either safes (the modern equivalent of treasure chests) or satchels full of money.
Damn, that adventure sucked...
Half of the Vampire games I played, defeating another vampire was like a feeding frenzy of resource-raiding, as the other vampires would try to pillage his bank accounts, poach his Ghouls, schmooze his Contacts, recruit his Herd, etc. It's hard to get away from the, 'I keel you and take your stuff!' mentality.
It would be an funny 'super-her' to work up, one based on the 'loot the bodies' principle. Technically, he's a hero, a wannabe inventor who just never really had the creative fire to make anything useful, but he's quite capable of maintaining other people's stuff. And so he targets high-tech criminals. In the Marvel Universe, he might go after people like the Vulture (jet pack!), the Shocker (vibro-blast gloves!) and Doctor Octopus (hey, how do these things work anywaaaaaaayyyyyyyy! Turn it off! Turn it OFF!).
Does that kind of direction exist in the current rules (4th Edition)?
More so, I'd say. Specific XP totals are attributed to completion of minor and major story points. Most 4E adventures I've seen so far offer a fair deal of XP for non-combat story resolution.
Cheers! :)
|
|
It would be an funny 'super-her' to work up, one based on the 'loot the bodies' principle. Technically, he's a hero, a wannabe inventor who just never really had the creative fire to make anything useful, but he's quite capable of maintaining other people's stuff. And so he targets high-tech criminals. In the Marvel Universe, he might go after people like the Vulture (jet pack!), the Shocker (vibro-blast gloves!) and Doctor Octopus (hey, how do these things work anywaaaaaaayyyyyyyy! Turn it off! Turn it OFF!).
I actually had a superhero character in a Heroes Unlimited game whose ability was that he could synch up with other heroes and villains and use their abilities when they were nearby. However, if he managed to kill them while using their powers, he kept thm permanently. When the game started, he already had the ability to fire energy beams which didn't quite go with his other powers...
The plan with the character was to have him kill off another one or two people and take their powers. Then he'd slowly begin to lose his mind and decide that things would be safer if he were the only one that had super abilities, and he would become basically an NPC superhero serial killer (one of the first casualties was going to be his sidekick, another PC).
Sadly, we didn't get to play that far in the storyline.
subtle jab cleverly disguised behind “This is not a personal attack…”
I had completely missed that in 2E. I knew it was in 3E. I never saw it used in a 2E game, but then I did not play much 2E. The few times I saw it used in 3E, role playing rewards were always roughly 10% of what killing something would net you. The focus was still very firmly on killing things. I can concede this may be due to bad DMing. I just must have had a run of bad luck, because it was pretty much every D&D DM I ever saw.
Heh. On the whole XP argument, my way has always been simple. Everyone in the group gets 300 XP per session for an average session. If the session was slow and undirected, that number can drop as low as 100. If awesomeness has happened, like the end of a big storyline or some fantastic bit of daring luck has won them a huge fight that should have killed them, I can sometimes be known to chip out a couple of thousand. I don't track XP based on every rat they kill or love letter they deliver. As a result, the game ends up being a lot more about story and drama.
I don't do established plotlines or random encounters. Never. I let the characters tell their own stories. I draw all my DM material from the PC's backstories and from their reactions to hooks that present themselves in game. Likewise what I get from this is story and drama. You would be suprised how much more depth a player puts into a character when he understands it's going to actually become a big part of the story. Nothing kills my interest like getting dragged along on the DM railroad, where nothing about my character beyond his combat stats makes any difference at all. I hate modules. I hate playing monster whack-a-mole in some stupid maze.
So yeah, safe to say the whole "kill monster, take loot" is not a universal thing. I, for one, hate the crud out of it.
My games are very much like this. I also hand out a standard amount of XP to where my players can expect to level up every 2-3 sessions depending on what happens during those sessions.
Killing or looting doesn't have to take place in order to get XP. One session you might kill nothing, one session you might have one encounter, and then the next might be 10 encounters. You'll get the same XP no matter what just for showing up and pushing the story along.
Occasionally I'll give bonus XP for journals, awesomeness, or some other act that makes the game more enjoyable for everyone.
From the 3.0 DMG (2000), page 168: Roleplaying awards
A smart-aleck sorcerer might crack an in-game joke that sends the other players to the floor laughing.
Man if I could just get the guys in my gaming group to pun in-game we would level up in no time.
;)