It really sounds like you have had some shitty experiences with D&D, and I’m sorry that happened to you. But those issues are not from/with D&D, those issues were from shitty DMs/Players. The good DM just makes sure everyone has equal time in the spotlight. The good DM sees one PC outshine the party and if it seems to be a problem, puts items and other boons in the game for those PCs to help compensate, while still giving a potentially premadonna PC cool stuff to. And it may not actually be a problem if everyone is having fun, the other players may not even perceive any of that as a problem. 🤷♂️
The only issues a DM should have to drop everything to heat out and address are interpersonal problems between players or Player and DM. Anything in game shouldn’t require that level of micromanagement.
I could understand it if framed for the purpose of a discussion, I don't get it as some sort of demand that people must obey him because "here is a random facebook post that makes his point". The day I let some random guy on the internet have influence on my game is the day I burn my books and mail him the ashes.
The entire thrust of the thread was to prove the hypocrisy of all that tell me that 4d6 rolling is NOT about better stats, but other more nebulous things.
But it doesn’t prove that. It shows one person didn’t like their rolls, and a handful of others agreed. It proves nothing about why I or anyone else might prefer the method. It says nothing about how many people who prefer that method like it for getting high scores, vs. any other reason. It is a single point of information. You have presented an anecdote, not proof.
It's supposed to "cut" both ways. Mutual, two-way trust is the underpinning of the GM/player contract.
(Yeah, I know, that contract varies game-to-game, and is almost never written down, much less discussed.)
Discussing the contract is sorta exactly why "Session Zero" has become such a big deal these days. You're entirely correct, the game doesn't function without mutual trust amongst all involved. Not simply GM to player, but also amongst the players. Figuring out boundaries, figuring out the game everybody wants to play, getting everybody on board with the game and its underlying social contract is the whole point of pre-campaign prep and Session Zero.
Writing out an actual contract is a bit much for most tables, but "Don't worry, just trust me" without any willingness to explain and engage in conversation is as much of a red flag as complaining about stats is. If not more so. I am not Princess Jasmine; I'm not getting on that physics-defying carpet with some overdressed ******r who threw an extravagantly wasteful "Let Me In Your Pants" parade earlier that morning just because he makes eyes at me.
That was the same logic that was applied to the controversial changes created in the abomination that shall not be named. And lo and behold, those changes are now canon, and will be the only options with any new source books and reprints. Apparently there are no sacred cows, no lines that cannot be crossed in the new world order of D&D.
Considering your opinion of that book and those changes, I wouldn't expect you to avail yourself of the same logic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It really sounds like you have had some shitty experiences with D&D, and I’m sorry that happened to you. But those issues are not from/with D&D, those issues were from shitty DMs/Players. The good DM just makes sure everyone has equal time in the spotlight. The good DM sees one PC outshine the party and if it seems to be a problem, puts items and other boons in the game for those PCs to help compensate, while still giving a potentially premadonna PC cool stuff to. And it may not actually be a problem if everyone is having fun, the other players may not even perceive any of that as a problem. 🤷♂️
The only issues a DM should have to drop everything to heat out and address are interpersonal problems between players or Player and DM. Anything in game shouldn’t require that level of micromanagement.
Yuriel has described her perfect char as one that has the ability to be able to deal with any and all situations. That means the char is front and centre for every encounter. That is the very definition of a prima donna. The game is co-operative. The game's character universe is designed so each char's class is really good at something, and capable of assuming the spotlight for specific encounters. The 4d6 method allows for chars to have great stats across the board, able to participate in every situation. The Standard Array or Point Buy is designed that players have to CHOOSE what they are good at. And that is the main theme of D&D. Some chars are great at some things , horrible at others.
The 4d6 system flies against what D&D is all about.
That was the same logic that was applied to the controversial changes created in the abomination that shall not be named. And lo and behold, those changes are now canon, and will be the only options with any new source books and reprints. Apparently there are no sacred cows, no lines that cannot be crossed in the new world order of D&D.
Considering your opinion of that book and those changes, I wouldn't expect you to avail yourself of the same logic.
The battle has been lost, and the soul of D&D has been killed. I am merely fighting on principle now.
That was the same logic that was applied to the controversial changes created in the abomination that shall not be named. And lo and behold, those changes are now canon, and will be the only options with any new source books and reprints. Apparently there are no sacred cows, no lines that cannot be crossed in the new world order of D&D.
Considering your opinion of that book and those changes, I wouldn't expect you to avail yourself of the same logic.
The battle has been lost, and the soul of D&D has been killed. I am merely fighting on principle now.
May I suggest a more principled approach then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yurei described her perfect char as one that can contribute in any situation the team finds itself in.. Delving deep into that ancient tombs of Narr Khatoa, necromantic warlord of the ancients? Yurei can help. Investigating the back alleys of Old York in search of clues to an elusive slaver's ring that kidnapped the mayor's daughter? Yurei can help. Pouring over dusty tombs in an abandoned library to route out information on the eldritch nemesis threatening to corrupt the countryside? Yurei can help. Attending a royal masquerade ball to build reputation and forge the connections needed to earn an audience with the King of Assclownia so we can warn him of the plot against his life? Yurei can help.
Whatever the DM wants to bust out, I want to be a part of it. I want to have at least one option to help, to participate, and to further the party's goals in whatever situation we find ourselves in. Do I need to be Front and Centre(C)? No. Do I need to be successful at what I'm trying to help with? No. But I don't ever want to be that player saying "A'ight, Muscules the Barbarian goes out to make camp in the woods while you guys do this masquerade thing. Give me a call when that's wrapped up and I'll come back the session after that. Have fun, I guess."
Also? Despite being super insulting about it, thanks for proving my point. Heh. See, Sposta? Nobody tolerates that sort of character, outside of one-shots where nothing matters anyways.
That was the same logic that was applied to the controversial changes created in the abomination that shall not be named. And lo and behold, those changes are now canon, and will be the only options with any new source books and reprints. Apparently there are no sacred cows, no lines that cannot be crossed in the new world order of D&D.
Considering your opinion of that book and those changes, I wouldn't expect you to avail yourself of the same logic.
The battle has been lost, and the soul of D&D has been killed. I am merely fighting on principle now.
May I suggest a more principled approach then?
And what principle is that “My D&D is the only correct way to play?
[REDACTED] There’s plenty of ways to play and you can FIND people who agree with you and play with them. But stop coming into these large communities and telling about how wrong others are.
Yuriel has described her perfect char as one that has the ability to be able to deal with any and all situations. That means the char is front and centre for every encounter. That is the very definition of a prima donna.
That's not what I read.
They're a jack-of-all-trades. "The second best tool for any job." (My quote, not Yurei's.) The kind of character who can fill in the gaps, who's really useful for most parties. They don't tend to hog the spotlight, at all --- instead, when the spotlight is on someone else, they have ways to help. It's the "lift up" style of play.
Yurei described her perfect char as one that can contribute in any situation the team finds itself in.. Delving deep into that ancient tombs of Narr Khatoa, necromantic warlord of the ancients? Yurei can help. Investigating the back alleys of Old York in search of clues to an elusive slaver's ring that kidnapped the mayor's daughter? Yurei can help. Pouring over dusty tombs in an abandoned library to route out information on the eldritch nemesis threatening to corrupt the countryside? Yurei can help. Attending a royal masquerade ball to build reputation and forge the connections needed to earn an audience with the King of Assclownia so we can warn him of the plot against his life? Yurei can help.
Whatever the DM wants to bust out, I want to be a part of it. I want to have at least one option to help, to participate, and to further the party's goals in whatever situation we find ourselves in. Do I need to be Front and Centre(C)? No. Do I need to be successful at what I'm trying to help with? No. But I don't ever want to be that player saying "A'ight, Muscules the Barbarian goes out to make camp in the woods while you guys do this masquerade thing. Give me a call when that's wrapped up and I'll come back the session after that. Have fun, I guess."
Also? Despite being super insulting about it, thanks for proving my point. Heh. See, Sposta? Nobody tolerates that sort of character, outside of one-shots where nothing matters anyways.
And I quote you, from 30 minutes ago: "They tell me I'm being a spotlight-hogging *******, or that I'm not leaving room for anybody else to shine, or that I don't/won't/can't trust my fellow players to do their share, or that I don't trust the DM not to hose me."
I am clearly not the only one who described you as such.
I don't ever want to be that player saying "A'ight, Muscules the Barbarian goes out to make camp in the woods while you guys do this masquerade thing. Give me a call when that's wrapped up and I'll come back the session after that. Have fun, I guess."
Why would you?!? Some of the best moments of Crit Role season 1 were precisely when Grog and Kelith went out, or Grog and Terrion, or Grog and anybody. Muscles the Barbarian didn’t skip a session setting up camp, he literally rips down some curtains, togas himself, and goes to the ball. That’s literally what happened in the show.
I don't really care for "Trust your DM" as the answer to everything. Obviously you should, and in fact if you do not you can't play D&D at that DM's table, but this particular usage of "trust your DM" often comes with connotations of one's issues as a player being dismissed or ignored. It's the same reason I don't care for Colville's infamous chargen method or the "Discover your character at the table" games in general - they often feel like a DM simply handwaving away the player's issues with a "Don't worry, I'll just fix it myself later".
A good DM can fix a player's problems for them. A great DM can assist and empower the player into fixing their own problems. Or, to answer one pithy saying with another, a DM should also "trust your players". Which is the bit of DMing advice nobody ever gives that they really, truly should.
I find the mentality of "trust your GM" to be especially ridiculous coming from grognards complaining about how the game has changed. Back when Gygax was still still making the game, he very much promoted the killer game master mentality. GMs were encouraged to be unfair, arbitrary, and to kill off PCs regularly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
About DMs trusting players: They should. I trust mine. We play on Zoom and Foundry VTT. They can roll in the interface of Foundry and all of them do. But they are also perfectly welcome to roll physical dice, and I would never question their rolls or demand to see them. I trust them to keep track of spells and slots, abilities, whether they still have inspiration (after I give it out, I don't think about it), how many hp they have, whether they turned on some ability to improve their AC, etc. I don't audit their character sheets.
I do check things from time to time to make sure they are right, particularly with the player who is new to D&D. But usually only at level-up -- which I have them do in between sessions on their own, and just email me when they are ready for me to import into Foundry (for some annoying reason the import mod is no longer letting them do it). At that point I do error-checking. I generally don't find any. Otherwise, I trust them to do everything they need to do with their character. I wouldn't want to play with people I couldn't trust.
However -- and this is a big however -- there is a ginormous difference between the players and the DM when it comes to trusting each other about certain aspects of the game, such as game balance or other larger aspects of the campaign. It can be very easy for a player, accidentally, to do something that can break the game, not even realizing it, and certainly not intentionally. The DM is the only one at the table (or in the Zoom) who sees the whole picture, completely -- not just all the other PCs, but also all the NPCs, monsters, upcoming maps, planned adventures, every statblock in the Monster Manual, and so forth. Only the DM sees the whole picture and only the DM is able to be truly impartial between the characters -- no matter how good of a player someone is. The DM is in a much better position to be objective, than the individual players are... mostly based on their relative "omniscience" (at least at the campaign level) compared to a player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
GMs were encouraged to be unfair, arbitrary, and to kill off PCs regularly.
Not in the books, they weren't. I can't speak to whether Gygax encouraged these in person or anything. Nor have I any Dragon articles in my possession.
In the Preface to the original AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Gygax writes that the purpose of these rules is to help the DM build "a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible." It's hard to see how you could have something last "for the longest period of time possible" while killing off PCs regularly. Later in that same paragraph, Gygax warns, "if the campaign is too difficult, players will quickly become discouraged and lose interest." (He also warns they'll be bored if it's too easy -- thus recommending to the DM right on the first page, to chart the middle course between super hard and super easy.) These are not the words of someone promoting "killer campaigns."
Many things that were staples of the game "back in the day" are seen as arbitrarily or unfairly punishing by the standards of today, such as needing a 10' pole to prod floors to make sure of traps, or needing to use mirrors to check around corners in case there was a basilisk or a medusa waiting, or needing ball bearings to test the floor for a slope so the DM couldn't trick the party into going down a level (and thus up a difficulty rank) without realizing it. However, these elements of the game were understood to be present by all participants -- the conditions and rules were known, and the players understood that their role was in part to suss out the secrets and mysteries of the dungeon. Maybe a lot of the players of today do not enjoy doing that, but those of us playing mostly did, and to claim that somehow the DM was being some sort of sadist by putting us through these sorts of dungeons would entirely misrepresent the facts of history.
My best friend and I played D&D for 28 days one summer doing X2: Castle Amber. To imagine we did this much D&D while hating it would be to assume we were not sane. Nobody gets together for 28 game sessions over a 2-month period (averaging roughly once every 2 days) to play something at which they aren't having fun. We had a blast. And yes, some characters died. And no, my friend was not trying to just kill them all (half of them were his -- we made up a party of 6, 3 PCs each, and then took turns playing them all while the other guy DMed).
As hard as modern players find it to imagine, people back in the 1970s actually had a lot of fun -- a LOT of fun -- playing old school D&D as it was originally published. They had a blast. There is no need to even ask if they were -- you know they must have been. Because if it hadn't been fun, it would have died in the 1970s and we wouldn't be playing it today.
Does that make the old way better? No. But it wasn't worse. It was different, and it suited the tastes of some people, and not of others. But it suited the tastes of enough people, and was fun enough for those people, to keep it going for decades. So let's not try to pretend that somehow, DMs were gleefully torturing all the players and wiping out their characters with an evil cackle every 20 minutes, and the players were miserable and sat there in tears every night but just kept coming back for more for some reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
When did this go from a problem with the stats rolled for a character to the older editions seemed to have DMs who liked killing off player characters at their whim?
I assumed this was about a specific character and how it was viewed poorly instead of a potentially good challenge to roleplay?
I know there was claims this was just an attempt to needle people's belief in how they handle character generation, but seriously?
When did this go from a problem with the stats rolled for a character to the older editions seemed to have DMs who liked killing off player characters at their whim?
I assumed this was about a specific character and how it was viewed poorly instead of a potentially good challenge to roleplay?
I know there was claims this was just an attempt to needle people's belief in how they handle character generation, but seriously?
This is a standard tactic done by a particular segment of this forum community. I can go on about the tactics, but that will get me banned.
Suffice to say, I stand by my original post. 4d6 is supported by power-gamers for one reason, and one reason only: to get better stats than other versions of stat generation. Character variation, role-playing and customization can all be taken care of by the ASI's and how the Standard Array is allocated to the various abilities, or the 27 point buy is applied to those abilities. There are a huge amount of options within those other 2 stat generation tools, but some here refuse to recognize that.
4d6 is supported by power-gamers for one reason, and one reason only: to get better stats than other versions of stat generation.
That’s not true at all
Sposta, I respect your opinions. I really do. But there is nothing that 4d6 provides that the standard array or the 27 point buy does not, other than a higher starting stat pool.
I don't really care for "Trust your DM" as the answer to everything. Obviously you should, and in fact if you do not you can't play D&D at that DM's table, but this particular usage of "trust your DM" often comes with connotations of one's issues as a player being dismissed or ignored. It's the same reason I don't care for Colville's infamous chargen method or the "Discover your character at the table" games in general - they often feel like a DM simply handwaving away the player's issues with a "Don't worry, I'll just fix it myself later".
A good DM can fix a player's problems for them. A great DM can assist and empower the player into fixing their own problems. Or, to answer one pithy saying with another, a DM should also "trust your players". Which is the bit of DMing advice nobody ever gives that they really, truly should.
I find the mentality of "trust your GM" to be especially ridiculous coming from grognards complaining about how the game has changed. Back when Gygax was still still making the game, he very much promoted the killer game master mentality. GMs were encouraged to be unfair, arbitrary, and to kill off PCs regularly.
No, they were not. Even Gygax did not do this himself. If you think differently, please provide some proof. I have played every edition of the game and never met a killed DM. Ever. We had really tough games, yes, but no DM I had ever killed PCs because he thought it would be fun.
I don't remember which modules, but there were a few that stated at several points that the GM should kill off a PC in order to heighten tension. Though now that I think about it, they might have been Dragonlance modules which would make it Tracy Hickman who wrote it rather than Gygax.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yurei,
It really sounds like you have had some shitty experiences with D&D, and I’m sorry that happened to you. But those issues are not from/with D&D, those issues were from shitty DMs/Players. The good DM just makes sure everyone has equal time in the spotlight. The good DM sees one PC outshine the party and if it seems to be a problem, puts items and other boons in the game for those PCs to help compensate, while still giving a potentially premadonna PC cool stuff to. And it may not actually be a problem if everyone is having fun, the other players may not even perceive any of that as a problem. 🤷♂️
The only issues a DM should have to drop everything to heat out and address are interpersonal problems between players or Player and DM. Anything in game shouldn’t require that level of micromanagement.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But it doesn’t prove that. It shows one person didn’t like their rolls, and a handful of others agreed. It proves nothing about why I or anyone else might prefer the method. It says nothing about how many people who prefer that method like it for getting high scores, vs. any other reason. It is a single point of information. You have presented an anecdote, not proof.
Discussing the contract is sorta exactly why "Session Zero" has become such a big deal these days. You're entirely correct, the game doesn't function without mutual trust amongst all involved. Not simply GM to player, but also amongst the players. Figuring out boundaries, figuring out the game everybody wants to play, getting everybody on board with the game and its underlying social contract is the whole point of pre-campaign prep and Session Zero.
Writing out an actual contract is a bit much for most tables, but "Don't worry, just trust me" without any willingness to explain and engage in conversation is as much of a red flag as complaining about stats is. If not more so. I am not Princess Jasmine; I'm not getting on that physics-defying carpet with some overdressed ******r who threw an extravagantly wasteful "Let Me In Your Pants" parade earlier that morning just because he makes eyes at me.
Please do not contact or message me.
Considering your opinion of that book and those changes, I wouldn't expect you to avail yourself of the same logic.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yuriel has described her perfect char as one that has the ability to be able to deal with any and all situations. That means the char is front and centre for every encounter. That is the very definition of a prima donna. The game is co-operative. The game's character universe is designed so each char's class is really good at something, and capable of assuming the spotlight for specific encounters. The 4d6 method allows for chars to have great stats across the board, able to participate in every situation. The Standard Array or Point Buy is designed that players have to CHOOSE what they are good at. And that is the main theme of D&D. Some chars are great at some things , horrible at others.
The 4d6 system flies against what D&D is all about.
The battle has been lost, and the soul of D&D has been killed. I am merely fighting on principle now.
May I suggest a more principled approach then?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Excuse me, Vince.
Yurei described her perfect char as one that can contribute in any situation the team finds itself in.. Delving deep into that ancient tombs of Narr Khatoa, necromantic warlord of the ancients? Yurei can help. Investigating the back alleys of Old York in search of clues to an elusive slaver's ring that kidnapped the mayor's daughter? Yurei can help. Pouring over dusty tombs in an abandoned library to route out information on the eldritch nemesis threatening to corrupt the countryside? Yurei can help. Attending a royal masquerade ball to build reputation and forge the connections needed to earn an audience with the King of Assclownia so we can warn him of the plot against his life? Yurei can help.
Whatever the DM wants to bust out, I want to be a part of it. I want to have at least one option to help, to participate, and to further the party's goals in whatever situation we find ourselves in. Do I need to be Front and Centre(C)? No. Do I need to be successful at what I'm trying to help with? No. But I don't ever want to be that player saying "A'ight, Muscules the Barbarian goes out to make camp in the woods while you guys do this masquerade thing. Give me a call when that's wrapped up and I'll come back the session after that. Have fun, I guess."
Also? Despite being super insulting about it, thanks for proving my point. Heh. See, Sposta? Nobody tolerates that sort of character, outside of one-shots where nothing matters anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
And what principle is that “My D&D is the only correct way to play?
[REDACTED] There’s plenty of ways to play and you can FIND people who agree with you and play with them. But stop coming into these large communities and telling about how wrong others are.
that’s not fighting on principle.
That's not what I read.
They're a jack-of-all-trades. "The second best tool for any job." (My quote, not Yurei's.) The kind of character who can fill in the gaps, who's really useful for most parties. They don't tend to hog the spotlight, at all --- instead, when the spotlight is on someone else, they have ways to help. It's the "lift up" style of play.
And I quote you, from 30 minutes ago: "They tell me I'm being a spotlight-hogging *******, or that I'm not leaving room for anybody else to shine, or that I don't/won't/can't trust my fellow players to do their share, or that I don't trust the DM not to hose me."
I am clearly not the only one who described you as such.
Why would you?!? Some of the best moments of Crit Role season 1 were precisely when Grog and Kelith went out, or Grog and Terrion, or Grog and anybody. Muscles the Barbarian didn’t skip a session setting up camp, he literally rips down some curtains, togas himself, and goes to the ball. That’s literally what happened in the show.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I find the mentality of "trust your GM" to be especially ridiculous coming from grognards complaining about how the game has changed. Back when Gygax was still still making the game, he very much promoted the killer game master mentality. GMs were encouraged to be unfair, arbitrary, and to kill off PCs regularly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
About DMs trusting players: They should. I trust mine. We play on Zoom and Foundry VTT. They can roll in the interface of Foundry and all of them do. But they are also perfectly welcome to roll physical dice, and I would never question their rolls or demand to see them. I trust them to keep track of spells and slots, abilities, whether they still have inspiration (after I give it out, I don't think about it), how many hp they have, whether they turned on some ability to improve their AC, etc. I don't audit their character sheets.
I do check things from time to time to make sure they are right, particularly with the player who is new to D&D. But usually only at level-up -- which I have them do in between sessions on their own, and just email me when they are ready for me to import into Foundry (for some annoying reason the import mod is no longer letting them do it). At that point I do error-checking. I generally don't find any. Otherwise, I trust them to do everything they need to do with their character. I wouldn't want to play with people I couldn't trust.
However -- and this is a big however -- there is a ginormous difference between the players and the DM when it comes to trusting each other about certain aspects of the game, such as game balance or other larger aspects of the campaign. It can be very easy for a player, accidentally, to do something that can break the game, not even realizing it, and certainly not intentionally. The DM is the only one at the table (or in the Zoom) who sees the whole picture, completely -- not just all the other PCs, but also all the NPCs, monsters, upcoming maps, planned adventures, every statblock in the Monster Manual, and so forth. Only the DM sees the whole picture and only the DM is able to be truly impartial between the characters -- no matter how good of a player someone is. The DM is in a much better position to be objective, than the individual players are... mostly based on their relative "omniscience" (at least at the campaign level) compared to a player.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Not in the books, they weren't. I can't speak to whether Gygax encouraged these in person or anything. Nor have I any Dragon articles in my possession.
In the Preface to the original AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Gygax writes that the purpose of these rules is to help the DM build "a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible." It's hard to see how you could have something last "for the longest period of time possible" while killing off PCs regularly. Later in that same paragraph, Gygax warns, "if the campaign is too difficult, players will quickly become discouraged and lose interest." (He also warns they'll be bored if it's too easy -- thus recommending to the DM right on the first page, to chart the middle course between super hard and super easy.) These are not the words of someone promoting "killer campaigns."
Many things that were staples of the game "back in the day" are seen as arbitrarily or unfairly punishing by the standards of today, such as needing a 10' pole to prod floors to make sure of traps, or needing to use mirrors to check around corners in case there was a basilisk or a medusa waiting, or needing ball bearings to test the floor for a slope so the DM couldn't trick the party into going down a level (and thus up a difficulty rank) without realizing it. However, these elements of the game were understood to be present by all participants -- the conditions and rules were known, and the players understood that their role was in part to suss out the secrets and mysteries of the dungeon. Maybe a lot of the players of today do not enjoy doing that, but those of us playing mostly did, and to claim that somehow the DM was being some sort of sadist by putting us through these sorts of dungeons would entirely misrepresent the facts of history.
My best friend and I played D&D for 28 days one summer doing X2: Castle Amber. To imagine we did this much D&D while hating it would be to assume we were not sane. Nobody gets together for 28 game sessions over a 2-month period (averaging roughly once every 2 days) to play something at which they aren't having fun. We had a blast. And yes, some characters died. And no, my friend was not trying to just kill them all (half of them were his -- we made up a party of 6, 3 PCs each, and then took turns playing them all while the other guy DMed).
As hard as modern players find it to imagine, people back in the 1970s actually had a lot of fun -- a LOT of fun -- playing old school D&D as it was originally published. They had a blast. There is no need to even ask if they were -- you know they must have been. Because if it hadn't been fun, it would have died in the 1970s and we wouldn't be playing it today.
Does that make the old way better? No. But it wasn't worse. It was different, and it suited the tastes of some people, and not of others. But it suited the tastes of enough people, and was fun enough for those people, to keep it going for decades. So let's not try to pretend that somehow, DMs were gleefully torturing all the players and wiping out their characters with an evil cackle every 20 minutes, and the players were miserable and sat there in tears every night but just kept coming back for more for some reason.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
When did this go from a problem with the stats rolled for a character to the older editions seemed to have DMs who liked killing off player characters at their whim?
I assumed this was about a specific character and how it was viewed poorly instead of a potentially good challenge to roleplay?
I know there was claims this was just an attempt to needle people's belief in how they handle character generation, but seriously?
This is a standard tactic done by a particular segment of this forum community. I can go on about the tactics, but that will get me banned.
Suffice to say, I stand by my original post. 4d6 is supported by power-gamers for one reason, and one reason only: to get better stats than other versions of stat generation. Character variation, role-playing and customization can all be taken care of by the ASI's and how the Standard Array is allocated to the various abilities, or the 27 point buy is applied to those abilities. There are a huge amount of options within those other 2 stat generation tools, but some here refuse to recognize that.
That’s not true at all
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sposta, I respect your opinions. I really do. But there is nothing that 4d6 provides that the standard array or the 27 point buy does not, other than a higher starting stat pool.
I don't remember which modules, but there were a few that stated at several points that the GM should kill off a PC in order to heighten tension. Though now that I think about it, they might have been Dragonlance modules which would make it Tracy Hickman who wrote it rather than Gygax.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.