"Defeating a goblin is worth 5 experience points, the equivalent of five gold coins."
Key words: 'defeating' vs 'killing.' There's lots of ways to defeat a monster. Getting what you want while the monster does not get what it wants (assuming a zero-sum game, which I prefer not to do, personally). One of my current DMs demands death, however, so I'm getting more and more tempted to just flood the dungeon.
SHADOWDARK is even more restrictive; gold is the *only* measure of success, so we actively avoided fighting during that trial run.
Yes, that idea of defeat rather than death opens the conceptual space to creative options. However, rules are silent on how to capture or trick monsters outside of spell craft and the There's Always a Chance rules. And the monsters play an symmetrical game. They don't really have the same options or incentives. While you try to defeat them, they're trying to kill your character. Thus the stakes for "defeat" are often just as high as those of combat.
Regarding Shadowdark, I haven't played, but it seems like you're saying that the system's incentives created different heuristics for your group. Which is rather our point. :)
but "monsters" are mindless bundles of aggression that go POOF! when killed. That's why I appreciate things like DELICIOUS IN DUNGEON or this blog / book series.
The question about whether one would rather kill a goblin or get some coins was a big shift for me when I came from 5e to the OSR. In the OSR I essentially found fantasy worlds that *treated violence honestly.* That is, it didn't remove or disapprove of violence, it just said "f around and find out." Those players who chose the path of the sword, died by the sword. On the other hand I had an OSR campaign (THJ 2e based in White Box Swords and Wizardry) where *the players didn't fight a monster for 4 months.* I had an old school essentials campaign that lasted for 14 months where they maybe slew a total of 24 monsters the whole time. Violence was there, it was honest in that you could perish if you sought it out, but there was a rich fantasy world apart from it.
The likelihood of death was more present (discentive) which made the stakes feel greater (and more honest). The sudden finality of the mechanics generated memories that have lasted the decades, however it's a very difficult consequence to process as a player which has led to modern versions systems where death is less likely or even optional in some games. Something to chew on from a design perspective, how to raise the stakes without pushing away players from the system in general
I read through BX a couple of years ago and my big takeaway was that the rules, especially the random dungeon generation and its risk/reward ratio, are not in line at all with the aspirational descriptions of the game contained in the books. Can't wait to read the next part.
I have fond memories of figuring out this little set of motivational levers playing Moldvay D&D. If you follow the games guidelines for treasure, even one monster's horde can be substantial. Monsters are quite deadly, so one random encounter can wipe you out. Finding a way to get just one haul of loot out of the dungeon so someone could level up became quite a goal. Emergent goals can be a real blast to play with.
The thinly veiled critique of vintage/TSR D&D design is easily substantiated. The emergent, experiential properties of the systems and styles in decades hence have become vastly more enticing for players, just as 'high scores' no longer compel most video gamers. Nevertheless, it is always good to re-examine framers of a thing, so let's keep digging around. :)
Good stuff. I’m looking forward to how you expand on this and examine how this works in RPGs. Subscribed!
"Defeating a goblin is worth 5 experience points, the equivalent of five gold coins."
Key words: 'defeating' vs 'killing.' There's lots of ways to defeat a monster. Getting what you want while the monster does not get what it wants (assuming a zero-sum game, which I prefer not to do, personally). One of my current DMs demands death, however, so I'm getting more and more tempted to just flood the dungeon.
SHADOWDARK is even more restrictive; gold is the *only* measure of success, so we actively avoided fighting during that trial run.
Yes, that idea of defeat rather than death opens the conceptual space to creative options. However, rules are silent on how to capture or trick monsters outside of spell craft and the There's Always a Chance rules. And the monsters play an symmetrical game. They don't really have the same options or incentives. While you try to defeat them, they're trying to kill your character. Thus the stakes for "defeat" are often just as high as those of combat.
Regarding Shadowdark, I haven't played, but it seems like you're saying that the system's incentives created different heuristics for your group. Which is rather our point. :)
And there are lots of dungeon animes where "animals" might have some eco-logic to them,
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=003
but "monsters" are mindless bundles of aggression that go POOF! when killed. That's why I appreciate things like DELICIOUS IN DUNGEON or this blog / book series.
https://www.themonstersknow.com/
The question about whether one would rather kill a goblin or get some coins was a big shift for me when I came from 5e to the OSR. In the OSR I essentially found fantasy worlds that *treated violence honestly.* That is, it didn't remove or disapprove of violence, it just said "f around and find out." Those players who chose the path of the sword, died by the sword. On the other hand I had an OSR campaign (THJ 2e based in White Box Swords and Wizardry) where *the players didn't fight a monster for 4 months.* I had an old school essentials campaign that lasted for 14 months where they maybe slew a total of 24 monsters the whole time. Violence was there, it was honest in that you could perish if you sought it out, but there was a rich fantasy world apart from it.
The likelihood of death was more present (discentive) which made the stakes feel greater (and more honest). The sudden finality of the mechanics generated memories that have lasted the decades, however it's a very difficult consequence to process as a player which has led to modern versions systems where death is less likely or even optional in some games. Something to chew on from a design perspective, how to raise the stakes without pushing away players from the system in general
I read through BX a couple of years ago and my big takeaway was that the rules, especially the random dungeon generation and its risk/reward ratio, are not in line at all with the aspirational descriptions of the game contained in the books. Can't wait to read the next part.
I have fond memories of figuring out this little set of motivational levers playing Moldvay D&D. If you follow the games guidelines for treasure, even one monster's horde can be substantial. Monsters are quite deadly, so one random encounter can wipe you out. Finding a way to get just one haul of loot out of the dungeon so someone could level up became quite a goal. Emergent goals can be a real blast to play with.
The thinly veiled critique of vintage/TSR D&D design is easily substantiated. The emergent, experiential properties of the systems and styles in decades hence have become vastly more enticing for players, just as 'high scores' no longer compel most video gamers. Nevertheless, it is always good to re-examine framers of a thing, so let's keep digging around. :)
I’m a newish GM and essays like this really help the process of learning how to run an engaging game. Looking forward to the next instalment!