In all fairness... it's not really just a corpse recovery run, but rather a corpse recovery fight. No ghost form letting you run past all the enemies to get to your corpse. In Pantheon you will need to fight your way back to where you died to retrieve your goodies.
And since all zones are open world (no instances) this means enemies will respawn. No more dungeons remaining cleared letting you just zoom back to where you were progressing. Instead you'll need to start at the beginning and crawl through the dungeon again.
Although you also will be able to benefit from other groups in the area who might make getting back to your bags a little bit easier. Yet this also means that other groups may have taken over the area of the dungeon you had been squatting in, which some people may feel is the truely punishing death penalty.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:In all fairness... it's not really just a corpse recovery run, but rather a corpse recovery fight. No ghost form letting you run past all the enemies to get to your corpse. In Pantheon you will need to fight your way back to where you died to retrieve your goodies.
And since all zones are open world (no instances) this means enemies will respawn. No more dungeons remaining cleared letting you just zoom back to where you were progressing. Instead you'll need to start at the beginning and crawl through the dungeon again.
Although you also will be able to benefit from other groups in the area who might make getting back to your bags a little bit easier. Yet this also means that other groups may have taken over the area of the dungeon you had been squatting in, which some people may feel is the truely punishing death penalty.
Indeed. The depth, meaning and interest in corpse runs is way beyond a simple 'punishment' for dying. There are so many implications and consequences. Just losing XP and starting at a save point is such a dull non-event in comparison. You lose so much if you lose corpse runs.
Leevolen said:Well stated.
Sidenote: I had no idea he had a gaming channel. I used to love watching his reactions to people doing nasty things to him in MTG and other board games.
Leevolen said:
He is referencing PvP scenarios, but yeah, I think it applies and it's interesting that this guy, who is by all accounts a very experienced 'gamer' in both tabletop and video games (and gets involved, by invitation, to playtest games), sees it as an obvious and regular thing in the industry, that for a single-player game, yeah, you "round off all the edges" so it's as much "dumb fun" as possible (I'm quoting him, and it's a generalisation, of course, but I agree with his observation), but for a multi-player game, when you follow that same design idea (often from the feedback of people used to it) and eliminate all the stuff that might be 'frustrating' you are left with something that "feels like a nothing game".
Personally I think it applies to single-player games, too. They have become very easy - even when you jack up the difficulty level.
Developers are basically making games for the lowest common denominator. Splashy, colourful, "dumb fun". And they *are* fun, but they are short-lived and unsatisfying.
Weird how that all ends up with developers selling another similar game sooner... Something that benefits their bottom line, but not their customers or the industry...
It's almost like big game producers might *want* the industry to go that way...
Sarcasm aside, what can we do when customers keep demanding it and are happily, repeatedly paying for an inferior design?
I'll bet Diablo Immoral has made a fortune already even though experienced gamers are saying it's an average game and the monetisation model is offensively predatory.
NOTE: IT's made $24m in 2 weeks... SMH
disposalist said:He is referencing PvP scenarios, but yeah, I think it applies
Agreed, though I think PvE is a soft form of PvP since we do compete against one another for camps, targets, and resources. And we also find ourselves competing against the developers, both in game and out, whenever they make a decision that has an effect on our gameplay, whether it's a favorite race, class, zone, etc. There's the fight they intend for us, content that we puzzle our way through, and then there's the fight we have with them about particulars, posting forum opinions, making bug reports, threatening to quit, and expecting patches. But like you said, the gist of what was said still captures why it's important to have that unfairness in games. If something is considered too hard or punishing, good. You'll learn to adapt. You'll figure it out. IceFrog believes in you. The point made at 2:31:52 applies as well. Feedback is great and all, but sometimes it's a lot of the sound and fury that is trying to overcome a struggle outside the game with the developers so the one inside the game can be avoided.
disposalist said:and it's interesting that this guy, who is by all accounts a very experienced 'gamer' in both tabletop and video games (and gets involved, by invitation, to playtest games), sees it as an obvious and regular thing in the industry, that for a single-player game, yeah, you "round off all the edges" so it's as much "dumb fun" as possible (I'm quoting him, and it's a generalisation, of course, but I agree with his observation), but for a multi-player game, when you follow that same design idea (often from the feedback of people used to it) and eliminate all the stuff that might be 'frustrating' you are left with something that "feels like a nothing game".Personally I think it applies to single-player games, too. They have become very easy - even when you jack up the difficulty level.
Feyshtey said:I used to love watching his reactions to people doing nasty things to him in MTG and other board games.
Leevolen said:
"This is the game." A line borrowed from another talking head, I forget who, but it comes to mind whenever the same frustration takes over in similar moments even in the real world. This is the game. Such is life.
That brings to mind something I often think when reading someone complaining about a tough design choice VR are making.
"This is the game" and it's the one I have backed with money because I agree with VR's vision and tenets. There are many other games. Games I sometimes also like and also play, but still, do *not* want VR to make Pantheon like.
Yes, it sounds 'off' to say something like "maybe Pantheon is not for you" or "if you don't like [Pantheon feature] and prefer the way [other game] does it, you can always go play [other game]", but honestly, those things are often true. Not every game can be for every person and to even try for that is to set up for failure or, at best, get yourself a very short-lived and quickly forgotten success.
Most people backing Pantheon, in my not-so-humble opinion, are here because, in many ways, VR are intentionally bucking modern gaming practices and game trends, or at the very least sticking to their vision and tenets despite things that may seem like they could be less than popular.
Customers - when offered products that are, yes, by their nature, ocassionally frustrating, but also meaningful, satisfying and challenging - need to stop asking for that product to be homogenised and dumbed down in order to never suffer a moment's inconvenience.
IRL I love my motorcycle. Love it. And love riding it. It is an absolute pain to keep clean. Lots of chrome and exposed complex metal. But the things that make it hard to clean make it the bike I love.
Because I realise this, I have gotten to the mental space where cleaning it has become a 'ritual' that I kind of enjoy.
I know that the longer and more challenging a ride I take, the more likely I am to need to clean it, or at least the more often, but that certainly does not stop me wanting to take longer and more challenging rides.
Corpse runs are like cleaning my bike. I could get a more soulless, commuter bike so it doesn't really matter what it looks like and I don't really care if it gets corrosion and I don't really go out on 'fun' rides and show it off to people anyway. I could, but what a shame.
In fact, the ideal is to have two bikes hehe. A soulless commuter scooter and a pleasure machine.
I've gotten somewhat off-track and I don't intend this post as a massive dis to the OP. Just thinking out loud on the subject :)
To bring this back to the subject: If you want no corpse runs, get a plasticky scooter. If you want the ride of your life, get a glorious, shining spokes-and-chrome motorcycle.
Er... I think I might have mixed some metaphors... Is anyone still with me? ;*)
Posted today by Josh Strife Hayes:
A good perspective on what Pantheon seeks to restore, and the risk thereof.
Balanz said:Posted today by Josh Strife Hayes:
A good perspective on what Pantheon seeks to restore, and the risk thereof.
That's a good vid. For those wanting a TL;DR: He talks about something he calls The Paradox of Adversity.
In essence the idea is that overcoming adversity is fundamental to the satisfaction level of a challenge, but also puts off a lot of people from playing at all when they 'fail' or find it 'hard'.
His definition of "adversity" is broad, ranging from obvious in-game things like corpse runs and boss encounter difficulty to technical things like being unable to switch servers to join friends, but the theory is the same and he proposes that when 'old school' players talk about games being 'better' back then, they are largely talking about missing the high level of satisfaction gained from overcoming levels of diversity that have been removed in modern games by things like Quality of Life 'improvements'.
I agree, but with a few comments that I've kinda made above in relation to the corpse run OP issue.
I agree adversity is directly related to satisfaction and is sorely missing in modern games (not just MMORPGs), *but* it needs to have meaning and depth and should exist within the game's vision and tenets.
Adversity should not be there just to force artificial difficulty, because that is much less likely to satisfy and more likely to alienate even 'old school' players.
It's the difference between concepts like corpse runs (that, if well designed, are challenging and encourage social play, like the main gameplay loop) and concepts like daily quests (almost always lazily added busy work).
It's the difference between a group finder that helps you to find, and just puts you in contact with, like-minded (and scheduled) players and a dungeon finder that instantly teleports you to do a dungeon speed run with automatically matched characters you'll never meet again.
So, as someone who very much wants an 'old school' game with high levels of 'adversity', I also acknowledge that some old school adversity was unnecessary or uninteresting and maybe even just due to technical limitations of the time.
To comment on your "risk thereof" comment, @Balanz, I think VR have a difficult job to keep challenging aspects but remove any intrinsic, unneeded frustration or enhance it with enough worthwhile meaning, but I believe they know this well and have it in hand. I think that there may be people alienated by some of the 'old school' features VR intend, but that with the 'new' way they are designing them, that number will be small, so the risk thereof is minimal and much more than worth it for the quality improvements and the other people that ordinarily may have chosen a less 'demanding' game, but find Pantheon's challenge is awesome. I don't disagree with the mention of the risk, though. It needs acknowledging, but I think VR have, and are.
P.S. Another small note is that some 'satisfaction' does not necessarily need adversity. Sitting and looking at a beautiful view is satisfying in its own right, for example. Not everything *has* to be 'a struggle'. Some things are inately 'satisfying' as an experience in-and-of themselves. Hard to code into a game, but what I'm saying is, not everything in the game needs to be 'a struggle' to be worthwhile.
Corpse runs in EQ did provide a deeper layer of immersion. Some of my fondest memories were of running around as a speedy bard fetching the corpses of players who were 20+ levels higher than me. On the other hand I knew people who skipped anniversary dinners, kids birthday parties, and lost their jobs because they had to do a corpse runs. One guy I knew got the Navy version of a Court Martial because he chose to retrieve his corpse before he permanently lost the gear he spent the last 2-3 years earning, instead of showing up for duty.
Corpse runs have some merits, but they also ruin peoples lives.
Telepath said:Corpse runs in EQ did provide a deeper layer of immersion. Some of my fondest memories were of running around as a speedy bard fetching the corpses of players who were 20+ levels higher than me. On the other hand I knew people who skipped anniversary dinners, kids birthday parties, and lost their jobs because they had to do a corpse runs. One guy I knew got the Navy version of a Court Martial because he chose to retrieve his corpse before he permanently lost the gear he spent the last 2-3 years earning, instead of showing up for duty.
Corpse runs have some merits, but they also ruin peoples lives.
It's not the corpse run, but bad life choices. If you give up your career because of a game it's not the game's fault. Time to grow up.
Mirc said:Telepath said:Corpse runs in EQ did provide a deeper layer of immersion. Some of my fondest memories were of running around as a speedy bard fetching the corpses of players who were 20+ levels higher than me. On the other hand I knew people who skipped anniversary dinners, kids birthday parties, and lost their jobs because they had to do a corpse runs. One guy I knew got the Navy version of a Court Martial because he chose to retrieve his corpse before he permanently lost the gear he spent the last 2-3 years earning, instead of showing up for duty.
Corpse runs have some merits, but they also ruin peoples lives.
It's not the corpse run, but bad life choices. If you give up your career because of a game it's not the game's fault. Time to grow up.
Lol yeah I have to say VR probably shouldn't base design decisions on 1-in-a-million bad choices or bad luck.
In EQ it was incredibly rare to actually lose a geared up body. You would have to ignore it for many hours (days?) of logged in play time (not chronological real time) and then really panic and mess up when time was near. Never happened to me, a friend or a guildy. Barely ever heard about it.
Why have it then, if it never lead to a loss, you say? Because it did add a real sense of fear and excitement even though you had plenty of time, you did usually *have* to do it and it could be tricky and quite an effort.
For the example above, if you're in the forces and know you might be deployed any time, you should make sure you recover a corpse asap. Every session should include time to recover if necessary. Military persons should know about planning and logistics ;^)
More relevant Josh Strife Hayes, but conversational, not an essay:
Balanz said:More relevant Josh Strife Hayes, but conversational, not an essay:
He has some decent old school 'values' re. gaming, but is a young chap (relative to most that *are* old school gamers) and so still has some modern preconceptions about what is "needed to be successful" rather than is good for the game's longevity or enjoyable for the target audience. He has got more MMORPG playing experience than most, but that is almost all 'modern' MMORPGs, of course. No fault of his, of course, just his natural experience.
He actually says he's gone from one extreme to the other before being more settled in his opinion of what MMORPGs should be like, ie. whether they should be old school, hard and challenging or modern, easy and accessible. In my humble opinion he's settled in a reasonable place, but still has some oddly contrary opinions. Of course, no one person has the 'perfect' stance, but his is a quite healthy one for the genre.
No arguments with what he's saying here, though: Basically that activities with meaning and challenge, even if small-scale, are way more memorable and satisfying than activities that are 'spectacular'. He'd rather save individuals that he cares about than save the whole (fantasy) world in one go.
He's saying that modern MMORPGs have become flashy theme park rollercoaster rides to end game and that they were better when the pace was slower, the quests were personal, the game was in the journey to end game as much as (if not more than) the 'epic' stuff that happens at high level. That folk remember Hogger - a surprisingly tough fight in a starter area in WoW - and with more findness than any number of end game experiences. In EQ it was NPCs like Fippy Darkpaw.
He's saying - like he does in the video mentioned a few posts up - that adversity and struggle create much more meaningful and satisfying experiences.
To relate to the OP: No, things like corpse runs might not be 'fun' in-and-of themselves (personally, I don't see why not - if you enjoyed getting to where you died the first time, why wouldn't you a second time but with more challenge and interaction involved?), but the overall experience is made much more meaningful and satisfying because of things like corpse runs.
If you make everything 'a smooth ride' you make it unsatisfying and bland.
He goes on to talk about devs adding things like level boosts effectively being "monetising boredom" hehe. Agreed. In games where the leveling process is tedious, then yeah, they realise they can sell level boosts. Of course, games where the leveling process is fun *should not* sell level boosts, as they will only detract from the meaning of the game.
What he says following that shows his quandary: He says "people want to barely win". To *just* survive is most excitement and satisfaction there is. Yes. But he'll then go on to say that if you make things tough, the majority of players give up and that's bad for the game.
He then talks about making failure fun or at least making failure feel like it isn't repeating random disappointment, but is a learning experience where you know you got something wrong and can try to fix it.
So things like XP debt or gear repair or, I guess, the corpse run (having to fight your way back) aren't good, in his opinion. No. Now he's back countering his own earlier opinions about struggle and adversity making the experience meaningful. I suppose it depends on the related death mechanics.
I guess this kind of thinking is why VR are starting with retaining equipped items through death. This means the corpse run is just as fun as the original attempt to get to where you died.
He then goes on to talk about the harsh death penalty in full loot PvP, one of his bugbears, but somewhat irrelevant to the PvE situation we are interested in.
I'd love to chat with this guy. I'd agree with most, but there'd also be some interesting arguments.
Quote from near the end: "struggle creates lasting bonds however struggle also vastly reduces the amount of people who want to play because no one wants to struggle. So nobody wants to struggle, but everyone wants the emotional richness that's given by enduring and succeeding at that struggle".
I agree. Let's make a game for those that will happily endure that struggle because they want a satisfying experience for a change and not yet another game for those that want an easy ride. The difference between my view and Josh's is, I think, he thinks that there aren't enough folks that want an old school MMORPG to make it viable. There are. More than enough. And there are a lot of folk that don't even know what it feels like. But they will. And they will love it.
Disclaimer: Yes some old school features were there just because of tech limitations. Mechanics and features that are a 'struggle' without meaning should be dropped or given meaning.
I think there is an assumption being made that the player is static in playerability, that the player never gets better and therefore, never learns to avoid a corpse run.
Like saying, you are a baby, you crawl. Tell me why you should ever need to fall from running, there is no need to stand, let alone run. To stand or to run is poor game design and a time sink.
The "older" I got the less corpse runs I had. Those that I did have by the time I was "older" I had more friends I could call on that would and did come to help at a moments notice.
Do I need to explain the 7 days Real life timer again? if so, there is no need for that naval person to have been court martialled at all had they understood and no reason for them not to have understood.
So, I don't think Corpse runs are designed as a time-sink, but rather as necessary negative re-inforcement. I'd be interested to see VR's take on the "non-draconian" version of a CR but I would still like some bite.
We have, of course, lurking behind the questions of how corpse runs work, the question of whether they should be mandatory.
As a long-time proponant of severe death penalties - I am still not convinced that mandatory corpse runs are the answer.
Suppose that I cannot do a corpse run for 7 days. Maybe I am on duty in a place with no internet access and no time for the run before that duty started. Yes I had left some time for emergencies but I crapped out. Internet or power out for a day. Corpse in a spot far harder to get to than I had realized and couldn't get a group able to help. Maybe my internet access is fine but it is a family vacation with severe spouse or parent or child aggro if I insist on spending enough time away from them to organize a group and do a run. Which might not be a trivial process. Maybe I get sick and wind up in a hospital for a week. Whatever the reason the corpse goes bye-bye. With whatever consequences the game has for failure to do the run. Loss of valuable items. Maybe the character goes bye-bye and I have to reroll. Unlikely, of course, but that *is* the most extreme means of compelling corpse runs. Maybe the penalty isn't so severe but I can't use the character for a full week unless I can get a good group together for a successful run. Not being able to play for a week is not an encouragement to keep subscribing.
I prefer a system where the corpse run is a high value thing because it obviates most of the death penalties. The need for the run *is* the penalty. But it is optional not mandatory. So that I always have the option of being able to use the character almost immediately by accepting severe penalties in lieu of the run. Loss of a valuable item - randomly selected from my inventory or equipped items. Loss of a full level. Maybe worse. They key point to me is that death has severe consequences and a corpse run is a tool for reducing them not a mandatory penalty in and of itself.
So in lieu of no corpse runs (points to thread title) no mandatory corpse runs.
dorotea said:Suppose that I cannot do a corpse run for 7 days. Maybe I am on duty in a place with no internet access and no time for the run before that duty started.
The corpse timer was on *played* time. So you'd have to keep playing for multiple days, ignoring your corpse, to lose it. If you do that, that's on you.
If you have to go off line for a month, your corpse will still have 7 days to retrieve it when you come back.
It basically gives a ton of time, in game, to organise help, if needed, and to get the corpse, but does make it something you *have* to do eventually and better to not ignore it for long (if you want your gear back).
dorotea said:I prefer a system where the corpse run is a high value thing because it obviates most of the death penalties. The need for the run *is* the penalty. But it is optional not mandatory. So that I always have the option of being able to use the character almost immediately by accepting severe penalties in lieu of the run. Loss of a valuable item - randomly selected from my inventory or equipped items. Loss of a full level. Maybe worse. They key point to me is that death has severe consequences and a corpse run is a tool for reducing them not a mandatory penalty in and of itself.
So in lieu of no corpse runs (points to thread title) no mandatory corpse runs.
I've probably commented before in this thread somewhere, but yeah, I'd be up for alternatives, as long as the alternative penalty, if less meaningful, is more severe, perhaps.
The problem with corpse runs *can* be that your corpse ends up somewhere very difficult to get to - I swam in lava (Everquest Solusek's Eye I think) and by the time I expired, I had blindly swum across a zone line and dropped into the depths of the next zone, so was under lava and at teh very bottom! - so perhaps you should be able to pick somewhere else to 'collect' your corpse. Still somewhere dangerous, but somewhere better know, like a desecrated altar in a ruined temple now owned by an evil necromancer *shrug*. Perhaps it should also cost expensive materials and leave you with debuffs for some time.
Having said that, in the real example I gave, it took some time, but I was able to follow a higher level group down into the dungeon and they helped find where the corpse ended up. Was a very fun and memorable experience.
Also, I probably could have paid a necromancer to summon the corpse.
Corpse runs are about making encounters exciting and failure meaningful. If death penalty can be 'trivialised' in severity then it is trivialised in meaning and excitement.
disposalist - a timer limited to time on line makes a huge difference. I haven't been following the debate in any great detail but I did see a reference to 7 days in real life a few posts up and assumed, perhaps wrongly, that that was the current assumption. As you say - seven days of actual play time is an enormous amount of time to get the corpse. Also, paying a necromancer may be an entirely adaquate mechanism to have as an alternative to corpse runs. Depending on the details of how necromancer corpse summoning would work.
We both are in the same camp here - death has to be quite meaningful. But there are occasions when a corpse run simply isn't very feasible. Suppose your corpse was lost in a maximum level area so there were no higher levels to help. Suppose it wound up in a spot where no one had a reason to go - so you needed to recruit a full group willing to take significant risks to help you out with no benefit for them. Suppose the server was low population. Suppose you played on Oceanic time and there weren't a lot of people on when you played. If you could get the corpse back it still might take a few days - or a week - in which you couldn't play unless you consider talking in chat asking for help to be playing. Thus my belief that there should be an alternative - an alternative that in and of itself imposed a rather draconian penalty. Like the loss of a level or more. Or a steep fee to a necromancer.
I intend to devote a lot of time to the game - Gods willing. Certainly enough to create and level-up a necromancer alt if there is no other alternative to corpse runs. A travel alt (druid or wizard or both). A stealth alt for where that is ideal. So I can cope with almost any conceivable ruleset (other than the nightmare to end all nightmares - just having one character slot).
dispolalist wrote:
What he says following that shows his quandary: He says "people want to barely win". To *just* survive is most excitement and satisfaction there is. Yes. But he'll then go on to say that if you make things tough, the majority of players give up and that's bad for the game.
This is the hardest part of DMing a game like Dungeons and Dragons. The higher the characters level, the more capable they are, the more you have to escalate to be challenging. But this is increasingly unstable, the chance that they completely blow the combat steadily rises, unless you reduce the challenge.
As the two D&D campaigns I 've been playing in the last few years moved to Saturday night, I am thinking of running an online campaign, either in Terminus or South East Middle Earth. If I can find players on a Thursday night, that is.
Balanz said:
dispolalist wrote:What he says following that shows his quandary: He says "people want to barely win". To *just* survive is most excitement and satisfaction there is. Yes. But he'll then go on to say that if you make things tough, the majority of players give up and that's bad for the game.
This is the hardest part of DMing a game like Dungeons and Dragons. The higher the characters level, the more capable they are, the more you have to escalate to be challenging. But this is increasingly unstable, the chance that they completely blow the combat steadily rises, unless you reduce the challenge.
As the two D&D campaigns I 've been playing in the last few years moved to Saturday night, I am thinking of running an online campaign, either in Terminus or South East Middle Earth. If I can find players on a Thursday night, that is.
Yes, very difficult for DMs, but, if DMing for friends, very easy, because you just blatantly fudge the outcomes and laugh with it about them.
But to do convincingly or realistically, 'challenge level' balance is a nightmare.
Another excellent argument for MMORPGs to be slower, as a slower tactical pace means players can actually react and compensate when things are a close challenge. Burn some rare resources to tip the balance. Maybe even run away when they see it start to go bad. Choices. Tactics.
In action MMORPGs the pace is often such that, once you engage in a close-to-call combat, things happen so fast, you execute your most efficient rotation of skills, but it can be effectively down to luck rather than skill if you live or die. There are fewer realistic ways to react or compensate when things are close and you begin to lose.
That feels bad, of course, so you have to start doing things like reducing death penalty...
Having DMed for over forty years, I've found that being strict but fair is essential. I always roll in the open, so fudging die rolls is out of the question. NPCs need to behave appropriately, although their motives aren't always clear. The one solution I've found, at least for Dungeons and Dragons, is to put the fear of the DM into them while they are still low level, and fights are easy to balance, and rely on that fear at higher levels when I have to hold back.
The real solution are actually games other than D&D.
FATE distributes the creative burden among all the players, and is great for fast moving scenarios or short campaigns. If I were to run Terminus, I would use FATE, especially as it is easy to teach.
Burning Wheel is a more difficult game, both in complexity and stakes. Get into a serious fight, and your character might die, or be crippled. So the question becomes, what does your character believe in that is worth fighting for? If I were to run Middle Earth, I would use Burning Wheel.
Back to MMOs. Like D&D, expectations have shifted over time. When I started playing D&D, we rolled up several characters at once, not so we could enjoy playing"Alts," but because we expected to get killed. Levelling took seasons, not weeks. Our second D&D campaign, set in medieval Europe, lasted over a decade, and only 15th level. With D&D 5E, characters are almost impossible to kill, and players expect to level every few sessions.
Same with MMOs.
The solution is to set expectations, and follow through on those.
Balanz said:Back to MMOs. Like D&D, expectations have shifted over time. When I started playing D&D, we rolled up several characters at once, not so we could enjoy playing"Alts," but because we expected to get killed. Levelling took seasons, not weeks. Our second D&D campaign, set in medieval Europe, lasted over a decade, and only 15th level. With D&D 5E, characters are almost impossible to kill, and players expect to level every few sessions.
Same with MMOs.
The solution is to set expectations, and follow through on those.
Interesting to hear your views on 5E. I must admit I haven't played (or DMed) D&D in many years, but am not surprised it has gone the same way as the MMORPG genre.
It used to be at the DM's discretion, but sounds like now players just won't tolerate 'being killed' and the rules have changed in order to make the game 'more popular', but not better at all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that even something as gloriously geeky and niche as D&D has been blandified to gain mass appeal.
"expectations have shifted over time". Yes and no. I think it's more about there being players from different demographics these days. There are still fantasy geeks like me. More than there used to be even. But there are a lot more 'normal' 'casual' players now - just like in computer gaming - so rather than fans of D&D changing, it is D&D that has been changed to keep the new demographics happy and achieve wider popularity, despite the original fans being less happy. Corporate greed, I'm afraid. Much better to have twice the player base who actually enjoy the casual version than retain the loyal olds fans that loved the hardcore version.
I used to be irked by the phrases I find myself using all the time these days. I used to think they were counter-productive to the issue and employed by angry intolerant elitist old folks. Well, I suppose they sometimes are, but I'm afraid phrases like "dumbed down" and "casual friendly" are legit and the new style of intolerance is not allowing 'old school' folks to even voice that they like what they like, never mind actually have a chance of *getting* what they like.
Thankfully there are more than enough old 'old school' and new 'old school' to make Pantheon more than viable and, when it releases, there will be plenty of converts because great is great whatever the target demographic.
I hope there are some good new 'old school' tabletop RPGs to keep you going, Balanz. Have many folks kept playing the older versions of D&D, do you know?
dispolalist wrote:I hope there are some good new 'old school' tabletop RPGs to keep you going, Balanz. Have many folks kept playing the older versions of D&D, do you know?
Almost nobody plays older versions of D&D, as the rules actually suck. We've learned so much since then. Some play 3.X, probably the best version of D&D.
Between D&D, FATE, Burning Wheel, and Blades in the Dark, I have all the rules that I need. Now that I have the time to GM again, what I actually need are players.
My time as a DM was under Third Edition. I agree that the game has gone far down the road of being too easy and too simple - for the same reason MMOs have gone down that same road.
There are many good DMs and they take widely disparate approaches. The approach is less important than the person.
My own approach was to never forget that it was a game and the point was entertainment. Which required a good understanding of what the players in the group wanted. If killing off the group was logical because of ...silly .... decisions they made, I would look for ways out even if I had to make up things that were never in the module - or the adventure that I had created. Including fudging dice rolls. That worked for my group - it would not have worked for others. It would not have worled for me as a player for that matter - I would rather reroll then get extended life as a gift from a GM.
50 years later more or less a few people still occasionally mention one totally ridiculous evening where the party rogue - who had truly atrocious dice rolls and thus very few hit points for her level - was killing a goose for dinner. Or trying to. Claw, claw bite went the goose. Oops missed went the rogue. One of the tougher fights of the campaign.