• entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    IMO, this is an issue specific to 4e and 5e. In 3.5 and older, it wasn’t as expected that D&D would always be balanced with winnable fights. Often you’d have horror moments in modules/campaigns where you were expected to run away or die.

    At least the way my dad taught the game to me, 2e was almost survival horror for lower level characters.

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s definitely something that’s a part of newer D&D, though it’s debatable when it started. It was inarguably a part of 4th edition, I think it was here by 3rd edition, and there’s even a case to be made that 2e was headed in that direction with some of the supplements.

      Anyway, your dad was right. :P During 2e, that was still a big part of the game. It’s part of the differentiation between “old school” and “new school” D&D. Whatever I think of any particular edition, I think both approaches are rad for different reasons. :)

      It’s just the mismatch of expectations that would be a problem. It sucks to die because you were expecting another epic set piece battle, and it also sucks to try to come up with a clever solution to avoid an encounter just to end up not doing much or getting railroaded.

    • Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Gary Gygax dungeons were infamous for the “there’s 3 doors. Behind door 1 is a swarm of giant poisonous killer bees, behind door 2 is an insta kill trap and behind door 3 is a tunnel leading to a chest full of gold and gems” situation without any way to distinguish the doors.