Quote from: Old Geezer;699327Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.

However, I've found in recent years a lot of players just don't think of things like giving the second rank polearms so they can fight with the front ranks, using spears in the front rank so you can set vs charge or else throw them, if you know the enemy are coming putting a small detachment hidden to your own left to hit the enemy in the unshielded flank, and all the other stuff that we did.

I'm not certain that would occur to most characters in a setting, either, who hadn't been trained in soldiering and small-unit tactics. And then they need the discipline to not break after the charge, and the skill to fight through a rank. Those are not casual skills to possess!

And then, like Arkansan said, most players these days are not wargamers, and not used to looking for and exploiting the wargamey rules in combat mechanics.

(Personally, I'd consider using small-unit tactics without some logical reason why the character should know them, to kinda be poor play. But each to their own.)

Quote from: Ladybird;699333And then, like Arkansan said, most players these days are not wargamers, and not used to looking for and exploiting the wargamey rules in combat mechanics.

They are coming up with different ways to craftily defeat enemies though, like this. That's something I really love and something you rarely get with high level play, which hasn't much to do with old school versus new school. Players start to use strange tactics and cunning usually only when pushed to it, which is why I prefer a more vulnerable level of play.

When the edge is that much closer, the dance is that much more refined.

Quote from: The Traveller;699336They are coming up with different ways to craftily defeat enemies though, like this. That's something I really love and something you rarely get with high level play, which hasn't much to do with old school versus new school. Players start to use strange tactics and cunning usually only when pushed to it, which is why I prefer a more vulnerable level of play.

When the edge is that much closer, the dance is that much more refined.

Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.

On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.

Quote from: Shauncat;699328I'd probably, given the same stats, play Malio the Plumber, or the closest name the GM will vet.

This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?

Quote from: Ladybird;699339Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.

On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.

You and Arkansan should probably remember, that I suspect a good number of those "wargames trained" players, back in the days, were a bit like CharOpers today, except they were optimising their formations & hirelings for the optimal amount of spears and bows in the second rank, rather than DPS.

When I play a mercenary, I'll play Fantasy Tactics General. If I play a berserker, I'll probably just charge ahead if I'm right now high on mushroo- in battle rage. If I'm a Ratcatcher freshly turned adventurer, I'll probably ask the mercenary what the hell to do.

As for the OP's question - personally, I'd just draw influence from Warhammer, and install Fate Points for the entire party, as bonus "lives" so the party gets the hang of mortality without being surprised and even perhaps a bit disheartened that first 2 Goombas they encounter jump on them without warning.

Some video games do encourage out of the box thinking. Dark Souls, for instance, has a structure very much like a "megadungeon" module, with areas that are harder if you haven't leveled up for them appropriately, but allow you to gain overpowered gear for the level you're at if you can survive in them.

Other games though, like World of Warcraft... thinking of an "innovative" way to slay a boss gets you a temporary ban and being stripped of your world first kill (in the case of Ensidia's Lich King kill).

Quote from: Ladybird;699333I'm not certain that would occur to most characters in a setting, either, who hadn't been trained in soldiering and small-unit tactics. And then they need the discipline to not break after the charge, and the skill to fight through a rank. Those are not casual skills to possess!

In OD&D a first level fighter is a "Veteran."  And pretty much "to be trained in fighting" in the Middle Ages meant to have SOME familiarity with small unit tactics.

Quote from: Ladybird;699339Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.

On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.

Oddly enough, in my experience characters who are panicky and out of options will invent and create their own options, players too. Some of my favourite scenarios are ones which I, as GM, can't readily see a way out of - the group never fails to amaze me with their innovation. Nobody throws up their hands and says, man this is a bullshit kobayashi maru situation, they take any tiny crack and force a wedge into it.

It's really hard to get that kind of effect in higher level D&D games.

Quote from: The Traveller;699345Oddly enough, in my experience characters who are panicky and out of options will invent and create their own options, players too. Some of my favourite scenarios are ones which I, as GM, can't readily see a way out of - the group never fails to amaze me with their innovation. Nobody throws up their hands and says, man this is a bullshit kobayashi maru situation, they take any tiny crack and force a wedge into it.

It's really hard to get that kind of effect in higher level D&D games.

I've paniced and hidden in the pit that we were about to trap and banish a cthulhoid entity in before now. It made sense at the time, after a few failed SAN checks and being surrounded by (Evil) imps.

I don't know that I would so much call using basic small unit tactics CharOping. Like Geezer said l would assume any fighting man in setting to have at least some familiarity with tactics. Also I consider it less exploitative considering that the dungeon as an environment kinda suits a pseudo shield wall/phalanx approach, at least in a stand up fight anyway. Though I would consider it pretty gamey of a group of all magic users or the like.

I was more commenting on the fact that I think gaming culture has changed quite a bit since back in the day. I think it is a lot more self informed now than it was in the beginning, now most players draw from D&D itself or video games that are to some degree or another also drawing from D&D.

An aside, I have always thought that od&d in regards to bit points is really detached from the literature that inspired it. From what I have read, Conan, Kull, Fafhrd etc, all start their careers pretty competent and resilient. Where as pcs start pretty damn fragile and unskilled. I don't think this is a bad thing per say, just a thing. It's also why I use Akrasia's HP house rule for my od&d games now.

Quote from: Arkansan;699351I don't know that I would so much call using basic small unit tactics CharOping. Like Geezer said l would assume any fighting man in setting to have at least some familiarity with tactics. Also I consider it less exploitative considering that the dungeon as an environment kinda suits a pseudo shield wall/phalanx approach, at least in a stand up fight anyway. Though I would consider it pretty gamey of a group of all magic users or the like.

I was more commenting on the fact that I think gaming culture has changed quite a bit since back in the day. I think it is a lot more self informed now than it was in the beginning, now most players draw from D&D itself or video games that are to some degree or another also drawing from D&D.

An aside, I have always thought that od&d in regards to bit points is really detached from the literature that inspired it. From what I have read, Conan, Kull, Fafhrd etc, all start their careers pretty competent and resilient. Where as pcs start pretty damn fragile and unskilled. I don't think this is a bad thing per say, just a thing. It's also why I use Akrasia's HP house rule for my od&d games now.

Well, it's also important that Conan and Fafhrd have narrative imperative on their side, as well as the imperative of pecunia non olet* . And I'm myself not accusing someone who'd use basic tactics of CharOping, but when it's suddenly revolving around numbers of minions with bows, numbers of minions with crossbows, and numbers of minions with spears, it starts to not only be a be odd, it starts to be gamey - except someone's not calculating their own damage output, but entire team's, so to speak.

*what, if they'd die, the author'd have to, heavens forgive, invent another popular character!

Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely?  What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?

In D&D, the easy answer to this problem is to start the PC at a more "heroic" level.  For example, instead of a 1st level Fighter, start with a 4th level Fighter.  

However, when you're talking about an entire group, you need to consider the desires of the group.  If it's just one player who is complaining, and the rest of the group *likes* the tough and unforgiving model of low-level D&D play, then you've got a tougher problem, and maybe just a disconnect between the desires of one player and the desires of the rest of group.  I'd bring it up for discussion:

"Do you guys want to just all start PCs at 4th level, or so?  Or, if you want to play 1st level PCs and work them up, would you mind Shirley, here, playing a 4th level PC?  Or if you *really* want some powerful characters, we could play a different game, like Lords of Olympus..."  

Yeah I would agree that there is a point where tactics could go too far and be pretty gamey. As to the original question I am ok with something like a fate point or two that allows the character a pass, but I would give a set amount at creation that were not regained. Typically though I just treat CON as true HP and HP as fatigue, still pretty deadly at low levels but gives just enough cushion.  I also have a chart I use of serious injuries that are suffered when dipping into CON, some of which have permanent effects.

Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer ... in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely?  What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?

RPGPundit

If its an old school game on offer, "them's the breaks."  I'd go so far as to say if someone asks me to make a change, or even if they don't ask but aren't having fun in the game, I'll suggest they simply not play.

But I'm not actually an old school D&D only gamer; I play and run other games.  The background to the above is I no longer do "group first, game second" games.  I got in a meetup group some years back, where GM's pitch games, and interested people sign up.  And I've got some of the best game sessions of my life out of that, now that I'm no longer trying to find compromise positions between essentially random or opposed play styles.

Well from experience it depends alot on the players and the GM. As usual.

But there are options that dont involve re-rolling a character.

A: The surviving characters haul the dead character back to a temple and ask for a raise dead or even gamble on a resurrect. If they lack the funds then the GM can provide some friendly druids or travelling priest who does it for free. But sets them on a quest as repayment. Or even a temple that sets the body in stasis and wont raise the character untill the group performs a quest. The last is the least usefull option as it sidelines the dead character. But the GM could have them roll up an NPC to tag along and help. Any XP accured would go to the deceased. Whatever the DM or players can come up with to salvage the situation.

B: For whatever reason the character rises as a Skeleton or ghost-like being. And things proceed from there to finding the spectre a new body or raise.

C: A mad scientist or alchemist offers to "fix" the character.

D: mysterious figure wanders by and raises the character. But tells the group that the effect is not permanent and they have only XYZ days to get to location like a moon pool and perform a ritual to complete the effect. Are they telling the truth? Or is it a trick for some greater scheme?

E: The group soon after finds a scroll or artifact that can do the job. Perhaps something else wants to stop them from completing the process which might be lengthy.

F: The character wasnt really dead! Some heirloom or trinket that seemed totally useless saved them. Or even raised them.

Depends on how harsh the setting. I mean Dark Sun tells you flat out to make an extra character to play if/when the first dies.

But personally I prefer options to bring back a fallen character. But the players have to work for it one way or another. Or it leads to plot hooks that can be sprung later.

Of course sometimes the end is the end for that character. Especially if they did something monumentally and deliberately stupid as the player to get the character dead. If they asked the dragon to blast em then that it. Sweep up the ashes and roll a new character. Also I feel really heroic deaths should be final. Especially if the player is ok with it. Of course the rest of the group may still set off to raise them. Maybee the ghost wont want to come back?

Games where death happens a little too much will conversely cheapen and deaden interest in keeping a character. "Why bother. Hes doomed like the last six?" mentality can set in.

Some players can roll with it. Others absolutely cannot. The DM needs to look at where the line crosses and act accordingly. Just dont retcon/rewind events to undo it. The players will tend to be more appriciative if the tale of the characters recovery is suitably impressive.

And it builds good group cohesion when they work together to bring back a companion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level . . . is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?

No - they're whiny little cunts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely?

I don't wait until it happens to explain the 'facts of life and death' to them; from the giddyup I explain how roleplaying games are different from books and novels, that it's a game with dice and odds and good and bad luck, and that losing a character is neither uncommon nor a showstopper, as a new character can be created and introduced to the game.

If they're still having a hard time with it after that, then they're a poor fit for the campaign I'm running and are welcome to excuse themselves, no harm, no foul.

Quote from: Ladybird;699319You don't mis-judge a Goomba and then never get to play Mario again.

You don't misjudge a Cardinal's Guard and never get to play Flashing Blades again, either.

Quote from: Arkansan;699331I wonder if part of this has to do with the current generation of gamers having no wargaming background, for the most part anyway.

I think it has a fair amount to do with it.