Ranting, just ranting.

[jjordan]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.
Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.
People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.
If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.
Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.
Death spirals are real.
Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.
Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.
Gold is rare, people trade in silver.
Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).
Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).
Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

[Duff]

Most of these - Yep, that's compromises D&D makes to give relatively predictable fights. In games where fights are less predictable you have to have less of them or accept more TPKs.
Clerics and warlocks - Yeah, flavour choices that I'd like to see more of
Magic is hard - Also a flavour choice, but really, there's lots of games which have different levels of and lots of people like this flavour. Same applies to Frodo's gear
Gold and silver - it's a fantasy economy, it should be no surprise it's different
Armour maintenance and logistics - Most people just aren't interested in the paperwork to make this happen. DMs can easily add these in using encumbrance rules, but almost no one actually does this.

What's your favourite system for fantasy games?

[KillianHawkeye]

Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).

Just a nitpick, but the only reason Frodo never fully recovers is because the Nazgul stabbed him with like a cursed blade or whatever. That is the specific wound that he complains never heals completely. It's the exception which proves the rule.

[Ignimortis]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.
Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.
People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.
If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.
Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.
Death spirals are real.
Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.
Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.
Gold is rare, people trade in silver.
Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).
Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).
Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

To quote a certain website...

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Seriously, there are quite a few systems that try to do those things you're describing.

[False God]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.

I mean, you can add "weakspots" to NPCs when it matters, and either require some additional roll or only trigger on a crit or whatever, not terribly hard to impliment.

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.

Well, if you want to give Clerics access to every domain their diety has (usually like, 3-6) this can often be accomplished.

People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.
If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

These are the domain of the DM. The DM decides what "advancing the cause" means and what those "consequences" are.

Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.

Well that's just never been D&D.

Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

I mean, I'm sure your players are going to love the tedium of "Oh but did you polish your brass today? NO? Well then minus 50 points from griffindor."

Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).

There's a reason both the books and the movies went SKIP over this portion of time. It was not relevant to the story nor was it interesting to read about the Adventures of Frodo in a Coma.

Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).

You really have a thing for wanting you players to not actually play the game huh?

Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

So....give players loot?

[LibraryOgre]

Well, if you want to give Clerics access to every domain their diety has (usually like, 3-6) this can often be accomplished.

This was a character class idea I suggested in 3e; JUST give clerics domains and their granted powers.

[Saintheart]

Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

Bilbo had an inexperienced DM.

[Zombimode]

Ok, I'm not saying that you're wrong.
Instead I try to offer new ways of framing actions either within the rules interface or the context of game.

Because sometimes you just can't make sense of a particular rule or you just don't know how to model an action within the rules. A change of perspective can help sometimes: a different interpretation of a rule interaction, or a different approach of modeling an action within the rules.

In other cases thinking not only in terms of what is fitting to the genre but also in terms of what is fitting for the actual activity. You know, sitting down with friends and playing the game.

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.

What exactly do you want to be possible?
That a dragon could be killed by a single arrow? How likely it should be? Should it be possible for everyone or just select individuals?

If your point of reference is a static narration (like a movie or a book) you get no information about possibility outside the context of the scene and no information whatsoever about probability.
The only thing you know is that is was possible for in that specific situation with that specific actors.

For D&D 3.5 it is possible to recreate the scene with Smaug and Bard (basic principle: get to <=50 damage with one attack, probably thanks to a crit, and then Smaug failing the Fort save vs. massive damage (always a 5% chance).)

If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.

First, this statement is not quite correct. If you stabbed Conan in the heart it is very likely that he'd die.
See the difference? There can be any number of possible reasons why he wouldn't die in any specific situation. "Possible" doesn't mean "likely", but opening your mind to more outcomes than the one you see as most likely will increase your acceptance to more rules-inducted outcomes.

Second, your statement implies that you think in the ruleset you are ranting against Conan getting stabbed in the heart wouldn't result in his death. But be critical: is that actually correct? Maybe you just have not found the correct way of representing "Conan getting stabbed in the heart" within the rules.

Most rule system employ several layers of abstractions. Thus Conan getting hit by a spear can mean a whole lot of things and only one meaning would be "Conan is getting stabbed in the heart by a spear".

Again using D&D 3.5 one way modeling "Conan gettig stabbed in the heart" is a coup-de-grace for which Conans death is a very likely outcome.

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.

Depends on your worldbuilding. If your world requires that the servants of the gods have only access to powers closely related to the gods portfolio houserule the cleric class or use a different class.

People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.

HP totals usually don't have a set meaning.

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

That is a thing between player and GM, right? If not what do you expect from the rules?

Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.

That is dependent on the setting and aesthetics.

For D&D 3.5 magic is definitely powerful and is exactly as rare as the GM makes it.

Now, regarding the second part of your statement of magic "going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat". You seem to be annoyed by that, but have you considered the alternative? Do you want wizard players not doing anything round after round? Don't you think that a player creating an explicit "wizard" character actually wants to cast spells round after round?

Don't forget that you're sitting together with other people and everyone wants to have fun.

Death spirals are real.

Sure. A lot of things are real. Being "real" is not a good reason by itself to include it in a game.
It's a design choice and a matter of preference.

Games featuring a death spiral are not inherently "better" or even "more realistic". They are just different.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Armor works, which is why people wore it.

The implication being that armor doesn't work in the rule system you're ranting about.

Armor, like most thing related to combat, is a complex thing. Different systems have different approaches on how to model armor. Some are more sophisticated than others. That armor is actually "useless" is something that I have not seen in game so far.
What makes you feel that armor doesn't work?

For D&D 3.5 armor definitely works and is used by both PCs and NPCs because it works.

Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

And you have provided the answer to why equipment maintenance is usually handwaved or ignored completely in most games: it is incredibly boring.

Gold is rare, people trade in silver.

Setting dependent. You can have it be like this in your setting.

Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).

Bad example as people have already pointed out.
But lets not get hung up on the example. So you want wounds taking long(er) to heal. Have you considered what this would mean in a game?

Again, think of what is fun for all players.

Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).

If an ability is not "meant" to be used in combat it will be defined in a way that makes it use in combat impractical. For instance requirering a lot of time, special unwieldy equipment etc.

If an ability is defined in a way that its use in combat is very much practical then maybe your assessment that it is not meant to be used in combat is just wrong?

Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

And that means what, exactly?

[Willie the Duck]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.
Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.
People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.
If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.
Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.
Death spirals are real.
Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.
Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.
Gold is rare, people trade in silver.
Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).
Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).
Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

I don't want to be on the 'why are you playing D&D?' train too much, but seriously, just about every single part of this can be accomplished using GURPS. The dragon-with single arrow part would be hard, but that's actually more realistic than Tolkien -- killing an elephant+ sized creature with one arrow (outside maybe a through-the-eye brainshot) ought to be neigh impossible.

This seems to be complaining that the vanilla ice cream at the grocery store doesn't have chocolate in it when the chocolate ice cream is sitting right there on the shelf next to it. D&D does things, some of them just because and some things because they work really well for some preferences. Large scaling HP (without massive penalties for being wounded) work really well as a pacing mechanism in a fight, while still not overly discouraging fighting (which, despite us old timers coming back with 'the game was supposed to be about exploring and treasure-hunting and avoiding combat!' is a major part of the game). That's the primary goal that the ruleset serves, and it does so at the disservice of realism (compared to many other games out there).

[Vinyadan]

Maybe you'd enjoy a Blade and Sorcery system?

[jjordan]

What's your favourite system for fantasy games?

Back in the day I enjoyed Rolemaster (2nd Edition). I want so very much to like GURPS but just don't. But good luck finding people to play these with.

To quote a certain website...

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Yep. But it's play D&D or don't play. I mean, you're completely correct, but D&D has become synonymous with medieval fantasy gaming for a significant portion of the gaming community.

Bilbo had an inexperienced DM.

The depth of that line makes it incredibly funny to me. Well played.


I'm not arguing for change. I see a lot of the design considerations that went into D&D and they make sense. The success of the game/brand speaks to that. I just had a moment of frustration and vented.

[Lacco]

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Seriously, there are quite a few systems that try to do those things you're describing.

I hate to sound like a broken record but...

Riddle of Steel. Blade of the Iron Throne. Even Song of Swords would most probably fit.

Each have their disadvantage (e.g. no functional magic system in RoS) but I think you'd like their approach. Especially since you played Rolemaster.

Back in the day I enjoyed Rolemaster (2nd Edition). I want so very much to like GURPS but just don't. But good luck finding people to play these with.
Yep. But it's play D&D or don't play. I mean, you're completely correct, but D&D has become synonymous with medieval fantasy gaming for a significant portion of the gaming community.

You may be correct that D&D is synonymous for medieval fantasy gaming, but there are always people to play the other games with. May be hard to find, but I've had the luck.

I'm not arguing for change. I see a lot of the design considerations that went into D&D and they make sense. The success of the game/brand speaks to that. I just had a moment of frustration and vented.

Venting completely accepted. It's what made me turn away from DnD long ago. No regrets

[Eldan]

I mean, Bilbo spent half the journey with a DMPC high level wizard (later retconned to be a Celestial when he died) in a party of mostly dwarf bards and they lost pretty much every encounter where they tried combat.

[Vinyadan]

I mean, Bilbo spent half the journey with a DMPC high level wizard (later retconned to be a Celestial when he died) in a party of mostly dwarf bards and they lost pretty much every encounter where they tried combat.

And also those where they used diplomacy, IIRC, with the exception of the feast on the lake:

"Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror King under the Mountain!" said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist: his eyes were dark and deep. "I have come back. I wish to see the Master of your town!" Then there was tremendous excitement. Some of the more foolish ran out of the hut as if they expected the Mountain to go golden in the night and all the waters of the lake to turn yellow right away. The captain of the guard came forward.

That's very bard-like. But they really failed with the Elves, for example, or later when they were inside the mountain and Men came to discuss.

[JNAProductions]

Rant accepted. But... I'll echo those who say "Just play another system besides D&D."

I'll ALSO echo those who say "Fun is more important than realism."

[Quertus]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.

The game needs more of that. (Not 4e's padded sumo)

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.

And this is why clerics of pantheons or clerics of ideas are stronger than clerics of individual deities.

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

Counterpoint: if you've chosen to give your power to the wrong candidate, or cannot either control or utilize their actions, that's on you.

Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.

Yes, Wizards shouldn't get to play the game.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

Stupid choices? You mean, like picking "Fighter"?

Armor works, which is why people wore it.

Do people still wear armor today? Why / why not?

Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

You mean, the most powerful epic artifact in the world? Dude, why don't my characters get such sweet lot from such low-CR encounters?

(You forgot the mountains of gold (that he gave to the peasants to rebuild entire towns) that he got from the Dragon, so I'm ignoring that encounter).

[Eldan]

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

I mean, isn't that what a cleric is, not a warlock? I'd say a warlock has a specific pact, while a cleric has more general loyalty. You don't have to philosophically agree with your warlock patron or advance their cause in general.

[Ignimortis]

Yep. But it's play D&D or don't play. I mean, you're completely correct, but D&D has become synonymous with medieval fantasy gaming for a significant portion of the gaming community.

Then I get you completely. It's just that I'm from the camp on the other side of D&D (and so I also don't get to play what I want, most of the time) :D

[Psyren]

Yep. But it's play D&D or don't play.
...
I'm not arguing for change. I see a lot of the design considerations that went into D&D and they make sense. The success of the game/brand speaks to that. I just had a moment of frustration and vented.

The system doesn't need to change, you do. I'm not being facetious here - some of the sources of your frustration (like "Conan getting stabbed in the heart") stem from either a lack of understanding of D&D's rules, or a lack of understanding of what those rules are intended to represent. Blaming the system for that is counterproductive.

[jjordan]

Yes, Wizards shouldn't get to play the game.

Sarcasm enjoyed, valid point acknowledged, deeply embedded game design consideration recognized, but I still don't like it. Which is just, like, my opinion, man.

Do people still wear armor today? Why / why not?

I know three people who are still this side of the dirt thanks to armor, including someone who was headshot by a sniper. Armor works.

You mean, the most powerful epic artifact in the world? Dude, why don't my characters get such sweet lot from such low-CR encounters?

The cursed plot device that let him turn invisible? Yes, that one. But my point was that D&D expects non-casters to get large amounts of magical loot.

I mean, isn't that what a cleric is, not a warlock? I'd say a warlock has a specific pact, while a cleric has more general loyalty. You don't have to philosophically agree with your warlock patron or advance their cause in general.

Both of them receive power in return for service. The cleric would likely continue to serve even without the power exchange because of devotion to cause whereas the warlock is more likely, according to lore, to have made the bargain specifically for the purpose of gaining power and would likely abandon the cause of the patron if the power stopped coming. But in both cases they get power from the patron to advance the patron's cause. If the advancement stops happening the power should stop coming. I love clerics and warlocks because they embed themselves in the lore of the world, or should; whereas many other characters are just generic and could be dropped into any setting. My only beefs with D&D on this subject are giving clerics access to every cleric spell instead of deity specific subsets and not having a suggested mechanism to enforce the idea that it's service for power and no service means no power. I understand that this is roleplaying rather than roll-playing and why D&D doesn't attempt to enforce this, but the lack of limitation on the power dynamic still grates on me.

[Eldan]

2nd ed had only sphere-specific spells for clerics, so it can be done. Just homebrew it. That sounds like the solution to most problems.

Alternatively, offer to DM and run some other game. Don't know about your location, but as soon as i mention "I'll run it", I get about six players, no matter the game. Because no one else wants to DM anything.

[Glorthindel]

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.

Rolemaster

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.
Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.
Death spirals are real.
Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Gold is rare, people trade in silver.
Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.
Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).
Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).

Call of Cthulu

Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

Hackmaster

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

Depends of the GM, there are absolutely consequences in my game if the Warlock ignores his patron

The fact is, other games and other games styles exist which cater to your needs, you just have to find them. D&D for better or worse is at one end (and not even right at the end, there plenty of systems with even more padding around the edges for those who want that) of a very wide spectrum. If you want the blood, gore, and grit, you are gonna have to find the system with what you need. Sure, some of them are 40 years old at this stage, so its going to be an uphill struggle to convince some players to give them a shot, but some most definitely not (WFRP got a new edition last year).

The secret I've always found is to play many different systems, and enjoy each for what it is. Get your grim, gritty darkness one place, get your storming in the door and kicking ass elsewhere. When you have lost two characters in two sessions in CoC, a session of D&D where the system is doing its best to keep you alive despite your own stupidity can be distinctly refreshing.

[LibraryOgre]

Hackmaster.

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.
If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.

Critical hit tables and penetrating damage dice. It is theoretically possible to kill a dragon with a single knife thrust... you just need an incredibly lucky d6 (and it would help to be a thief who is backstabbing).

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.

All cleric classes have an individual spell progression; largely drawing from a common pool, but also including some mage spells, for some.

People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.

While it does not help this, specifically, big hits might knock you back and might knock you out for seconds of combat... even minutes, if your luck sucks.

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

No warlocks, though you might call some priests that, and priests can't even worship another deity when appropriate.

Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.

Limited spell points. Upcasting on mage spells years before 5e. Upcast too much, wear armor you're not allowed, or have some other problem while casting, and there are dangerous mishaps.

Death spirals are real.

Threshold of Pain and Trauma saves, baby. Most fights don't end with everyone dead, just with enough people incapacitated that you can easily kill them.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.
Armor works, which is why people wore it.
Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.

Armor adds Damage Reduction and reduces initiative, speed, defense, and movement. Shields actually protect you. Armor takes damage from good hits, even with bad weapons.

Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

Yup.

Gold is rare, people trade in silver.

Silver standard is in the PH.

Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).

Without medical or magical aid, a 10 point wound will take you 55 days to recover from... and that's without potential attribute damage from a cursed blade.

Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).
Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

Magic items are rare as hens teeth, but exceptional quality weapons and armor are where it's at.

Hackmaster. The Basic rules, covering Fighter, Thief, Mage, and a few cleric classes (plus humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings) are free.

[kyoryu]

If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.
...
People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.

Easy enough. Presume most hp damage isn't "damage" and is various bruises, scrapes, mild burns, etc. Annoying, but not serious.

Which means that, no, you're probably not going to stab Conan in the heart in the opening seconds of a duel with him. You'll have to wait until he's tired, scraped up, bruised, and battered. And the people leaping chasms aren't seriously injured.... they're just tired and on the verge of making mistakes.

Treat the mechanical results of an action as constraints on the narration, rather than as hard results. "Oh, okay, so you took 10 damage, which means you have 40 hp left, and no penalties.... sounds like a hard hit to the armor that knocked the wind out of you to me, because clearly that doesn't describe someone who just got run through with a sword!" (Note: People who like hp as meat points, go ahead and hp as meat point all you want. Narrate what makes sense for your world).

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

So..... do it?

[QUOTE=jjordan;24656571]Death spirals are real.[QUOTE=jjordan;24656571]

So compress it at 0 hp and call it a day. Because not only are death spirals real, but if you get actually stabbed you're probably lying on the ground in pain.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

Example? And this is why I always use the Chunky Salsa Rule in all games.

Armor works, which is why people wore it.

Armor works in D&D. It's just that other things work too - maybe more than they should.

Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.

If that's your idea of fun, add it.

Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

So what you really want is an abstraction that presents the actual interesting decisions without the administrative overhead.

[jjordan]

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Everyone harps on preserving player agency and one aspect of that is not forcing players to sit around and not participate. But if players do stupid things and knock themselves out of the gameplay for several rounds then that's what happens. Is it fun for the player in the moment? No.

[kyoryu]

Everyone harps on preserving player agency and one aspect of that is not forcing players to sit around and not participate. But if players do stupid things and knock themselves out of the gameplay for several rounds then that's what happens. Is it fun for the player in the moment? No.

For sure.

But frequently, "stupid games" are the results of differing implicit social contracts, a player having a misconception of something, etc.

So, as a GM, I personally like to be extra clear in those cases about what the likely results of the action are, if the character would know them. And then let the dice fall where they may.

Bad:
Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "You sure you wanna do that?"
Player: "Yup!"
GM: "The king yells for his guards to capture you, and they massively outlevel you. Let's hope you only get captured and not killed."

The player in this case may well have been operating under a more "heroic fiction" type vibe where insulting the king is something you can get away with, etc., even though their character would probably know the likelihood that this is a Bad Idea.

Better:
Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "That may not be a good idea. You know this king has a reputation for not having much of a sense of humor, and nobles, in general, tend to stomp out anything that even appears to be insolence. Given how tough the guards are, you're pretty sure they could take you out. Being imprisoned might be the least bad thing that could happen to you."
Player: "Who cares? I do it anyway!"
GM: *sigh*

You haven't given the player anything that the character wouldn't know, and know they know they're playing a stupid game, and so it's perfectly fine that they then win a stupid prize.

[Rizban]

To be fair to Smaug, the Black Arrow was forged personally by dwarven royalty, designed specifically to slay dragons, may have been magical, and seemed to never break or get lost no matter how many times it was shot.

Bard inherited it from his forefathers, potentially also making the Black Arrow a Legacy Weapon.

Bard also had semi-mystical guidance from the Thrush to direct his shot, rolled a nat 20, and then likely rolled max damage on the crit with his composite longbow.

Edit: If you go by movie rather than book, then it was a bolt fired from a ballista.

[Chauncymancer]

Re giving warlocks and clerics more flavor: in a 2014 design talk they talked about how wizards tried this in the playtesting, and playtesters almost universally hated it so it was taken out.

[Lacco]

Better:
Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "That may not be a good idea. You know this king has a reputation for not having much of a sense of humor, and nobles, in general, tend to stomp out anything that even appears to be insolence. Given how tough the guards are, you're pretty sure they could take you out. Being imprisoned might be the least bad thing that could happen to you."
Player: "Who cares? I do it anyway!"
GM: *sigh*

You haven't given the player anything that the character wouldn't know, and know they know they're playing a stupid game, and so it's perfectly fine that they then win a stupid prize.

Spoiler: Reminded me of my player...

Show

Reminds me of one of my players. After the king's servant just relayed their quest to the party, this guy decides to go say "Hi" to the king (because, you know, it's a breach of etiquette to send such stuff via servants).

Riding a horse.

Into his personal bedchamber.

Even fighting guards.

Each of these steps had "That may not be a good idea + explanation" from my side before it.

Facepalms from other players were many. "It's what my character would do" + "It's the custom of my people to enter bedchambers of their lieges horseback!" were also stated in defence.

Surprise! The player felt I was treating him unfair when I told him to roll a new character, as that one was thrown into jail.

---

Eldan's advice is suprisingly sound. Nobody wanted to switch from our local DnD clone until I just said I'd GM. Give it a try.

I did. And unfortunately, now it means I only get to GM. One other player stepped up, but his games are... well, ever seen a railroad? Well, remove the turnouts. You do not get choices.

@Eldan: On the other hand, most of my usual players live far apart now - so when I tried yelling "I'll GM" out of the window, people just didn't seem to care.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I would say having a patron take away powers if you aren't actively advancing their goals is a little unfair. Particularly if your dm doesn't WANT to run a story that has anything to do with the goals of your patron. This is fine as how it is currently, where the DM CAN take the powers away, but there's no mechanical stuff to FORCE them too. Also taking away someone's class features is kinda rude. Also it can force fiend pact warlocks to be evil and evil players can be problematic, particularly if they are MECHANICALLY forced to be evil. Also I like to think becoming a warlock as a one off thing. You do a thing for your patron, they make you their warlock. You discover your powers by leveling up.