Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[Hemlock]

So @Yora was posting recently about how D&D doesn't work for his style of play. Some of the concerns expressed are flavour-based, which I won't comment on except to say that Yora's experience is different from mine. However there are also some mechanical issues expressed which I think are worth talking about.

I gather the mechanical issue is that D&D tends to be attrition based, requiring the management of resources (primarily spells and hit points) over the course of a day. By default this requires an in-world environment where the opportunity for/risk of combat occurs frequently over the course of a day. ...snip...

If you handwaive that, and check much less frequently, than the assumptions surrounding attrition change since they may only have a fight every few days, which leads to the "all-in resource" fight problem and little meaningful drain on resources at all (since you can stock up on healing magic and blow it on the off days).

Also, random encounters fail to meet their required function because they don't drive behavior (the decisions regarding route and mode of travel having largely been made at the commencement of the journey, and the fights don't serve as a means of applying consequences through attrition). This means you need another method to make the choice of route and mode of transportation meaningful, as you can't rely on established game structures. Here are a few possibilities I thought of:

1. Like Alexis Smolensk, you play out every hex, and it takes years of real-world play to actually get anywhere.

2. You react to choice of route/mode with wanderers as usual, but you use less of them, and make the individual encounters more dangerous (higher risk of TPK, frequent use of save-or-die and save-or-suck, expect to see medusas, basilisks and level draining undead).

3. You have fewer encounters, but each "encounter" is really a mini-adventure, so that the assumptions regarding attrition function inside of the encounter. Because you have time to write adventures to occur between your adventures.

4. You tell the PCs they arrived without significant incident (thereby making choice of route/mode essentially irrelevant, and making your players wonder why a month long journey through the frontier is safer than the area immediately surrounding your average village).

I'm not really happy with any of these. So I am asking whether you have problems like I have described regarding either the game outside of the dungeon, or regarding lengthy overland travel, and if so how you deal with them.

I can tell you how attrition works in Dungeon Fantasy, which doesn't match up with any of these four, but seems to work pretty well so far IME.

Dungeon Fantasy, being GURPS-derived, is very tactical and a bit swingy. A moderately-unoptimized but forewarned party of five fighting a peshkali (six-armed demon-snake lady, basically a marilith with no magic except supernatural durability like a slasher movie villain) might be able to kill it with good tactics and no casualties 90% of the time, say. The other 10% of the time, something with lasting bad consequences happens, like a front-line fighter losing an arm to one of the peshkali's scimitars, and now your party of five is effectively a party of four with only two front-line fighters until you can get back to civilization and pay the corrupt priests of the sorcerer king to reattach the arm (or ask the poor-but-sincere humble priests of the Father to do the bargain version, which takes a month). The next peshkali or whatever that you meet now has let's say a 35% chance of doing serious damage before you kill it, which could leave you with only one front-liner: attrition comes in the form of the threat of snowballing.

Combine that with a dynamic environment where safe retreat is not guaranteed, either because monsters move around using something akin to an adversary roster (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/45091/roleplaying-games/design-notes-adversary-rosters) or just because of the threat of random encounters. Either way, the fact that pressing forward/going deeper commits you to facing a greater number of threats on your way out--no matter how many PCs are still alive and uncrippled at that point--increases the tension.

So the danger isn't so much about running out of HP as running out of combat-effective PCs. A wilderness encounter in which an Undershark burrows underneath one of the PCs and drags them under the sand, but fails to bite off any limbs before one of the PCs stabs it in the roof of the mouth to pierce its tiny brain... The PCs may not be down any HP by tomorrow thanks to healing magic, but they feel more stressed about voyaging nine more days into the Great Wastes than they would have if they hadn't fought the Undershark, because who knows if they'll be as lucky next time. (And maybe the Undershark's bite carries sewer rot, and the bitten PC may be feverish and mildly impaired for the next few days, -1 to all DX-based skills.)

Having consequences that can last for days or months makes encounters dramatically weightier than they are under the D&D 5E model of "everything heals when you rest for 8 hours". I think Yora would find it easier to GM his style of D&D in Dungeon Fantasy than in 5E. You don't have to pad your adventure designs with monster chaff, and even an encounter which the PCs are definitely going to win is still pretty interesting to GM (up until the point where the players are using tactics that are clearly good enough to trivialize the battle, as opposed to just winning the battle--we're discussing this case on the Muster thread right now but the solution in this case is to either stop rolling dice and narrate an end to it, or find some other way to keep the GM entertained--but the point is, it's not like 5E where essentially ALL battles are boring and have no consequences).

 

[Hemlock]

I would also combine the encounter grid with reaction rolls. This creates a lot of variety of encounters, but also a surprising amount of potential risk if you play out the precarity of the neutral and friendly results ("Congrats, you've encountered a friendly hobgoblin fortress, they invite you inside and offer you a leg of roast halfling as a hearty welcome - not eating it would be a terrible offense to individuals who have shown you nothing but kindness so far.")

Consider this idea and all variations on it stolen. Yoink!

I think those who have suggested the importance of flat leveling have a real point. As Yora says, you want to avoid a situation where players are primarily looking forward to abilities they will acquire when they level up. This is something that DFRPG does well: there's really no spell or capability in the game that you couldn't start with if you prioritized it. You just can't have all of them at the same time.

This doesn't imply either that the GM can't introduce new abilities during play. DFRPG may not have the Teleport spell, but the GM is encouraged to loot GURPS for ideas, and finding a spellbook with a GURPS Teleport or Cloud-Vaulting spell in it would indeed give you a truly new capability (speedy long-range travel with some risk). But the fact that it's the result of taking specific actions that lead to the book, and not just something players can look forward to after eventually gaining enough experience, seems significant to my mind. In the past I've found that players enjoy diegetic one-off rewards like that, but only once they have them. It's not something which poisons the experience of the now with anticipation of the future.

Another sign of the "now"-centric playstyle is when Internet discussions have people more often presenting starting characters that you could play immediately, rather than "build" designs that would take you months or years of play to achieve. Even in my own mind, sure, I mildly enjoy thinking about where you could take e.g. a martial artist's advancement with the first fifty or a hundred points he earns--it's nice to know you're not playing a dead-end character with no future. But it's equally interesting or moreso to create new characters for actual play, today.

There's some discussion in the Muster thread about principles behind "always start at first level" and what that actually means. I think this whole notion of a flat power curve is important, to certain kinds of gameplay styles.

 

[Hemlock]

Insisting that you "need" this knowledge to operate is kind of obstinately missing the point...which is as follows:

--> If you, as DM, are looking for some "less/more immersive" knobs...what can you try?

You don't have to like the result, and then can adjust things back. But I think there is no denying that (for most people), seeing numbers---and the game as an equation---vs. not seeing numbers (like real life) is likely to affect immensity. Refuting that seems pointless, even if you personally are an outlier with your knob wired the other way.

I think there are people for whom numbers and probabilistic thinking come naturally in real life, which makes roleplaying with probabilities feel more natural than vagueness. The character may be thinking "six feet? Yeah, the ground is dry and there's a runway, and I typically average around 7'4" but these hobnailed boots are not ideal, and also it looks like the ground slopes up a couple of inches." That's not exactly the same as knowing that you need a 3-6 on d6, but it's still quantitative reasoning in a way that "maybe you can make it" is not, more similar to the PC's thought process and therefore more immersive.

Plenty of people appear not to think quantitatively in real life, so for them presumably it's anti-immersive to have quantitative data about their character's environment.

 

[Beoric]

So the danger isn't so much about running out of HP as running out of combat-effective PCs. A wilderness encounter in which an Undershark burrows underneath one of the PCs and drags them under the sand, but fails to bite off any limbs before one of the PCs stabs it in the roof of the mouth to pierce its tiny brain... The PCs may not be down any HP by tomorrow thanks to healing magic, but they feel more stressed about voyaging nine more days into the Great Wastes than they would have if they hadn't fought the Undershark, because who knows if they'll be as lucky next time. (And maybe the Undershark's bite carries sewer rot, and the bitten PC may be feverish and mildly impaired for the next few days, -1 to all DX-based skills.)

Having consequences that can last for days or months makes encounters dramatically weightier than they are under the D&D 5E model of "everything heals when you rest for 8 hours".

This is essentially what I meant with my point #2:

2. You react to choice of route/mode with wanderers as usual, but you use less of them, and make the individual encounters more dangerous (higher risk of TPK, frequent use of save-or-die and save-or-suck, expect to see medusas, basilisks and level draining undead).

You have a higher chance of characters dying or being partially incapacitated. It looks like you are describing a crit mechanic for DF which amounts to save-or-suck, which the (possible, i don't know the system) difference that the attacker is rolling the result instead of the defender saving.

Looking back on this 2 year old post of mine, and considering your point, I think you could achieve this in early edition D&D because it is relatively easy to lose the odd character without a TPK.

It is much harder to avoid a TPK in 4e for two reasons: (1) it is harder to run away; and (2) HP loss tends to be more evenly shared among the party, so by the time many parties realize they are in trouble, they are all in trouble. #2 can be managed with player skill. However, dealing with #1 generally requires you to sacrifice a fighter to cover the retreat of the party, and I find my players generally aren't willing to make that tough call.

So if I was doing this in 4e I might consider adding more save or suck encounters to long distance overland travel, i.e. using the disease mechanic (which also works for poisons, curses and arguably injuries). I might also design some "glass cannon" monsters that have a better shot at taking out a character without taking out the whole party.

 

[Hemlock]

This is essentially what I meant with my point #2:

You have a higher chance of characters dying or being partially incapacitated. It looks like you are describing a crit mechanic for DF which amounts to save-or-suck, which the (possible, i don't know the system) difference that the attacker is rolling the result instead of the defender saving.

Looking back on this 2 year old post of mine, and considering your point, I think you could achieve this in early edition D&D because it is relatively easy to lose the odd character without a TPK.

It is much harder to avoid a TPK in 4e for two reasons: (1) it is harder to run away; and (2) HP loss tends to be more evenly shared among the party, so by the time many parties realize they are in trouble, they are all in trouble. #2 can be managed with player skill. However, dealing with #1 generally requires you to sacrifice a fighter to cover the retreat of the party, and I find my players generally aren't willing to make that tough call.

So if I was doing this in 4e I might consider adding more save or suck encounters to long distance overland travel, i.e. using the disease mechanic (which also works for poisons, curses and arguably injuries). I might also design some "glass cannon" monsters that have a better shot at taking out a character without taking out the whole party.

You're right, I suppose that is similar to your point #2 even though neither TPK nor death is a serious threat in this scenario. Depleting the number of combat-effective PCs over weeks isn't that different from depleting HP over hours.

DF has a crit mechanic but it's not what I was referring to--there's also a hit location mechanic where you can target e.g. an arm at a -2 penalty on 3d6 (reducing a 74% hit chance to 50%), and if you hit it and do enough damage then the arm is disabled temporarily or even severed permanently but the HP damage inflicted is capped at minimum needed to cripple the limb. Whether or not Undersharks would try to bite off limbs instead of going straight for the body kill is a roleplaying (and tactical) decision by the GM.

I agree, you could do a similar thing in early D&D. The main difference I can think of is that in D&D, that would probably involve a dead PC instead of a crippled-but-still-interacting PC who may still be involved in conversations, carrying gear and treasure, etc. Not much of a difference really except emotionally: I still have fond memories of a certain PC's reaction to losing her weapon arm to a demon. She stared in disbelief at her arm lying on the floor, then turned to the demon and screamed in fury, "I was using that!!!" and started hammering the demon with her shield. She didn't accomplish much tactically (it was too tough for her shield damage to matter much; another PC did most of the work of finishing it off) but it was an interesting character reveal that showed that she, Grukuk, doesn't give up. You never know how you're going to react to serious loss until you face it.

Side note: running away in DFRPG is sometimes very easy and sometimes hard because monster speeds vary greatly and encumbrance penalties are very harsh. Sometimes running away from a fast monster requires either partially disabling the monsters (reducing their HP enough that they drop to half move, even if they're in no danger of dying yet) or sacrificing one or more members of a rearguard (including PCs). It sounds like 4E is similar even if players aren't willing to do it--does 4E have pack animals/summoned animals/illusions who can play the rearguard role in a pinch, or does 4E's ruleset make that infeasible?

 

[Beoric]

Side note: running away in DFRPG is sometimes very easy and sometimes hard because monster speeds vary greatly and encumbrance penalties are very harsh. Sometimes running away from a fast monster requires either partially disabling the monsters (reducing their HP enough that they drop to half move, even if they're in no danger of dying yet) or sacrificing one or more members of a rearguard (including PCs). It sounds like 4E is similar even if players aren't willing to do it--does 4E have pack animals/summoned animals/illusions who can play the rearguard role in a pinch, or does 4E's ruleset make that infeasible?

There are several reasons why running away is hard in 4e. First of all, as with 1e, if you run away while engaged in melee your opponent gets a free shot at you. Secondly, monsters and NPCs often have abilities that can slow or stop you from running. Thirdly, character turn based initiative, as opposed to the older team-based initiative, makes it harder to coordinate if the players are not disciplined enough to delay their turns until they reach the initiative count of the PC with the worst initiative roll. Fourthly, while you are running you are an easier target for missile fire.

There are summoned creatures that could serve as a rearguard, but I don't have any players who like running characters with pets so I have never seen it in action. I don't mind running those characters when I am a player, but I have never been in that position, so it has never occurred to me. But now that you mention it, I'm going to game it out. It may be difficult because many summoned creatures come with an incentive to use them early in the encounter, so you may not have the spells available by the time things go south.

In theory I could ask on the 4e boards how they handle it, except nobody there plays any version of D&D where the characters are ever really at risk. It's all balanced encounters using criteria that ensure an underpowered team monster. And there are no random encounters, let alone hexcrawls; travel is either hand-waived, or has planned encounters (usually one), or is handled via the (deservedly maligned) skill challenge. I think they think I'm pretty weird over there.

 

[squeen]

In theory I could ask on the 4e boards how they handle it, except nobody there plays any version of D&D where the characters are ever really at risk. It's all balanced encounters using criteria that ensure an underpowered team monster.

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

 

[Hemlock]

There are summoned creatures that could serve as a rearguard, but I don't have any players who like running characters with pets so I have never seen it in action. I don't mind running those characters when I am a player, but I have never been in that position, so it has never occurred to me. But now that you mention it, I'm going to game it out. It may be difficult because many summoned creatures come with an incentive to use them early in the encounter, so you may not have the spells available by the time things go south.

When I think about it, a fighting rearguard is functionally equivalent to the old "throw food behind you as you retreat" strategy of OD&D, only the food is still alive.

The related "scatter in all directions hoping that N monsters can only chase down N fleeing targets" strategy can at least turn TPK into PPK (partial party kill). I learned it from reading David Weber's Honor Harrington novels (space opera).

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

<confession>
*coughcough* I actually do this in Dark Forces, because teleportation is the most interesting thing in that game, and playing the Terminator can be fun too if you visualize the Storm Trooper's reactions all the way up the command chain. It wouldn't be any fun in a TTRPG though because there's nothing for other people to do unless they want to roleplay panicking Imperial officers, which is only interesting for about a minute and then you've said all there is to say.

I like challenge because it yields new insights, but sometimes I do enjoy abnegation for relaxation as long as other people don't have to wait around for me to finish.
</confession>

 

[Beoric]

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

I doubt it, they tend to be rules sticklers.

I will say this, though. I was thinking the other night about the difference between video game experiences if you grew up playing arcade games with a limited number of lives, possibly only augmented if you had more quarters; and console video games with unlimited lives and save points. It may change your expectations towards games in general if your experience is you can never really lose, short of getting frustrated and quitting.

 

[Hemlock]

I doubt it, they tend to be rules sticklers.

I will say this, though. I was thinking the other night about the difference between video game experiences if you grew up playing arcade games with a limited number of lives, possibly only augmented if you had more quarters; and console video games with unlimited lives and save points. It may change your expectations towards games in general if your experience is you can never really lose, short of getting frustrated and quitting.

It certainly would cheapen one's appreciation for the experience of replaying a challenge (e.g. a dungeon level) repeatedly with different approaches until mastering it. Although clearly some people manage to find that appreciation anyway, as evidenced by the existence of Diablo2 speed running as a sport/hobby.

 

[Beoric]

The thing that always annoyed me about level limits is that they rendered elves incapable of casting permanency. Elves being unable to create permanent magic items struck me as inconsistent with the implied setting.

I am sure somewhere out there was some unwritten Gary table rule that everyone knew, or some interpretation of the vague ramblings on item creation in the DMG, that allowed the creation of permanent magic items without permanency. But if so, teenage me wasn't aware of it.

If not for that, the whole thing probably would have been fine for me.

 

[Hemlock]

The thing that always annoyed me about level limits is that they rendered elves incapable of casting permanency. Elves being unable to create permanent magic items struck me as inconsistent with the implied setting.

I am sure somewhere out there was some unwritten Gary table rule that everyone knew, or some interpretation of the vague ramblings on item creation in the DMG, that allowed the creation of permanent magic items without permanency. But if so, teenage me wasn't aware of it.

If not for that, the whole thing probably would have been fine for me.

At least in 2nd edition, level limits are in the DMG specifically so the DM can choose level limits that work for his world; and default elven level limits are high enough anyway that the Exceeding Level Limits optional rule lets any elf with enough Intelligence to cast 8th level spells anyway, reach 16th level. (All elf wizards can reach 15th level; Int 14 or 15 gives +1 to that while Int 19 gives +4.)

Obviously 1st edition default level limits are lower, but teenage me happened a decade or so after teenage you so for me 2nd edition was where I started. : ) But the point is, the implied setting of 2nd edition doesn't have this inconsistency.

 

[Hemlock]

Question for the 1e crowd. On PHB p. 25 it states that higher level fighters get one attack per level against creatures with less than one hit die "and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans". Not sure if "semi-humans" includes humanoids. Also, IIRC, in either or both of 0e and the varieties of Basic, the rule is that fighters get one attack per level against creatures with one hit die or less.

Now orcs are 1HD in 1e, and also I believe in 0e and Basic(s). So if I am not misremembering, according to that working in 0e and B+ a fighter can hit them once per level, but in 1e he can't. Compare that to a 1e goblin, which is technically less than 1 HD, but is very close in stats and worth the same experience.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?

I always hated the inelegant discontinuity of this rule. Maybe a better way to do it, now that I'm older and wiser, would be to let fighters make ((FIGHTER LEVEL/Monster HD rounded up) rounded down) attacks per turn against any monster with fewer HD than their level. Fighting 2+2 HD creatures and you're 7th level? Sure, make two attacks this turn. At 9th level you can make three. If your regular attack progression gives you more than that you can do that instead, e.g. a 5th level fighter fighting a 6+6 HD troll still gets 1.5 attacks per round if he's specialized in his weapon.

 

[EOTB]

The 1E books aren't meant to detail the world, they're meant to detail the material the players will interact with. We're not told how specifically elves make permanent magic items, but we're given examples of permanent magic items they make, in the DMG.

 

[squeen]

There is a intentional divide in OD&D/AD&D between what NPCs and PCs. NPC elves can attain higher levels if you, as world creator, allow it. The level limits in non-human races in AD&D were introduced to balance out their other benefits for players. Obviously, if you strongly disagree, you are free to tweak---and many did, ignoring level-limits entirely. The result --> everyone chose non-human races.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?

I've always heard and used it was as-written, e.g. goblins and kobolds, but not orcs. From my experience, there's no good that's going to come from giving fighters even more attacks.

In general, monsters lose and lose often. It's far more challenging for a DM to maintain a viable threat in the world (without putting his finger on the scale, or going to ridiculous world-devouring extrema) than it is to turn D&D into a cakewalk. Why make that even harder with superpowers? Turning D&D in a combat-heavy video-game is a path-of-least-resistance mistake. Stop thinking of your PCs as Conan.

------

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre? Is it a post Star Wars/Luke thing? Or is it a Neo/Matrix thing? Or is it a Harry Potter thing? Whatever the progenitor, it's ubiquitous now. Every hero eventually discovers they are a badass "chosen one" and the final act is a predictable, i.e. "I now realize that I'm more powerful than the bad guy and beat him/her/it at their own game with my superior might." F/X battle (e.g. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings).

It's sort of like what you imagine chaotic evil demons doing in the Abyss---might makes right, winner takes all.

Contrast that to the roots of the adventure genre (pre-D&D, Appendix N stuff). The weaker ordinary humans either had to out-smart, out-cooperate, or out-maneuver (by either using their own power against them in some way, or discovering an hidden antidote to their might) the villians. But it was rare they ever acquired equal or more power than the bad guy(s). There was an inherent notion of "power corrupts" that seems in danger of being lost in the generational acceptance of personal awesomeness. Now it's: Realize you, the next generation, are inherently stronger...get in touch with that (internal power source)...and then take kick some (revenge) arse. The morality play is gone, replaced by a personal-power fantasy.

Just a Sunday thought for y'all to contemplate.


Final note, the children's-soul-devouring bad witches (from the first movie) were transformed into something sympathetic via a tear-jerking back-story involving the (surprise!) religiously intolerant = evil cultists. Another vomit-ous mass media trend. No one is a villain any more (except Hitler and the judgemental establishment). That also goes well with the Chaotic mindset: whatever you choose to do is understandable if you also were also a victim.

 

[Hemlock]

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre? Is it a post Star Wars/Luke thing? Or is it a Neo/Matrix thing? Or is it a Harry Potter thing? Whatever the progenitor, it's ubiquitous now.

There are a lot of stupid movies trends out there because Disney (and Hollywood itself to some extent) is creatively bankrupt. E.g. there was a period a few years ago where every action movie had a bad guy whose secret plan involved getting himself captured by the good guys.

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure. Qui-gon's diplomatic mission goes disastrously awry due to a hidden adversary; he tries to counterattack but is blocked by superior enemy forces so he and Kenobi disengage ("It's a standoff--let's go" and one second later they are gone) and seek allies. They leverage stealth and the high ground to defeat an enemy detachment guarding a key objective, and form a non-brute-force strategy for winning the war (go to Coruscant and seek political leverage). They experience logistical issues and financial issues but overcome them intelligently, with help from NPCs. Eventually they come back with a party-splitting plan to attack the enemy's multiple weak points in parallel (notably: even if the space fighters had lost, Amidala's capturing Nute Gunray would still have ended the war, and vice versa). Complications arise, real people die and suffer loss, and the hidden adversary suffers a setback but remains a force-in-being and in some ways is even strengthened by the events (because he had an intelligent plan from the beginning, with contingencies).

There are also minor elements I like, such as how the Jedi are positioned as diplomats and Renaissance men rather than just super-soldiers. When it becomes necessary for them to enter a lake and swim down to an underwater city, it's not a big deal because they are prepared--they don their respirators and start swimming.

There are a lot of modern TTRPG players who would be completely lost if you put them in Qui-gon's shoes at the start of the movie, but it's still a brilliant TTRPG scenario for players who DON'T expect to brute-force problems, and I kind of want to run it in Dungeon Fantasy RPG. (With no expectation that the scenario will generate the same events--if the PCs capture Marth Daul and mind-probe him and unmask or assassinate Senator Palpable, it's not a problem.)

 

[Beoric]

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre?

Not according to Joseph Campbell. In other myths and fairy tales it can be more symbolic, but film is a visual medium, so I think there is a tendency to want to depict the transformation visually.

In a way this is an Achilles/Odysseus divide. Achilles is a paragon who can fight his enemies directly using his personal power (Luke Skywalker). Odysseus has more human capabilities, but defeats his enemies using intelligence and deception (Han Solo). In most myths the Achilles figure gets his powers very early on in the story: Achilles gets his in infancy, Arthur draws Excalibur as a youth, Robin Hood, Beowulf and Gilgamesh are uncanny warriors when we join the story. Sometimes it comes in the form of items, rather than from within, as with Perseus' gear.

The D&D you hate follows an Achilles model. Classic/OSR D&D is more of an Odysseus model. It's like the conversation we were having about S&S; Conan is Achilles, but when you play in his world you are playing Odysseus.

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure.

As has been noted many times, what makes a good TTRGP does not necessarily make a good movie.

 

[Hemlock]

As has been noted many times, what makes a good TTRGP does not necessarily make a good movie.

Yes, that's what made this such an interesting exception. There's enough going on for players to have lots of freedom and interesting choices, and enough information about the background events for GMs to logically extrapolate the results of player actions within the scenario.

And I also liked how the characters made intelligent decisions and improvised well--the movie is one of a dozen or more ways I envision the TTRPG scenario playing out with good players. (Some of those other versions might not make good movies.)

 

[squeen]

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses guys! Well worth the time it took out of my Sunday-get-caught-up-with-work minutes for the initial post. Thank you!

Didn't Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur's stories ultimately end tragically for the heroes? (Not a rhetorical question, I am fuzzy).

If that narrative was still en vogue, even as in Shane or Eastwood's Pale Rider, I think today's movies would be more nuanced and appeal (to me) more than the current, quite childish, winner-takes-all mode. Logan (2017), which emulated Shane, stood out to me for exactly that same fatalistic melancholy. I'm not saying the hero always has to die, but there should be a price to pay for access to power.

Even in the original Star Wars arc, Luke was never triumphant. Using the Force (aptly named) to "force" a solution was ultimately a trap---the one Anakin fell into, but Luke did not.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure. Qui-gon's diplomatic mission goes disastrously awry due to a hidden adversary; he tries to counterattack but is blocked by superior enemy forces so he and Kenobi disengage ("It's a standoff--let's go" and one second later they are gone) and seek allies. They leverage stealth and the high ground to defeat an enemy detachment guarding a key objective, and form a non-brute-force strategy for winning the war (go to Coruscant and seek political leverage). They experience logistical issues and financial issues but overcome them intelligently, with help from NPCs. Eventually they come back with a party-splitting plan to attack the enemy's multiple weak points in parallel (notably: even if the space fighters had lost, Amidala's capturing Nute Gunray would still have ended the war, and vice versa). Complications arise, real people die and suffer loss, and the hidden adversary suffers a setback but remains a force-in-being and in some ways is even strengthened by the events (because he had an intelligent plan from the beginning, with contingencies).

As it turns out you are not the first person to make this observation.