It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Eero_Tuovinen I was poking at adapting Moldvay into a cross between Gamma World and Borderlands, and when I came up for breath, I realized almost all of the stat blocks for encounters would ruin a first-level character. Which in ways is appropriate, you don't go boar-hunting or bear-hunting alone, but I'm curious - would you change your approach if you realized the game mechanics were unfairly balanced against the players? Or is the expectation that the PCs should recognize they're playing Contra without extra lives, and behave accordingly?
If you have any kind of default mode for dealing with the Roc yourself, I'd love to hear it! Your approach to this kind of thing is usually well thought-out AND tested in practice, so it's always interesting to hear.
I'd write more about the hit point thing if I didn't have places to be. It suffices to say that I find static hitpoints an entirely reasonable choice for D&D as I understand it. It takes away a big cornerstone and thus changes the nature of the game's content, but it does not change the processes. A mechanical cornerstone changes, but the constitution does not.
And if so, is the core appeal something to do, not with gameplay, but more with mastery of self, removing ego, i.e., dare I say "enlightment"?
I am pretty harsh about the perceived softness of Mike's process, because I want to improve the features that I perceive as quality in this type of game.
What if I'm hygienic but simply want a lower rate of violent conflict/player death in my game, perhaps dictated by the genre I'm trying to emulate?
Would we lose something important about D&D?And what would have to change about D&D so that it remained fun / balanced with this approach?