Paul Farquhar
Legend
The solution, as WotC and others are realising, is to publish short adventures in large books.
D&D General Matt Colville on adventure length
GrimCo
Adventurer
Well, tbh, xp is so passe
On the more serious note. Running away is not avoiding danger. Live to fight another day is smart thing for low lv PCs. It's smart for all lv of pc in my opinion. If PCs barley survive combat, it's smart move to run back to nearest safe place, recover and then go out and try again. Lv 1 PCs are not powerfull heroes. They are notch above common folks.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The anthology books are the only adventures I purchase from WotC. I have no interest in running someone else's long campaign.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
It's already been mentioned, but Explorers Guide to Wildemount includes 4 short (and non-rubbish) adventures.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Sigh.
There's a big difference between sitting in the bar and taking on adventures you can handle; either of which are better for the character than dying while overmatched.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Nothing wrong with saying "I don't think this game is for me" and bailing. That's not insulting, since there are so many different approaches to D&D that the chances of randomly finding a DM that does suit is statistically low. And if they do get huffy, that means they are an unpleasant person who should be avoided.
On the other hand, if you say "this game is bad", that is on you being the unpleasant person. Even if it's true, the way for them to find out is when they find themselves without players.
And if you think you could do better, then why are you not the DM?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
But that is the story I'm here for. It's literally the story the game itself tells me we're here to hear (emphasis added in both cases): "Everything a player needs to create heroic characters" (front cover); "Adventurers are extraordinary people, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead. They are heroes, compelled to...take on the challenges that lesser women and men can't stand against." (Ch. 3)
And this hasn't been a new development either. 2e PHB: "The warrior group encompasses the character classes of heroes who make their way in the world primarily by skill at arms: fighters, paladins, and rangers." "Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea. First, the AD&D game is a game of heroic fantasy. What is heroic about being a villain?" (Ch 4, "Alignment")
You should be unsurprised to know that I have negative interest in ever reading any portion of The Song of Ice and Fire. Its sensibilities are not ones I find interesting--and even then, the shown story of what lies ahead has Jon Snow surviving his own murder.
Depends on what one defines as "entertainment value." I often find such choices frustrating and disruptive, breaking whatever tone the game has attempted to cultivate.And they never fail to add to the entertainment balue of the games they're in!
Doing so when you've literally only had 2-3 preceding combats and that many or fewer total sessions does seem pretty insulting to me.
But if you mean "once you've given it a fair shake," then that's literally what I'm talking about. Groups I've been in have had TPKs before reaching third level. I have been deeply demoralized by that, which makes me think the game isn't for me, which makes me leave. And I've gotten nothing but pushback for saying that that's my stance. Seems like there are some pretty hefty conditions on this "nothing wrong with saying 'I don't think this game is for me' and bailing" principle...
I have never said such a thing to anyone, even when I strongly believed it was true.
"If you want X, why don't you make X?" is a fallacious argument and always has been. But, even if it weren't an irrelevant fallacy? I am a GM. I just, y'know, would like to play too.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
And when it's literally the very first adventure we ever attempt? Literally the third or fourth combat we've ever attempted?
Because that's a thing I've seen in several 5e campaigns. Games falling apart that fast. Level 1 stretched out over 3-5 sessions. Brutally hard combats that reward paltry XP. DMs effectively forcing a TPK by (as noted) having us get jumped by bandits during our second short rest we've ever taken.
This is why I find it so important to provide rules, tools, and assistance for dealing with problematic DM behavior. Because it isn't malfeasant DMs I'm all that concerned about. It's the well-meaning but barely-competent ones. The sincere, earnest ones that go whole hog for deeply foolish efforts, and who take the culture of "DM Empowerment" and thus become impervious to discussion, suggestions, or warnings. Why it matters so much to me to provide tools that really work, consistently, across a wide range of parties, levels, and situations. Etc.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Then you are wrong. Let’s say there are 5 ways to play D&D. Then the chances of randomly picking a game that you like is only 20%. And often session zero is enough to tell, and no DM wants miserable players in their game who only stick around out of a misplaced sense of politeness. Such players drag the game down for everyone. Not-having-fun is contagious.
Hussar
Legend
One thing that DM's really should remember is that you are not the only DM your player's have ever had. And much of the behavior that players display is learned at other tables. It takes TIME to build that rapport with players. I get this sense that there are a lot of DM's out there that think they are somehow owed trust just for running a game.
Sorry, trust is earned.
I've had far, far too many refugee players from other tables not to believe that there are a LOT of REALLY crappy games out there. Like far, far more than people seem to think.
I remember polling this repeatedly in the past, and about a third of players claimed that the majority of DM's they've had have been very bad experiences. If you've got a group if four or five players that is a fairly newly formed group, chances are that at least one and probably two of them have some seriously bad experiences under their belt before they sat at your table.
And it does show.
Sorry, trust is earned.
I've had far, far too many refugee players from other tables not to believe that there are a LOT of REALLY crappy games out there. Like far, far more than people seem to think.
I remember polling this repeatedly in the past, and about a third of players claimed that the majority of DM's they've had have been very bad experiences. If you've got a group if four or five players that is a fairly newly formed group, chances are that at least one and probably two of them have some seriously bad experiences under their belt before they sat at your table.
And it does show.
Similar Threads
- Poll
