D&D 5E "Once an encounter begins, I will make changes to it for balance, fun, or rules reasons." (a poll)

[CleverNickName]

That is the job, yes.

I find it weird that this is an affront on par with 'keep your characters alive no matter what'.

Looking at my post from another angle: why is losing/dying often considered to be the opposite of fun?

 

[iserith]

Looking at my post from another angle: why is losing/dying often considered to be the opposite of fun?

Because now the weekend you spent writing your 10 page backstory has been wasted, as is the money you spent commissioning an artist to draw your now dead tiefling bard with the super cute cat.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because now the weekend you spent writing your 10 page backstory has been wasted, as is the money you spent commissioning an artist to draw your now dead tiefling bard with the super cute cat.

Yowza. You have very different players at your table than we do.

That said: I'm talking about losing a battle, not perma-killing all the characters. (After all, the Raise Dead spell is a thing.) I think it can be fun to lose the occasional battle, if only for novelty's sake.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I voted "false" because I believe in the ability of the PCs to flee if necessary.

What I do is sometimes have my enemies retreat if it makes sense.

 

[iserith]

Yowza. You have very different players than I do.

That said: I'm talking about losing a battle, not perma-killing all the characters. (After all, the Raise Dead spell is a thing.)

Yeah, my regular players don't do that, so that's really about other players I've seen.

Although, there was one time that one of the artists in my group did a cool picture of their character who was killed in the first session. Now the art shows up after 5th level.

 

[TwoSix]

Looking at my post from another angle: why is losing/dying often considered to be the opposite of fun?

I would assume that's because the game since 3e (and really even the 2nd half of 2e) has been oriented around character building, and then demonstrating the utility of those builds against a variety of scenarios. Stopping that demonstration early doesn't make the game fun.

I think it's easy to forget that for most modern playstyles, the focus of play isn't the challenge, it's the performance.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would assume that's because the game since 3e (and really even the 2nd half of 2e) has been oriented around character building, and then demonstrating the utility of those builds against a variety of scenarios. Stopping that demonstration early doesn't make the game fun.

I think it's easy to forget that for most modern playstyles, the focus of play isn't the challenge, it's the performance.

This is...

...really insightful, actually. Thanks for giving me some food for thought!

 

[TwoSix]

This is...

...really insightful, actually. Thanks for giving me some food for thought!

You can poke holes in it, and plenty of games (and individual tables) blend various playstyles together, but it holds up pretty well for Trad/Neo-Trad games, in my experience. The DM skill being tested is building sets (encounters) and crafting a general script, the players' jobs are to act out their role and put their own unique spin on it, usually with a fair amount of improv.

 

[Umbran]

But are there players who actually expect the DM to keep them entertained and their characters alive no matter what?

I think more useful truth lies not in extremes (like, "no matter what"), but in the nuances - how much expectation is there, and how much is the GM expected to do to meet that expectation.

 

[el-remmen]

I think it's easy to forget that for most modern playstyles, the focus of play isn't the challenge, it's the performance.

Well and succinctly put. I think this phrasing will be useful for me in the future. Thanks.