D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Lanefan]

It's perfectly possible to have a tense game where the threat of death just isn't on the table, barring a player choosing that for themself. I'd prefer the tension to come from the threat of failure - if the Dark Lich isn't defeated quickly, the duchy will fall under his rule, and hundreds will die! The kidnapped villagers will be sacrificed at the witching hour - you must stop the cultists before it's too late! Et cetera.

Assuming, of course, that your players and-or their characters give a damn about the villagers, or the duchy dwellers, or anything else that doesn't get 'em rich quick. They're more likely to want to defeat the Dark Lord so they can take his stuff.

High lethality can work - it's a great fit for Exploration-focused games, post-apocalyptic settings, and humorous games - but it only does for certain genres and tones, and those are usually the ones I'm not looking to play. :/

Perhaps that's our difference, then: to me, D&D is at its roots an exploration-based game, be it on the large (let's explore this world) or small (what's behind that door?) scale.

Lan-"and there's something wrong if it doesn't have some humour now and then as well"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

So I feel like, unless you have veteran and rule-savvy players, multiple characters in D&D is likely to result in a lot of stress/frustration. It's also challenging with D&D's advancement methods - unless you do something like adopt "You level when the DM says so" (which is a fine method, to be sure!), PCs are likely to get widely out-of-whack level-wise, and even with "flatter" versions of D&D like 2E and 5E, that's going to be a problem.

True, you need to be using a rules-light system e.g. 0e or stripped-down 1e. I did it in 3e and it wasn't as easy.

As for out-of-whack by level, why would that necessarily follow from playing multiple characters? Also, keep in mind that some level variance within the party is just fine in most editions (not sure how well 4e handles it).

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

But even if the goal is to entertain the players, sometimes the best way to do it is by screwing them in one way or another.

For all the wrong reasons, this might be the best piece of DMing advice I've ever seen.

Lan-"what happens at the table, stays at the table"-efan

 

[pemerton]

definition of "problem with game", "problem with players" and "problem with rules" is by no means clear cut. Frequently enough, you can shift the "blame" to any one of those three, with the blink of an eye.

<snip>

All of these are equally reasonable positions to take. Which says (to me, at least) that in general this is just a fact of life, and we have to manage it. You can manage it in rules - but then some concepts are impossible to represent accurately. You can manage it in the players, with them giving full acceptance to how they may put themselves into a quiet corner for a while. You can manage it in the GM, by paying lots and lots of attention to the adventures and encounters, to make sure quiet corners don't ever occur.

Or, you can try to strike a happy medium - a little control in rules, a little in players, a little in GM. I take this last position, as I find theoretical assertions don't hold a candle to actually thinking about the instance you have at and, and finding useful compromises in the field.

Good post. Though I think I have more faith in rules-based solutions (not just PC-build and action resolution mechanics, but also rules procedures for managing action declaration, narration of consequences, etc).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

In some versions of D&D, new characters always start with 0 XP. *Shudder* It sucks to die. It sucks to be the new guy in the group. You probably get stuck playing a 1st-level cleric.

I played that way for years and years. It's not that big of a deal. Any competent DM can arrange encounters so the player of the lower level PC has fun and doesn't have an undue chance of dying. And given the progression table of early editions of D&D the new PC will be near parity within a couple of game sessions. Later on I changed the rule to new PCs start 4 levels lower than the lowest in the party. PCs started at party level always feel hollow to me, like they lack a history.

 

[Umbran]

Good post. Though I think I have more faith in rules-based solutions (not just PC-build and action resolution mechanics, but also rules procedures for managing action declaration, narration of consequences, etc).

The problem with not having a rule-based solution is that the GM and/or players have to put effort into making sure it works. The problem with a rule-based solution is that rules are inflexible - so that either things some players want are prohibited, or the GM and players have to put effort into making sure things work, regardless.

It comes down to a simple fact - no finite and usable ruleset can do *everything*.

Also, quite frankly, if the resolution mechanics, management, and narration rules are not absolutely dirt-obvious and intuitive (and quick and easy), then they are too cumbersome for the table, as far as I am concerned. I prefer to see any game-rule-based solution to some of these problems discussed here be in the adventure/encounter design end, not in the moment-by-moment management of action. And then it isn't really a game rule, so much as advice on how to achieve certain kinds of results in play.

I also try to help solve such problems as a player as well. I have a habit of allowing all the other players to choose what they want in a character, and then choosing to fill whatever gaps are left*, so rarely does a party I am in lack crucial character types. I am patient, and have schooled myself to go ahead and wait through times that are slow for me, personally, by doing a lot of internal roleplay.



*There is a happy accident, in that I am at my most creative when given some restrictions.

 

[Elf Witch]

Assuming, of course, that your players and-or their characters give a damn about the villagers, or the duchy dwellers, or anything else that doesn't get 'em rich quick. They're more likely to want to defeat the Dark Lord so they can take his stuff.

Perhaps that's our difference, then: to me, D&D is at its roots an exploration-based game, be it on the large (let's explore this world) or small (what's behind that door?) scale.

Lan-"and there's something wrong if it doesn't have some humour now and then as well"-efan

I think that is they key finding what motivates the players. The group I play with get very involved in the world and with the NPCs so they give a damn and I can use that as a consequence that effects them as much or more than PC death.

 

[Ballbo Big'uns]

I'm not a fan of this type of thing either, but it's easily fixed at the DM level: the hireling says "no" to doing anything risky. He's here to make camp and cook dinner, getting shot is what you big ol' adventurers do.

Lanefan

Then what function do hirelings serve in the game?

 

[Lanefan]

Then what function do hirelings serve in the game?

Hirelings stay outside and tend the horses, make camp, cook, and when the time comes to carry a bunch of stuff back to town they become porters as well. They can also serve as local guides, etc. The nearest they might ever come to "adventuring" is helping the party carry all the loot out of the dungeon once the place has been completely cleared out and determined to be safe.

Henches are a different matter. As what amounts to adventurers-in-training they are expected to at least be around the danger zone (though it's still bad form to send them in first) so they can see what it's all about and sometimes help out when they can.

The difference between a hireling and a hench mostly boils down to that hirelings are non-adventurers while henches are.

Lanefan

 

[Ballbo Big'uns]

Hirelings stay outside and tend the horses, make camp, cook, and when the time comes to carry a bunch of stuff back to town they become porters as well. They can also serve as local guides, etc. The nearest they might ever come to "adventuring" is helping the party carry all the loot out of the dungeon once the place has been completely cleared out and determined to be safe.

Henches are a different matter. As what amounts to adventurers-in-training they are expected to at least be around the danger zone (though it's still bad form to send them in first) so they can see what it's all about and sometimes help out when they can.

The difference between a hireling and a hench mostly boils down to that hirelings are non-adventurers while henches are.

Lanefan

So henchmen are the ones who get sent down dungeon corridors to set off traps?