D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[billd91]

Oofta, here's the thing. I know I don't try to scout ahead because the game doesn't really support it well. Let me explain- obviously, I can't scout ahead with a light source. So I have to rely on darkvision, if I happen to possess it, which imposes disadvantage on my perception, which isn't ideal in case I bump into something that is also hiding.

Now presumably, intelligent humanoids use light because their own darkvision has this nifty penalty attached, but many monsters lack hands. Even if my Stealth skills can easily bypass the passive Perception of most creatures, too many times have I seen the scout, who again, can probably see at best 60 ft. (superior darkvision being fairly rare) ahead, blunders into their own solo encounter.

I this is an example of where it's hard to talk about D&D because, to me, the game supports scouting ahead perfectly fine. But then it matches some of my expectations here: yes - it's hard to scout ahead without darkvision in a lightless environment; yes - one of the risks is running into a hidden creature that is hard to see because it's dark; yes - you might blunder into a dangerous situation. The game deals with, thus supports, all of those issues just fine. As I see it, the deterrent to scouting isn't because the game doesn't support it - the deterrent is the process of scouting exposes the scout to a considerable amount of danger... which it should.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Running away should ways be an option.

Running away should be difficult and bad.

Why are players not not running away?

 

[James Gasik]

I guess, I just look at the risk/reward structure. If the whole group runs into a fight at the same time, then we have all our tools to deal with it. If one guy runs into a fight with the party a couple turns away, they better hope they have strong running legs and don't get surprised. Which, sadly, the penalty to perception from darkvision makes more likely (though hopefully it balances out on both sides).

It only took one bad experience for me to say "haha, no, even if my character is proficient with Stealth, there has to be a better way". If I didn't despite the Warlock's mechanics so much, I'd play a Chain Pact Warlock to get an Imp to scout around for me.

 

[overgeeked]

I this is an example of where it's hard to talk about D&D because, to me, the game supports scouting ahead perfectly fine. But then it matches some of my expectations here: yes - it's hard to scout ahead without darkvision in a lightless environment; yes - one of the risks is running into a hidden creature that is hard to see because it's dark; yes - you might blunder into a dangerous situation. The game deals with, thus supports, all of those issues just fine. As I see it, the deterrent to scouting isn't because the game doesn't support it - the deterrent is the process of scouting exposes the scout to a considerable amount of danger... which it should.

Exactly this.

The game handles it fine. The player doesn't want to risk their character. Those are two wildly different things. The game models the risk fairly well. So in that sense, it mechanically supports that dangerous activity. The problem is the player not wanting to take risks with their character. Adventuring is dangerous business. The first rule of making a D&D character is to actually make an adventurer. If your character doesn't want to go on adventures (you know...delving dungeons saving dragons, and killing princes) you've made a mistake somewhere.

 

[James Gasik]

Running away should ways be an option.

Running away should be difficult and bad.

Why are players not not running away?

That pretty much sums up what I've seen. I hear all the time "oh you got into trouble, fool, you should have run". But then when I look at how the rules work, I'm like "this entire process looks like just as much of a pain as a fighting retreat would be" unless, again, you use the old D&D standby of "let's ignore the rules and just cast a spell to solve this problem".

 

[James Gasik]

Exactly this.

The game handles it fine. The player doesn't want to risk their character. Those are two wildly different things. The game models the risk fairly well. So in that sense, it mechanically supports that dangerous activity. The problem is the player not wanting to take risks with their character. Adventuring is dangerous business. The first rule of making a D&D character is to actually make an adventurer. If your character doesn't want to go on adventures (you know...delving dungeons saving dragons, and killing princes) you've made a mistake somewhere.

Of course the player wants to go on adventures, but they also want to survive those adventures. If going off on your lonesome seems to carry more risk than reward (whether it does or doesn't), a person isn't going to do it.

And the dangers of that kind of activity carry a lot of risks. Stealthy monsters and traps, for example. I saw firsthand what happened when players went into Sunless Citadel with the idea that they could just use darkvision to get around.

 

[overgeeked]

That pretty much sums up what I've seen. I hear all the time "oh you got into trouble, fool, you should have run". But then when I look at how the rules work, I'm like "this entire process looks like just as much of a pain as a fighting retreat would be" unless, again, you use the old D&D standby of "let's ignore the rules and just cast a spell to solve this problem".

Your options are:

1. Stay and fight and risk everyone dying.

2. Run away and risk some dying.

Running away, as difficult and dangerous as it is, is still the better option.

It comes down to players not wanting to risk their PCs. It like the rich people who go "glamping" instead of actually camping. "Sure, I'll go out into the woods and stay there for a few days...as long as I get to bring every modern amenity I can afford, and perfect access to the internet." So...you don't want to go camping...you just want to get close to some trees from the comfort of your home. Got it. There's nature documentaries for that.

Of course the player wants to go on adventures, but they also want to survive those adventures.

That's the assumption, but when it gets to the point where they refuse to take any risks? I won't scout ahead because I might run into trouble...okay, someone else should be the scout. I don't want to run away because I might get swarmed...okay, so you should be more careful about the fights you get into. They don't actually want to go on an adventure. No risks, no rewards.

If going off on your lonesome seems to carry more risk than reward (whether it does or doesn't), a person isn't going to do it.

Finding loot the other PCs don't know about. Finding traps and disarming them. Finding secret doors. Spotting where the enemies are and avoiding them. The person who wants to play the "I scout ahead" fantasy will...because that's the fantasy they want to play. And you run into the trouble of playing to the rules instead of the fantasy. The scout's job is to move silently ahead of the group. If they refuse, find a new scout. Just like you'd find a new cleric if they refuse to heal or find a new sword & board fighter if they refuse to tank.

And the dangers of that kind of activity carry a lot of risks.

Well, it's dangerous. It's supposed to.

Stealthy monsters and traps, for example. I saw firsthand what happened when players went into Sunless Citadel with the idea that they could just use darkvision to get around.

That's a common misreading of darkvision. Now those players know better. Lesson learned.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sometimes it feels like the 'right' way to play D&D makes it a massive, annoying pain.

 

[James Gasik]

Plus, and this is another point. We're told that it doesn't matter what characters you bring to the game, right? So what if you don't have a scout? Anyone who wears heavy armor is automatically removed from the equation due to the Stealth penalty. Depending on the intersection of race/class/background, you might have to go out of your way to be proficient in Stealth and have have the ability to not reveal your position if you try it.

We don't force people to be Clerics, I don't think the game should be modelled on "what, you didn't make a Dex-based character with darkvision?"

 

[overgeeked]

Some people want to play D&D as a superhero emulator with endless, pointless, drama-less, toothless fights. Others want to play D&D as a faux-medieval fantasy adventure game. Nothing wrong with either, or anything in between. But again, as per the video in the OP, that's kinda the point. Tables vary. Instead of pretending one-size-fits-all we should be open and honest about the differences in how we all play and what we're after. At some point maybe we'll realize that there are other games out there, and that they just might serve our tastes and our tables better than D&D. If you want fantasy superheroes, the actually purpose built superhero games will do an infinitely better job at that genre than D&D, and slapping a fantasy coat-of-paint over that will be infinitely easier than continuing to kludge D&D into something it's not.