D&D 5E Is the Default Playstyle of 5E "Monty Haul?"

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

In 1E, Monty Haul was the result of giving the players too many magic items.

In 5E, MH is the result of the characters abilities, and out of the DMs control unless they homebrew character abilities to compensate...or increase the monsters' strength.

Or just use tougher monsters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Death is a fine option, sure. It's certainly the most common. But it's hardly the only option, and that's been true for every edition of D&D.

Nice in theory, but its also likely been something that is far more the exception than the rule in D&D games throughout its history.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, much of the problem seems to stem from the utter inability of some (many?) groups to accept the loss of one character as a valid price to pay for the survival of the greater party, e.g. everyone flees and the slowest gets eaten, even though were this reality that's exactly what would happen.

And then there's...

Of course, the DM could also decide that when everyone in the party reaches 0 hit points, they are routed instead, and immediately switch to a chase scene. Or maybe everything fades to black, and then the party wakes up to realize....

...they've been robbed and left for dead?​

...they were captured and dragged back to the enemy lair?​

...they've been rescued by a good Samaritan, who cautions them to be more careful?​

...they've been rescued by a devil, who is expecting payment. Right now.​

...they've been rescued by a necromancer who...aw man, this isn't a rescue, is it?​

...it was all a dream?​

...they're ghosts now?​

...that sword they found in the last dungeon had a special, life-saving power?​

Death is a fine option, sure. It's certainly the most common. But it's hardly the only option, and that's been true for every edition of D&D.

...this, which while fine once is very risky to do twice, as the players will start thinking their characters can't be killed and act accordingly.

It also depends on who-what TPKed them in the first place. The only TPK I've ever DMed was against a creature who just wanted servants; the dead PCs* all got animated as mindless zombies and are probably still bashing around in this guy's little off-plane hideaway. Not exactly playable.

* - the TPK was also helped significantly by the party's main Fighter being dominated and turned against the party. He survived and in effect became a living zombie - again, not exactly playable - until he starved to death, on which he joined the zombie brigade.

 

[tetrasodium]

First off, much of the problem seems to stem from the utter inability of some (many?) groups to accept the loss of one character as a valid price to pay for the survival of the greater party, e.g. everyone flees and the slowest gets eaten, even though were this reality that's exactly what would happen.

And then there's...

...this, which while fine once is very risky to do twice, as the players will start thinking their characters can't be killed and act accordingly.

It also depends on who-what TPKed them in the first place. The only TPK I've ever DMed was against a creature who just wanted servants; the dead PCs* all got animated as mindless zombies and are probably still bashing around in this guy's little off-plane hideaway. Not exactly playable.

* - the TPK was also helped significantly by the party's main Fighter being dominated and turned against the party. He survived and in effect became a living zombie - again, not exactly playable - until he starved to death, on which he joined the zombie brigade.

I'd add that there's a secondary factor where 5e PCs have such a high surviability that anything capable of being a threat has a really good chance of

Spoiler: scenario A

• monsters gank Alice
• Party gasps & tries to do something
• Monsters gank a just as helpless bob
• Remaining party tries to do something
• monsters gank Cindy
• Dave has a choice between declaring "I'm dead" & following the last 3

Spoiler: scenario B

• Monsters somehow gank Alice
• Nobody cares because revivify is basically free
• Party continues as if invincible

 

[Jahydin]

What if your players are having fun, but you're not?

I guess that a personal question.

For me, it would be impossible not to have fun if all my friends were engaged, laughing, and just having a good time. That's why I play games.

 

[Jahydin]

@Retreater
Not a popular option last time I mentioned it, but worked pretty good for me: Change things on the fly.

"The orc leader throws down his ax and pulls out a gnarly, magical one". "You cut into the robes with your sword to find Armor underneath."

Good way to signal to the players you're making things harder (cause they're awesome) without "cheating".

 

[Thomas Shey]

First off, much of the problem seems to stem from the utter inability of some (many?) groups to accept the loss of one character as a valid price to pay for the survival of the greater party, e.g. everyone flees and the slowest gets eaten, even though were this reality that's exactly what would happen.

I'll point out that there's a strong ethos, both in fiction and the real world that works against this "No man left behind." "Devil take the hindmost" is not a position people are required to share, especially in a game where many of them think they're playing heroes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess that a personal question.

For me, it would be impossible not to have fun if all my friends were engaged, laughing, and just having a good time. That's why I play games.

That to me reads like, "everyone should like the same things,and if you don't it is your problem". Shouldn't the DM's enjoyment matter at least as much as everyone else?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll point out that there's a strong ethos, both in fiction and the real world that works against this "No man left behind." "Devil take the hindmost" is not a position people are required to share, especially in a game where many of them think they're playing heroes.

Heroes sacrifice themselves to save others all the time. Kind of a classic heroic act, actually.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Heroes sacrifice themselves to save others all the time. Kind of a classic heroic act, actually.

Read the post I was replying to again; he didn't discuss someone playing Horatio at the Bridge; he described them leaving the weakest member behind. There's an important difference between the two (among other things, its the player who's character will be lost that decides it--and the other players/characters are not obliged to accept it even then).