D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Thomas Shey]

It's been a known thing for around 25 years of discussion about RPG play and design. I'm guessing it started on use-net? I linked upthread to a Forge essay from the early 21st century that tried to regiment some of the terminology that had emerged by that time.

It was, as far as I can tell, a rec.games.frp-advocacy creation. Note that as I said the usage you've been quoting seems to have collapsed some of the terms (which included, in no particular order Token, IC, Deep IC (aka Immersive), Actor, Director).

 

[Thomas Shey]

In part that's a chicken-and-egg situation: most players are not among those who like survival-style games (or west marches play, or "rogue-like" play) because most players who started with 4e-5e haven't really been exposed to such and thus haven't had a chance to determine whether they in fact like it or not.

I don't know that I buy it. I've played with a number of people who started gaming back when that was more common and they're still not fond of that sort of minutia. I think its more the inverse that more people back in the day accepted it because it was expected but over time decided life was too short, and since that expectation has faded, modern players are never likely to get in that in the first place unless they naturally lean in that direction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or a pulp genre game, or an action movie based game. I see D&D fitting into both.

Yeah, the issue with the two outright superheroes Pemerton had on that list was that they're ones that straddle the pulp and supers type genres, and avowedly do not have superhuman abilities (barring some gadgets in some cases). None of them are probably "realistic", but they're not superhuman per se, either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Batman is... an issue for D&D. His power is being a good fighter and... having a lot of effective mundane equipment that D&D would never dream of these days but a lot of which were in the AEG.

He's also, to varying degrees, a massive skill-monkey (this is actually sometimes a problem with representing similar characters in some supers games).

 

[Thomas Shey]

The designers had rejected such styles, sure, but that says nothing about the players' preferences.

I can promise you plenty of groups had long since moved away before the designers did.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know that I buy it. I've played with a number of people who started gaming back when that was more common and they're still not fond of that sort of minutia. I think its more the inverse that more people back in the day accepted it because it was expected but over time decided life was too short, and since that expectation has faded, modern players are never likely to get in that in the first place unless they naturally lean in that direction.

I'm sure that a lot of people are not genuinely interested in survival type of gameplay, but a big issue with how it often has been executed is that it is tedious bookkeeping and the rule structures are opaque and unclear. I think it would be more popular if it was more codified in somewhat abstracted manner and more gameable.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm sure that a lot of people are not genuinely interested in survival type of gameplay, but a big issue with how it often has been executed is that it is tedious bookkeeping and the rule structures are opaque and unclear. I think it would be more popular if it was more codified in somewhat abstracted manner and more gameable.

Sure, but that's also moving away from the traditional "manage ever step of the way" approach with minutia galore, which was the point.

 

[ezo]

Weird how death somehow pulls the curtains shut on a character's story in a game where a a dead PC can come back from death with revivify, reincarnate, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, & no doubt other methods. Players somehow having such a severe misunderstanding is a major flaw in how 5e presents PC risk & death to players.

Well, in some cases they can, sure. But it is hardly always possible. My PC just just died in our last session. Nothing above is available, certainly nothing in time to help. So, yeah, pretty much "curtains shut".

In fact, I would say IME 75% of the time if a PC dies--they stay dead.

Character death isn't that uncommon in 5e, particularly once you get into the mid-levels. "Actual character retirement due to death", if the player didn't want that to happen, is pretty much unheard of.

My PC was the 3rd since we began the campaign six months ago. None of them have come back yet. I said it is pretty fraggin' common.

FWIW, only one happened in tier 1, the other two have both been in tier 2. Not sure if you consider that "mid-level" but since most game only make it to 10th or so, I consider it "mid-level". YMMV, of course.

Given the choice between the two, I will gladly take the "will to live" over resurrection. But I'm fine with having neither.

But "will to live" means the PC did not, in fact, actually die. (And I agree, I perfer neither.)

 

[MichaelSomething]

Survival Sandboxes aren't popular??

What about Minecraft???

 

[Xenolith234]

People can know they don't like things by description without having to directly experience it. I know I won't like Dark Souls because I know what Dark Souls is like without having had to play it.

I mean…I don’t like Dark Souls but I like Elden Ring. DS was too hard with no other options than to move down the predetermined path and bash your head against the wall until you win. Elden Ring has the same difficulty but you have options and can control the engagement far more, or choose to go somewhere else. Same with combat-as-war D&D.