D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see how. I'm not saying your quest for verisimilitude is bad. I'm saying that I cannot see how you square an allegedly "I do not want ANY narrative-driven concerns, EVER, for ANY reason" argument with using adventure hooks, however "in the world" the hook may be. Your description is not only knowingly narrative, it is knowingly narrative in a place where you could have instead chosen a less-narrative approach.

The world is full of interesting things. I am unapologetic about that. There are ways in setting for the PCs to learn about these, which may lead to them seeking them out. I don't see that as particularly narrative, especially as I'm not pushing to them to choose any of them.

 

[Autumnal]

I guess that depends on what your definition of verisimilitude is.

Sorry, i just couldn't resist.

“You’ve done a man’s work, sir!” - Edward James Olmos, in Blade Runner

 

[Lanefan]

That's true. But the structure of LotR is very similar to an adventure path, with a single overarching story. The characters don't choose from several possible ways to spend their time, things to explore and/or investigate, unless you count the choice to not engage at all and go home. An adventure hook is almost always (always in my games) one of several possible opportunities to follow or ignore, always allowing the additional choice of going off in whatever direction the PCs want, without any hook.

In short, LotR is not a sandbox.

Well, it is and it isn't.

It isn't a sandbox in that there's only one overarching goal and everything that's done is in one way or another done in service of achieving that goal.

It is, to a point, a sandbox in that the party forms, gets distracted by a few side quests, gets bigger, splits into three separate parties two of which do their own side quests then re-merge later, and eventually everyone reunites at the end. There's way more there than a typical AP would include.

 

[Lanefan]

False Rumors =/= "We RP doing nothing with no threats, no rewards, and no puzzles for a week of game time"

And said week of game time can take less than 30 seconds of table time, unless for whatever reason the players want to play out their characters' interactions with each other e.g. pranks, pub chats, romances, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

In this situation did the players do anything before finding the site cleaned out? Did they fight ANY monsters, deal with ANY mysteries, anything at all?



Same question, as they leave to investigate this until they figure out their information was out of date, do they encounter ANY challenges, fights, struggles, ect?



Oh, so there is a fight. So this doesn't count for my point.



Does this mean they encounter no challenges, no fights, and nothing of interest?



PCs choosing to pursue something else is not the example I gave, so doesn't count as a rebuttal.



More or less empty? So they still had something to do and not nothing to do?



Does this mean they encounter no challenges, no fights, and nothing of interest?


See, for most of this, you seemed to have missed my point. My point was not "rumors are never wrong in the games". That was not what I was saying. That is why I continued to expound. No monsters. No challenges. No puzzles. No treasure. Literally nothing happens as the party just camps in empty fields and in forests until deciding to do something else.

In "real life" this happens all the time. You go to pursue some goal or travel to some location, and it turns out there is nothing and you just wasted your time. You don't meet interesting people. You don't have any exciting stories. Just... nothing happens. But this doesn't happen in the game... because it is a game.

In many of those situations there'd be random wandering monsters encountered because that's what happens (sometimes) when you're wandering around in the wild. But your point was more about the rumour itself being false or misleading, I thought, and that it's unrealistic that such would never happen; to which I stated some instances where it did.

 

[Lanefan]

No it isn't, not if you understand what my point is.

The point is that, in the course of playing the game, you are never put in a situation where there is nothing interesting going on. IF your response to that is "well that only happens if the players ignore the interesting things going on" then the players were never in a situation where there is nothing interesting going on, because if they were, then there would be nothing for them to ignore or miss.

Just because the players (in or out of character) aren't interested in it doesn't mean there's nothing going on.

And yes, there's been times when it's come down to "Your characters are either taking the winter off or going somewhere else to seek adventure, 'cause there's really nothing going on here right now".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And said week of game time can take less than 30 seconds of table time, unless for whatever reason the players want to play out their characters' interactions with each other e.g. pranks, pub chats, romances, etc.

But that exact thing, speedrunning through all the unimportant times in order to focus on the important ones, is a narrative conceit. It improves the pacing of the experience, which I am quite well aware is NOT how reality works. Reality couldn't give a damn about pacing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, it is and it isn't.

It isn't a sandbox in that there's only one overarching goal and everything that's done is in one way or another done in service of achieving that goal.

It is, to a point, a sandbox in that the party forms, gets distracted by a few side quests, gets bigger, splits into three separate parties two of which do their own side quests then re-merge later, and eventually everyone reunites at the end. There's way more there than a typical AP would include.

I never said it was a poor quality adventure path.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that exact thing, speedrunning through all the unimportant times in order to focus on the important ones, is a narrative conceit. It improves the pacing of the experience, which I am quite well aware is NOT how reality works. Reality couldn't give a damn about pacing.

Not sure what your point is. Sometimes for practical purposes you have to accept certain narrative conceits. That is something I see as a necessary evil we deal with because we're playing a game together.

 

[Oofta]

But that exact thing, speedrunning through all the unimportant times in order to focus on the important ones, is a narrative conceit. It improves the pacing of the experience, which I am quite well aware is NOT how reality works. Reality couldn't give a damn about pacing.

It's a game. In world reality has little to do with the experience at the table. I rarely throw in false rumors and if I do it's for a reason. On the other hand there will frequently be long stretches of boredom and downtime but it will only take a short time in game. I don't see much difference.