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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

The point, then, is that it isn't just a theoretical thing--you do in fact in practice accept that there are times where higher resemblance to a physical-world situation would be worse than a very slight sacrifice of that resemblance in order to reap major gains in another area (in this case, the entirely-narrative concept of "pacing").

Hence, complaining that something is done for a narrative reason isn't, in isolation, a valid dismissal, yet you have done so in this thread, more than once. That's why @pemerton and others (like me) are so surprised that you would do anything whatever, even if pressed hard, that pursues anything narrative at all. In order to address this gap, you have to actually add more, not just "well that's narrative-driven, so it's bad." The argument needs at least one of (a) why the sacrifice to the resemblance-to-physical-world would be too great, (b) why the gain elsewhere is not of sufficient value to justify the associated sacrifice, or (c) why this specific narrative goal isn't as valuable as claimed.

In the absence of that, it really is quite shocking that you have, repeatedly, rejected anything narrative at all, solely on the basis that it is narrative-driven, and yet you do in fact do narrative-driven things yourself. Whether you do them while holding your nose, wishing there were another way, is not nearly as relevant as the fact that you will, in fact, accept some, very limited, purposeful sacrifices to verisimilitude/realism/etc.

Up until this point, I genuinely believed you held that absolutely maximal verisimilitude/realism/etc. was always best, no matter what sacrifices had to be made elsewhere. That if you learned there was something further you could sacrifice in order to get even the tiniest gain of verisimilitude/realism/etc., you would not only do it, you would do it gladly regardless of the cost. That is, demonstrably, not true--and it now means a number of points you had previously made need to be revisited, because your position is now not "absolute maximization of verisimilitude is always the best state"--but rather "maximizing verisimilitude without too much sacrifice in other useful areas", which is a much more fruitful field of discussion, albeit one that is also much more nuanced.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

That you do this is because you are not prioritizing verisimilitude/etc. above absolutely all other goals, always, no matter what. You understand that pacing, a narrative conceit, can sometimes get so bad that it does not matter that the thing is more verisimilitudinous/realistic/etc., the tiny gain is not worth the massive sacrifice of long stretches of boring non-events.

In other words, even if you consider verisimilitude the single most important goal, even if you consider it significantly more important than any other single goal, it is both (a) not the only goal that is worth pursuing, and (b) possible in at least some circumstances, however rare or limited, that a reasonably-small sacrifice in verisimilitude/realism/etc. is in fact warranted if it reaps massive benefits somewhere else, for some reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with verisimilitude/realism/etc. but instead something else. (That "something else" in this case is a narrative benefit, tighter pacing and continuity of action, but at least in principle it could be some other thing, perhaps improved gameplay, reduced GM workload, making the game easier to learn, etc.)

Further, I would say @Micah Sweet would have rather strong words in response to the statement "It's a game. In world reality has little to do with the experience at the table." I'm given to understand that, for his preferred style of play, in-world reality has everything to do with the experience at the table. Prior to my previous post, I had in fact been under the impression that, in his ideal game, in-world reality would map perfectly, 1:1, with the experience at the table. I have since learned that this is not true, that he would in fact make some--again, small, limited, narrowly-tailored, purposeful--sacrifices to in-world reality mapping to at-table experience. There are some contexts, however rare or caveat-couched, where he would in fact choose the less-verisimilitudinous/less-realistic/etc. option, despite having a general principle of "more verisimilitude/realism/etc. = better".

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point, then, is that it isn't just a theoretical thing--you do in fact in practice accept that there are times where higher resemblance to a physical-world situation would be worse than a very slight sacrifice of that resemblance in order to reap major gains in another area (in this case, the entirely-narrative concept of "pacing").

Hence, complaining that something is done for a narrative reason isn't, in isolation, a valid dismissal, yet you have done so in this thread, more than once. That's why @pemerton and others (like me) are so surprised that you would do anything whatever, even if pressed hard, that pursues anything narrative at all. In order to address this gap, you have to actually add more, not just "well that's narrative-driven, so it's bad." The argument needs at least one of (a) why the sacrifice to the resemblance-to-physical-world would be too great, (b) why the gain elsewhere is not of sufficient value to justify the associated sacrifice, or (c) why this specific narrative goal isn't as valuable as claimed.

In the absence of that, it really is quite shocking that you have, repeatedly, rejected anything narrative at all, solely on the basis that it is narrative-driven, and yet you do in fact do narrative-driven things yourself. Whether you do them while holding your nose, wishing there were another way, is not nearly as relevant as the fact that you will, in fact, accept some, very limited, purposeful sacrifices to verisimilitude/realism/etc.

Up until this point, I genuinely believed you held that absolutely maximal verisimilitude/realism/etc. was always best, no matter what sacrifices had to be made elsewhere. That if you learned there was something further you could sacrifice in order to get even the tiniest gain of verisimilitude/realism/etc., you would not only do it, you would do it gladly regardless of the cost. That is, demonstrably, not true--and it now means a number of points you had previously made need to be revisited, because your position is now not "absolute maximization of verisimilitude is always the best state"--but rather "maximizing verisimilitude without too much sacrifice in other useful areas", which is a much more fruitful field of discussion, albeit one that is also much more nuanced.

There are times when you have to use an abstraction, narrative or otherwise, in order for table play to work. I have never said otherwise. I dislike doing it, so my default stance is that you shouldn't if it can be practically avoided.

Sometimes it can't be, and when that happens you do what works best for you and your group.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are times when you have to use an abstraction, narrative or otherwise, in order for table play to work. I have never said otherwise. I dislike doing it, so my default stance is that you shouldn't if it can be practically avoided.

Sometimes it can't be, and when that happens you do what works best for you and your group.

So you recant the argument that doing something for narrative reasons is always bad and should be abjured because it is done for narrative reasons? Because I know for a fact you made a variation on that argument in this very thread. It'd take a while to dig up the exact post, we are over 1100 posts in now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can you provide a more than one word answer? Otherwise why bother replying at all?

The entirety of the Lord of the Rings is based on heroic decisions. At any point in the story, it is feasible and possible (if we were to consider this a role-playing game) for them to have made a different decision. The fact that they didn't is irrelevant, just like the fact that I chose to play an Astral Elf Rogue in one of my last games does not mean that I could never have possibly made a different decision.

I don't know how else to explain to you that, for the fiction to function, they had to have been making meaningful decisions, which means they had to be deciding things. I'll even point out that, as a writer myself, I'll guarantee Tolkien had drafts where the characters made slightly different decisions, showing it was possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you recant the argument that doing something for narrative reasons is always bad and should be abjured because it is done for narrative reasons? Because I know for a fact you made a variation on that argument in this very thread. It'd take a while to dig up the exact post, we are over 1100 posts in now.

Maybe I misspoke somewhere, it's certainly possible. I prefer to avoid doing anything in an RPG for narrative reasons, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

My point doesn't care how long it takes at the table? But it is interesting that you would choose to fast forward through it with a 30 second explanation rather than play it out like you would other potential plot hooks. Do you take less than 30 seconds for adventures where things happen? I imagine not.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Right, there would still be wandering monsters to fight. You would not have a situation where NOTHING is happening. Where there is nothing to do, nothing to fight, nothing to explore, nothing to investigate. If you did.... you'd brush past it with a 30 second "and you wasted your time" and move on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Which would prove what I'm saying

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".

And now you are changing the scenario. Now it isn't that there are rumors of something happening that turn out to be false alarms. Now it is you, as the DM, stating that they are either fast forwarding through time or moving to a different location, because nothing interesting is happening here. Which, again, not something I've ever experienced in real life. Never had some voice from the aether tell me that there is no adventure in my area and I should move on if I want adventure.

 

[pemerton]

Are the characters in LotR provided any options other than follow the path to adventure or go home?

I still don't really know what this is supposed to mean. What does it mean to say that a character in a novel is provided with an option?

But we can look at events that occur in the novel, the personalities and aspirations of the protagonists, and the established setting, and conjecture other choices that might have been made. Sam could have stayed home, tended lawns, and married Rosie. (But most likely not become Mayor.) Aragorn could have travelled to Minas Tirith rather than Rohan. Gimli could have attempted to found a new settlement in Moria. Faramir could have taken the Ring from Frodo. Etc.

What I would say that "the adventure hook" of LotR is a bad choice for more sandboxy game. It is basically about the fate of the world. That one thing is so big that it cannot really be ignored and it overwhelms any other potential "hooks." I think "multiple optional hooks" setup will probably produce something that resembles more an anthology of Conan adventures rather than an epic with one overarching plot like LotR.

This is interesting, because it suggests that, while sandbox is normally presented as a fiction-neutral play methodology, it is actually not fiction-neutral at all, but rather imposes strong limits on the fiction. Even some Conan stories - namely, the ones where he is king (The Phoenix on the Sword, The Scarlet Citadel, The Hour of the Dragon) - seem to be ruled out.