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

[pemerton]

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.

I prefer to avoid doing anything in an RPG for narrative reasons, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

It's not hard, in RPGing, to eschew the use of adventure hooks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

So I am not any sort of sandbox expert, but I think in certain sense you're right. If the intent is to cultivate an environment where the players can choose the direction of the game via the actions of their characters, certain setups become counterproductive. And funnily enough the exact same thing goes for many story now games; an overarching massive "main plot" that forces the game to be about that might be undesirable.

It's not hard, in RPGing, to eschew the use of adventure hooks.

Given that my understanding of that term is basically "interesting things that can be pursued are telegraphed to exist in the world," I guess one could try to avoid doing that, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[pemerton]

Given that my understanding of that term is basically "interesting things that can be pursued are telegraphed to exist in the world," I guess one could try to avoid doing that, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Well, the alternative approach (or at least, an alternative approach and the one that I am familiar with) is to have characters live their own lives - which may well be interesting ones, if they are interesting characters - without the need for the telegraphing of interesting things that are external to the characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, the alternative approach (or at least, an alternative approach and the one that I am familiar with) is to have characters live their own lives - which may well be interesting ones, if they are interesting characters - without the need for the telegraphing of interesting things that are external to the characters.

I think it is easier to have an interesting life if you do not live in a boring featureless void.

 

[Oofta]

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".

It has nothing to do with verisimilitude. There are going to be times when no input is needed from the players. If there are no decisions to be made, no RP opportunities, we skip it. I regularly narrate long distance travel, only to get into details when the group comes across an interesting situation, individual or some other potential encounter. In world years can go by between story arcs what possible value would it add to RP those years?

I see no reason to spend time at the table describing drudgery. It is obvious that in-world time is completely separate from time at the gaming table, even if you care about making the world feel like a real, living, breathing existence. I have no idea what you're going on about because there is no connection between what periods of time the group decides to skip over and verisimilitude.

 

[soviet]

I think it is easier to have an interesting life if you do not live in a boring featureless void.

I think it is easier to have an interesting game if your characters are not a boring featureless void awaiting external motivation to adventure, but instead have things they want to do built in already.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it is easier to have an interesting life if you do not live in a boring featureless void.

Agreed. I've seen a few players come to my table with that particular six cultures of play inspired take on adventure hooks. The minimal effort invested in their story inspiration session never comes anywhere near meeting the lofty expectations coming with them & it never works out when N players show up to the table expecting N personalized highly specific personalized parallel stories with the same personal investment as a trad dungeon crawl.... Lots of MY Character doesn't want to get involved" & "let's go somewhere else" The rest of the group just wants to play d&d so goes along with it often enough to lead into eventual follow ups like "why does your(the GM's) story not make much sense? & "Why do you(the GM) keep introducing new stuff, you(the GM) never got into [that thing Bob didn't want to get involved in] back before [Alice wanted to go somewhere else]".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it is easier to have an interesting game if your characters are not a boring featureless void awaiting external motivation to adventure, but instead have things they want to do built in already.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It has nothing to do with verisimilitude. There are going to be times when no input is needed from the players. If there are no decisions to be made, no RP opportunities, we skip it. I regularly narrate long distance travel, only to get into details when the group comes across an interesting situation, individual or some other potential encounter. In world years can go by between story arcs what possible value would it add to RP those years?

I see no reason to spend time at the table describing drudgery. It is obvious that in-world time is completely separate from time at the gaming table, even if you care about making the world feel like a real, living, breathing existence. I have no idea what you're going on about because there is no connection between what periods of time the group decides to skip over and verisimilitude.

You inserted yourself into a discussion about whether "adventure hooks" were a narrative conceit or not. If you don't see the relevance, why did you join the conversation in the first place?

I'm not sure what the "both" here are supposed to be. From the thing you quoted, the two sides seem to be "characters who are boring, featureless voids" and "characters with built-in motivations". I am quite confident nobody here wants "a boring, featureless void" of any kind, so I'm unclear what the dos are supposed to be in this ¿Por qué no los dos?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what the "both" here are supposed to be. From the thing you quoted, the two sides seem to be "characters who are boring, featureless voids" and "characters with built-in motivations". I am quite confident nobody here wants "a boring, featureless void" of any kind, so I'm unclear what the dos are supposed to be in this ¿Por qué no los dos?

The dos are characters with built-in motivations and a world with interesting things to pursue in it.