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

[Autumnal]

Well, in the spirit of why trickle from the tap when one can gush from the firehose - the relationship rules for Burning Wheel also allow taking an enemy/hostile relationship. BW is more nuanced than Torchbearer, and so "hostile" ranges more broadly than "enemy" - it can include more soap-operatic conflicts between the characters.

Yeah. Unfortunately…iff vi e got a weird cardio/autonomic nervous system problem, and besides my blood pressure dropping 50-80 points when I stand up, it basically makes me somewhat stupid all the time and intensely stupid at random moments of stress. I couldn’t keep Burning Wheel in my head. It was un-fun. If this condition ever goes away - which varies without explanation among people with it - I’d like to come back to BW.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was responding to you saying that "speedrunning through all the unimportant times in order to focus on the important ones, is a narrative conceit."

I disagree. There are plenty of reasons to "speedrun" that have nothing to do with narrative conceit or verisimilitude. As a game we always skip over a bunch of stuff. Whether we don't narrate much detail about downtime, going to the latrine, or going on a wild goose chase, it doesn't matter. We don't go into detail on everything because we literally cannot.

No. You literally can, if you want to. Some RPGs do. You don't want to. Because that would be boring for you. Which is a narrative concern, preserving pacing. You don't want it to bog down with pointless nothing.

 

[Oofta]

Right, but do player-authored motives and opportunities have to be everything? I know it's what you prefer...

Or if it's my group, they all just look at me dumbfounded in the last session 0 and basically said "You're creative, you figure out what all the plot hooks are!"

 

[Oofta]

No. You literally can, if you want to. Some RPGs do. You don't want to. Because that would be boring for you. Which is a narrative concern, preserving pacing. You don't want it to bog down with pointless nothing.

So you do play minute-by-minute? Everyone sits around the table pretending to sleep because their characters are? Do you RP going to the latrine? A) I doubt it for a game that only spans a few hours of a character's life. B) Why the **** would you?

EDIT: unless of course you are redefining the word "literally" or there's a complete failure of communication. But in a typical D&D game? Where a single session could easily span days or even weeks? It's literally not possible.

 

[soviet]

So you do play minute-by-minute? Everyone sits around the table pretending to sleep because their characters are? Do you RP going to the latrine? A) I doubt it for a game that only spans a few hours of a character's life. B) Why the **** would you?

I think the point that EzekielRaiden is making is that when GMs skip ahead for long journeys or those times the characters are sleeping or pooping, they are making that decision for narrative reasons.

EDIT: unless of course you are redefining the word "literally" or there's a complete failure of communication. But in a typical D&D game? Where a single session could easily span days or even weeks? It's literally not possible.

A single session only spans days or weeks because the participants are skipping ahead like this. If one were to not do this, each hour of play in real life would equal one hour of activity in the game world. In this way it would be literally (correct use of literally) possible to play out a three week journey in three hour increments over 168 sessions of play. No-one would do it, of course, it would be tedious, but it is literally possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or if it's my group, they all just look at me dumbfounded in the last session 0 and basically said "You're creative, you figure out what all the plot hooks are!"

Hence, adventure hooks.

 

[Dr_Sly]

I prefer that characters stay alive in D&D. Unless a player is really asking for it… Anyways, depends on the type of audience and the type of game. Some games really are highly lethal by design and by feel.

 

[Oofta]

I think the point that EzekielRaiden is making is that when GMs skip ahead for long journeys or those times the characters are sleeping or pooping, they are making that decision for narrative reasons.


A single session only spans days or weeks because the participants are skipping ahead like this. If one were to not do this, each hour of play in real life would equal one hour of activity in the game world. In this way it would be literally (correct use of literally) possible to play out a three week journey in three hour increments over 168 sessions of play. No-one would do it, of course, it would be tedious, but it is literally possible.

Do any games actually do that? You would have to limit the entire "campaign" to what you can be played contiguously at the table. Even assuming you did something like the old 24 TV show where every episode was a real time accounting of what went on. But even then, there was plenty of time were time was skipped for individuals.

I just don't see how it could work, or why you would bother.

 

[soviet]

Do any games actually do that? You would have to limit the entire "campaign" to what you can be played contiguously at the table. Even assuming you did something like the old 24 TV show where every episode was a real time accounting of what went on. But even then, there was plenty of time were time was skipped for individuals.

I just don't see how it could work, or why you would bother.

Once again: no-one is advocating for it. The point is simply that it is possible. And by choosing not to do it, by choosing to skip parts of the adventure because they are not interesting, one is making a decision for narrative reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Once again: no-one is advocating for it. The point is simply that it is possible. And by choosing not to do it, by choosing to skip parts of the adventure because they are not interesting, one is making a decision for narrative reasons.

So...gotcha? You do what you have to sometimes.