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

[CreamCloud0]

In 5e GMs may have more power than they have had before (as much as they can have more power when the most fundamental rule of the game is ‘the GM has the final say on things, the rules obey them and are theirs to do with as they desire’), however, i feel that there is also a greater expectation than ever before that the GM use that power to play to the player’s desires, of the almighty genie and the human who holds the lamp that controls them, which is more powerful?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

An no one agreed or supported your desire to start play at a higher level? That is interesting as well. It suggest some things to me for sure.

If I was in the situation of joining a game, as a player, which included inexperienced players, I wouldn’t want to skip the training wheels levels!

 

[dave2008]

I would never willingly DM 5e. The only games I have less interest in running are PF1e and 3rd edition D&D.

To bad, there is a lot you can do with the system. As I mentioned, I would have suggested 4e but IIRC you have not been able to find people to play that edition.

So, just so we're clear: "Spend anywhere between 1 and 3 years building up a system you don't really like that much in the first place, cultivating a group of players who share your interests, on the hope that one of them will then eventually run a game you'd actually enjoy playing"?

I hope you can see why this isn't exactly a compelling sales pitch.

No, that is not what I am pitching. But it is interesting that you think that is the pitch. Even if that was the pitch though, your alternate seems to be to rant on a forum and not change anything or play a game you enjoy. Is that a better solution?

For the time being, I'm content to game with one of the better GMs I've played with over the years (our very own Hussar, who very graciously invited me into his long-term gaming group. We're actually about to hit my one-year anniversary with the group!)

That is good to hear.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

An no one agreed or supported your desire to start play at a higher level? That is interesting as well. It suggest some things to me for sure.

I floated it as a trial balloon in private, DM said no; I brought it up for consideration in a roundabout way in "session 0", nobody bit for the reason Paul Farquhar gave. Given the DM had already said no privately, I didn't feel comfortable making any kind of major discussion of it, as that would be pretty disrespectful.

To bad, there is a lot you can do with the system. As I mentioned, I would have suggested 4e but IIRC you have not been able to find people to play that edition.

Anything I could theoretically do with 5e I would find better or more interesting with a different system (either 4e, something PbtA, or 13th Age.)

No, that is not what I am pitching. But it is interesting that you think that is the pitch.

I'm not really sure what the intended pitch was then. You were suggesting that I cultivate a group where I am the DM, which is going to necessitate months or, more likely, years of gaming where I exclusively do DMing and thus don't get to play. I would then need to rely on one of those players electing to become DM; I'm not about to offer a group on the transactional idea that one of those players will in any way promise to become a DM for me later. I'm definitely not alone in the "Forever DM" experience, so I'm not really sure why you would anticipate that one of those players would be supremely likely to run a game themselves.

Even if that was the pitch though, your alternate seems to be to rant on a forum and not change anything or play a game you enjoy. Is that a better solution?

I consider it advocacy. I am advocating for the kind of game I would like to see. Given my experience has been "no games and no talking about games" or "no games but at least talking about games with the possibility that it will influence future game design", I find the latter more engaging.

That is good to hear.

I'm glad of it. We've moved from 5e to a different system (not strictly PbtA, but clearly a descendant thereof.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I run a Dungeon World game for my friends.


I would never willingly DM 5e. The only games I have less interest in running are PF1e and 3rd edition D&D.


So, just so we're clear: "Spend anywhere between 1 and 3 years building up a system you don't really like that much in the first place, cultivating a group of players who share your interests, on the hope that one of them will then eventually run a game you'd actually enjoy playing"?

I hope you can see why this isn't exactly a compelling sales pitch.


Given the near-zero likelihood of anyone I DM'd for actually choosing to become a DM themselves, I'm not really seeing any advantage either way. For the time being, I'm content to game with one of the better GMs I've played with over the years (our very own Hussar, who very graciously invited me into his long-term gaming group. We're actually about to hit my one-year anniversary with the group!)

Then seriously, why are you even taking part in these conversations? You seem to dislike the system on fundamental level, I frankly do not think your insights on how it should be change are meaningful. Like I hate Rolemaster, but I don't go into Rolemaster threads to complain about the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then seriously, why are you even taking part in these conversations? You seem to dislike the system on fundamental level, I frankly do not think your insights on how it should be change are meaningful. Like I hate Rolemaster, but I don't go into Rolemaster threads to complain about the game.

Well, it's unfortunate that you think they aren't meaningful. I think they are, and I have hope that it will, eventually, lead to change.

 

[dave2008]

I floated it as a trial balloon in private, DM said no; I brought it up for consideration in a roundabout way in "session 0", nobody bit for the reason Paul Farquhar gave. Given the DM had already said no privately, I didn't feel comfortable making any kind of major discussion of it, as that would be pretty disrespectful.

I think you need to take the voice you have in these forums to your session 0. You might be more effective then.

Anything I could theoretically do with 5e I would find better or more interesting with a different system (either 4e, something PbtA, or 13th Age.)

I only suggested tweaking 5e to your taste because I assumed you had problems finding games that suit your needs better. Personally we have found tweaking 5e to our needs to be great for us. Everyone is different though.

 

[dave2008]

Well, it's unfortunate that you think they aren't meaningful. I think they are, and I have hope that it will, eventually, lead to change.

It is great to have hope, but why do you think your conversations here will lead to any change? The only change I seem to see is you getting more and more frustrated / angry. That doesn't seem to me to be good for anyone. To be clear, I am not advocating for you to leave these forums, I think you do have some valuable insight and I look forward to your posts. However, I do seriously worry about your mental health. I lost my daughter last year to mental health and drug issues, so I am perhaps a bit triggered on that issue more than most.

 

[TwoSix]

An no one agreed or supported your desire to start play at a higher level? That is interesting as well. It suggest some things to me for sure.

Anecdotes are anecdotes, of course, but my groups have only started at 1st maybe a quarter of the time? 3rd-5th is the most common, and that's across about 10 different DMs.

 

[Maxperson]

So...what you're saying is, people don't do things because they like absolutely 100% of everything that those things do. They may do it because it is just "what is done". They may do it because there simply aren't alternatives being offered. They may do it because they like X thing a whole hell of a lot, but strenuously dislike Y and Z...just not enough to stop seeking X. They may do it because they lack the resources to do other things. They may do it because, even though they normally wouldn't, they've been encouraged to do so by someone else who likes it more. They may....

That's a lot of words. What I'm saying is that sometimes you like part of one thing, but not another part of it that is linked. At that point you need to decide which is stronger. Your desire to have what you like, or your dislike of the part that you don't like. Most women like the thin fabric more than they dislike the lack of functional pockets that goes hand in hand with those garments.

For those women who dislike the lack of pockets more, there are garments with heavier fabric and functional pockets that they can buy. There just isn't a wide selection, because most women still buy the non-pocketed items and companies go where the money is.

Etc., etc., etc. Note that my point here is not "everyone does it therefore they HATE it!!!!" That would be patently foolish. My point is simply that you cannot, under any circumstances, reason exclusively from "X is done" to "X is liked". There is no necessary nor sufficient relationship between those two things. "People do X, therefore they must like X" is an invalid argument. You need to actually...y'know, investigate what people like or don't like. You need to examine why something is pursued, and find out if the pursuit arises because of the specific traits of it, or because of some other reason--and which traits cause it.

It depends on if it's elective or not. If someone elects to do something that they don't have to do, it's reasonable to think that there's some reason that they like doing it. Whether they like fitting in with everyone else(all the other women are wearing thin fabric garments with no pockets), or they like it themselves, or they like the brand, or... If there's nothing they like about the elective, they would not elect to do it.

Remember: Champion was one of the lowest satisfaction subclasses (beaten only by Berserker and Beast Master, IIRC) in the lead-up to the 5.5e playtest. Yet Champion was also, consistently, one of the most-widely played subclasses, and so was Berserker! Why is that? Well, one simple reason is that the two of them were freely available, so more characters would get made with them. Another is that people like the idea of the "simple" warrior....but they may be unhappy with the specific execution. Since there's really no other options besides Champion and Berserker, people may still do that because they value the thematic expression, even if they dislike the rules associated with that thematic expression. If someone truly only enjoys the thematics of being a warrior, and truly dislikes the thematics of being a spellcaster of any kind, the choice is either to stop playing 5.0 (which, for many, wasn't an acceptable option, I'm sure, since 5e is often the literal only game in town), or to continue playing something they really don't like the rules for very much but which has the thematics they prefer.

Right. They liked playing simple more than they disliked what the subclass did, so overall they liked the subclass. Or they liked playing fighters more than they liked playing different classes with better free subclasses, so they went with the free Champion.

You don't have to like everything about something in order to like it. If their dislike of the Champion subclass had been stronger than their like of the fighter class or the simple class/subclass, then they would not have picked Champion and would have gone with something else.