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

[Chaosmancer]

If you say no and the player says yes, what happens?

We discuss the rules like adults.

Again, seriously, this insistence that it is utterly impossible for the game to work unless someone is the unquestioned authority is getting old. You aren't proving the point you think you are proving. Yes, maybe it is possible that after a discussion of the rules, reading over the text together and a discussion of play priorities and their expectations two people will have different opinions.

What happens if we two agree about their character, but some third person who isn't playing the character disagrees? What if three other people agree with that guy? What if Treantmonk posts a video essay on why we are all wrong because we missed this rule? What if DnD Shorts says that video is wrong because he didn't read an errata?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've known games played at locations other than the DM's residence but have never seen a game where the DM wasn't either setting the schedule or holding full veto power; if only because while a game can still sail without one or more players, if there's no DM there's no game.

I've been in games where I was the DM, and I did not set schedule.

And while yeah, if the DM can't make it, the DM doesn't run the game, that doesn't mean that the DM has to be the one to decide where and when we meet. Just that you need to make sure the DM can make it. Just like you attempt to make sure everyone can make it. Heck, I know at least one DM who won't run if ANYONE is missing. Does that mean every single player in that game has "veto power" over the schedule?

And acts as a reference for the DM, sure, but it's still the DM who makes the final call - which depending on the situation and-or table preference may or may not agree with what the rules expert just said.

If the DM goes "well, I don't like James reading of the rule, but he's the rule guy so we will go with that." Doesn't that make James the Final Authority on the rules? Even if you in theory posit that the DM could at anytime decide not to follow those rules... if they never do, then the DM isn't the final authority on the rules, the other guy is. And if the table refuses to let the DM contradict the rules guy... then the DM can't contradict him without the group imploding.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My accepting the word of those who claim hard binary choices come up fairly often.

Except even they say it is rare?

 

[Lanefan]

I've been in games where I was the DM, and I did not set schedule.

And while yeah, if the DM can't make it, the DM doesn't run the game, that doesn't mean that the DM has to be the one to decide where and when we meet. Just that you need to make sure the DM can make it. Just like you attempt to make sure everyone can make it. Heck, I know at least one DM who won't run if ANYONE is missing. Does that mean every single player in that game has "veto power" over the schedule?

Yes it does. And if I followed the same standard of only sailing with a full house I'd only run about half the sessions I do.

If the DM goes "well, I don't like James reading of the rule, but he's the rule guy so we will go with that." Doesn't that make James the Final Authority on the rules?

Not if the DM can still veto what James says if she so desires.

Even if you in theory posit that the DM could at anytime decide not to follow those rules... if they never do, then the DM isn't the final authority on the rules, the other guy is. And if the table refuses to let the DM contradict the rules guy... then the DM can't contradict him without the group imploding.

Then it implodes. So be it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except even they say it is rare?

Not as rare as you say.

 

[pemerton]

old school Wizard design was "early levels suck so you can have fun later".

I don't think that this is quite right.

It was, "early levels are somewhat harder, but higher levels allow you to be stronger". The MU seems to have been deliberately designed to allow more skilled/clever players to show off - at low levels, you can still be very effective in play but you have to be clever in how you use your limited repertoire of spells. While at higher levels, if you are competent in spell load out and spell use, you will be the tactical and operational, and maybe even strategic, director of your group.

This sort of design makes more sense when players are maintaining a stable of PCs and/or henchmen - so that someone doesn't get stuck with playing "just" a fighter all the way through years of play. And obviously it may not be to everyone's taste.

But for a player who does enjoy exercising that skill and showing off their cleverness, playing a low level MU needn't suck.

 

[Oofta]

We discuss the rules like adults.

Same old non-answer as expected. Sometimes reasonable people disagree.

Again, seriously, this insistence that it is utterly impossible for the game to work unless someone is the unquestioned authority is getting old. You aren't proving the point you think you are proving. Yes, maybe it is possible that after a discussion of the rules, reading over the text together and a discussion of play priorities and their expectations two people will have different opinions.

Did I say it was utterly impossible? No. Did I ever say anything about unquestionable authority? No. I'm sure there are many ways of dealing with it. I simply had a question. The DM says "no the rule doesn't work that way", the player says "yest it does". What happens. But you are unwilling to answer a simple question. If a DM repeatedly makes decisions I disagree with I could, and have, left the game.

What happens if we two agree about their character, but some third person who isn't playing the character disagrees? What if three other people agree with that guy? What if Treantmonk posts a video essay on why we are all wrong because we missed this rule? What if DnD Shorts says that video is wrong because he didn't read an errata?

Anyone at the table has the right to raise objections. If someone is truly upset or disturbed about another player's actions we'll discuss it and in most make allowances for the person that is not having fun. Without specific details though, I can't make a final call. If the Snarf that is upset that Kim play a bard, I'll discuss it but I'm not going to stop Kim from playing a bard. If Snarf is upset because Kim's bard is using all sorts of foul language, I'll ask Kim to tone it down.

As for the rest, the DM makes the final call. Just like the books have advised for half a century.

 

[Oofta]

Not as rare as you say.

I make minor clarifications to the rules on a regular basis, typically the response is "Oh, that's right", "I forgot" or "It is? Okay." For that last one it's because I have some really casual players who don't remember all the rules. That or there's a rule that's a bit vague and I get asked "How do you run it."

What is rare is both of us being familiar with the rule, reading the same exact text and coming to different conclusions without the player acknowledging that there is more than one way to interpret the rule which goes back to the "How do you run it" scenario.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that this is quite right.

It was, "early levels are somewhat harder, but higher levels allow you to be stronger". The MU seems to have been deliberately designed to allow more skilled/clever players to show off - at low levels, you can still be very effective in play but you have to be clever in how you use your limited repertoire of spells. While at higher levels, if you are competent in spell load out and spell use, you will be the tactical and operational, and maybe even strategic, director of your group.

This sort of design makes more sense when players are maintaining a stable of PCs and/or henchmen - so that someone doesn't get stuck with playing "just" a fighter all the way through years of play. And obviously it may not be to everyone's taste.

But for a player who does enjoy exercising that skill and showing off their cleverness, playing a low level MU needn't suck.

Eh, running around throwing darts did kind of suck. Which happened if you go back far enough. Not a lot of creativity when you have 1 spell and you had to prepare specific spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh, running around throwing darts did kind of suck. Which happened if you go back far enough. Not a lot of creativity when you have 1 spell and you had to prepare specific spells.

The creativity mostly lies in finding ways to be useful and effective without magic. Having some sort of skill or proficiency system, like some OSR games do, helps with this.