D&D 5E Combat as war, sport, or ??

[Lanefan]

I can't remember what book it was (maybe the domains of dread reprint of classes, or maybe the black boarder reprint of teh PHB) but by the end of the edition it was at least strongly recommended max 1st hd...

You're talking 2e here, right?

I remember this well because it caused a HUGE fight when a player rolled up a mage level 1 and had a low con (I think it was a 5) rolled a 1 for HP and the DM ruled that character died and he had to start over... and as you point out that was the last step so we had already spent some time making characters. (and it was 3d6 place as you get it and he rolled both an 18 int and a 16 wis).... he brought up the newer thing about max 1st level and that would give him 3, and another thing (maybe a splat book or maybe dragon mag my mind is foggy) that says min 1hp per level...

I think minimum 1 h.p. per level is RAW in 1e, though I forget whether it's in the PH or DMG. I can only assume it carried forward into 2e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're talking 2e here, right?

yes

I think minimum 1 h.p. per level is RAW in 1e, though I forget whether it's in the PH or DMG. I can only assume it carried forward into 2e.

I can't be sure if it's RAW 2e or not

 

[Fanaelialae]

You have different players, and a different dynamic, than I.

We agree that RPGs are a group activity; that's a start. That said, hockey is also a group activity; where two teams are trying to win and in doing so will often push the rules envelope as far as they can until-unless the ref calls a penalty.

As a player at an RPG table, I see my main purposes being to roleplay my character in-game and advocate for my character out-of-game. Among other things, that out-of-game advocacy includes finding ways to make things easier on my character in the game...which in turn means pushing against the rules envelope if the opportunity arises.

It's the DM's job to push back, and make sure I and-or the other players don't break the game; and it's on me to accept that pushback if-when it comes.

I get this sentiment. My concern with defaulting to easier encounters is that doing so will set expectations among said new DM's new players that that's how it'll always be, leading to dissatisfaction and complaints when the difficulty gets ramped up later.

It comes back to the premise that "start hard then ease off" is a better formula than "start easy then (try to) add difficulty".

Here's the Bad Things breakdown, by adventure number. It seems I'd forgotten a few...

1. none
2. 1 level drain, 2 major agings (which I'd forgotten about in my previous posts)
3. 1 level drain, 2 limb losses
4. 2 deaths (1*), 1 perma-poly*
5. 1 death
6. 2 deaths
7. 3 deaths, 1 major item loss*

The ones indicated with '*' are either permanent or will require Something Very Big to undo e.g. a wish. The two deaths in adventure 4 were the same character; bad luck for her, and she declined revival the second time. The death in adventure 5 had nothing to do with the adventure itself; the party found unrelated trouble while travelling and it went wrong.

This run covers about fifteen real-world months of regular weekly play.

Fair enough; and it's not like this lot hasn't had (and still has!) story-based challenges as well. Adventures 5-6-7 above are the first bits of what I hope will be a 5 or 6-adventure arc (or mini-AP, if you like); and sooner or later it'll become clear to them that to complete it they're going to have to find a way to fix that "major item loss" noted above...

We definitely have different group dynamics.

I would say there's a difference between a competitive sports game between competing teams, and a friendly sports match between friends. In a friendly match, you might still be competitive, but you shouldn't be willing to do anything just to win.

To me, a healthy game (outside of maybe something like a Convention game) should be much more the latter than the former. The DM may be the referee and run the opposition, but that doesn't mean that the players are the enemy. IMO, the DM should fall somewhere between neutral arbiter and someone who wants the PCs to succeed (but still wants to challenge them), depending on play style. An antagonistic DM who wants to destroy the PCs is basically Godzilla vs Bambi.

As a player, I see my role as advocating for my character, but never going so far as to undermine the enjoyment of the campaign itself.

I agree that it's the DMs job to pushback when need be, but just as often I find it's the DMs job to listen to what their players are saying. To talk to them as adults and seek a resolution.

If the player is asking for some unreasonably powerful homebrew class that they found on the internet, talking to them might reveal that they're asking because they're constantly dying and it's really starting to ruin their sense of enjoyment. And in that circumstance, even though I probably wouldn't allow that class, I would work with them to find a solution. I might dial back the encounter difficulty a bit. Or, if the player usually plays frontline, maybe mix up encounters with more artillery units to move some pressure to the back line. Or even homebrew a hard to kill class with that player (maybe something like a Troll or Revenant monster class, so that it's very hard to permanently kill).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say there's a difference between a competitive sports game between competing teams, and a friendly sports match between friends. In a friendly match, you might still be competitive, but you shouldn't be willing to do anything just to win.

To me, a healthy game (outside of maybe something like a Convention game) should be much more the latter than the former.

I can't imagine useing ANY competitive sport as my go to example for D&D. there is no 'other team' its the table vs the world.

 

[Aldarc]

I can't imagine useing ANY competitive sport as my go to example for D&D. there is no 'other team' its the table vs the world.

My bet is on the world winning. The world is bigger than all tables combined. The weight advantage that the world has against a single table would be considerable.

 

[Lanefan]

My bet is on the world winning. The world is bigger than all tables combined. The weight advantage that the world has against a single table would be considerable.

Hmmm...dunno...is the table made of vibranium?

 

[Lanefan]

We definitely have different group dynamics.

I would say there's a difference between a competitive sports game between competing teams, and a friendly sports match between friends. In a friendly match, you might still be competitive, but you shouldn't be willing to do anything just to win.

Poker between friends can be just as cutthroat as poker on the WPT.

To me, a healthy game (outside of maybe something like a Convention game) should be much more the latter than the former. The DM may be the referee and run the opposition, but that doesn't mean that the players are the enemy.

Sure, and to a fair extent I get this.

IMO, the DM should fall somewhere between neutral arbiter and someone who wants the PCs to succeed (but still wants to challenge them), depending on play style. An antagonistic DM who wants to destroy the PCs is basically Godzilla vs Bambi.

Of course - as people keep saying, I always have more dragons and TPKs are easy. They're also kinda pointless, with the exception of one-off gonzo games in which anything's on the table*.

At the same time, though, even though they might be playing Bambi the setting is still a dangerous place and adventuring is a very risky way to make a (very good!) living.

* - I once ran a one-off gonzo game using existing/continuing characters; the players didn't know it until afterwards but by far the best way to get XP was to die, and the second-best way was to (intentionally or otherwise) cause another character to die - the deaths didn't count in the ongoing more-serious game but the XP did. The one character who managed to die twice made off like a bandit!

As a player, I see my role as advocating for my character, but never going so far as to undermine the enjoyment of the campaign itself.

I agree that it's the DMs job to pushback when need be, but just as often I find it's the DMs job to listen to what their players are saying. To talk to them as adults and seek a resolution.

If the player is asking for some unreasonably powerful homebrew class that they found on the internet, talking to them might reveal that they're asking because they're constantly dying and it's really starting to ruin their sense of enjoyment. And in that circumstance, even though I probably wouldn't allow that class, I would work with them to find a solution. I might dial back the encounter difficulty a bit. Or, if the player usually plays frontline, maybe mix up encounters with more artillery units to move some pressure to the back line. Or even homebrew a hard to kill class with that player (maybe something like a Troll or Revenant monster class, so that it's very hard to permanently kill).

Things like classes and species playable are pretty much locked down. The much more common issue arises out of someone finding a loophole or exploit in the rules - usually involving unforeseen spell interactions or consequences - and the DM not getting on top of it until it's too late and an in-game precedent has been set. Fortunately these things often come up in out-of-game "what if..." chats, giving the DM a chance to get ahead of it before someone actually tries it during play.

An example of this came up just last night. Out of character we started chatting about ways to abuse the spell Shrink and came up with some pretty good ones; and by "good" I mean "broken as all hell". The DM was, I think, quietly making notes; and I expect we'll see some new rulings around that spell shortly.

As a caveat I should probably note here that as a player my characters tend to die somewhat more often than the average, so it's not like I don't know what the other end of the sword feels like.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Poker between friends can be just as cutthroat as poker on the WPT.

Sure, and to a fair extent I get this.

Of course - as people keep saying, I always have more dragons and TPKs are easy. They're also kinda pointless, with the exception of one-off gonzo games in which anything's on the table*.

At the same time, though, even though they might be playing Bambi the setting is still a dangerous place and adventuring is a very risky way to make a (very good!) living.

* - I once ran a one-off gonzo game using existing/continuing characters; the players didn't know it until afterwards but by far the best way to get XP was to die, and the second-best way was to (intentionally or otherwise) cause another character to die - the deaths didn't count in the ongoing more-serious game but the XP did. The one character who managed to die twice made off like a bandit!

Things like classes and species playable are pretty much locked down. The much more common issue arises out of someone finding a loophole or exploit in the rules - usually involving unforeseen spell interactions or consequences - and the DM not getting on top of it until it's too late and an in-game precedent has been set. Fortunately these things often come up in out-of-game "what if..." chats, giving the DM a chance to get ahead of it before someone actually tries it during play.

An example of this came up just last night. Out of character we started chatting about ways to abuse the spell Shrink and came up with some pretty good ones; and by "good" I mean "broken as all hell". The DM was, I think, quietly making notes; and I expect we'll see some new rulings around that spell shortly.

As a caveat I should probably note here that as a player my characters tend to die somewhat more often than the average, so it's not like I don't know what the other end of the sword feels like.

To me, that doesn't read as competitive/antagonistic at all. They were literally discussing this stuff in front of the DM, essentially giving him a heads up as to what their plans were. If they wanted an unfair advantage, they could have just as easily planned elsewhere and dropped it on him in the middle of a session. Letting the DM know ahead of time that you have a potentially unbalancing idea is cooperative and friendly play in my book.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To me, that doesn't read as competitive/antagonistic at all. They were literally discussing this stuff in front of the DM, essentially giving him a heads up as to what their plans were. If they wanted an unfair advantage, they could have just as easily planned elsewhere and dropped it on him in the middle of a session. Letting the DM know ahead of time that you have a potentially unbalancing idea is cooperative and friendly play in my book.

way back in 97ish I had a player pull that... he took the other players, made a plan then got mad when I told him he didn't prep anything... cause he can't take actions without declaring them to me.

 

[gorice]

"One must imagine the grumbling dwarf happy."

You beat me to it!