D&D 5E Do PCs at your table have script immunity?

[overgeeked]

I think you're overemphasizing the impact of CR.

I don't. I think it's impact is wildly underemphasized amongst gamers who came into the hobby before CR.

I'm the only one who watches out of the dozen people I play with. It's not clear how much of an impact the show has had.

In my long-standing D&D group...literally the same people I started playing RPGs with almost 40 years ago...I was the last person in the group to get on board with CR. Every one of the 7-8 other people in the group were avid fans before I'd watched my first episode.

Most of the online games I play in the OOC chat almost always morphs into conversation about CR.

It may be different for you, your experience is hardly universal.

Never said it was. But likewise, your experience is hardly universal.

To be fair, that's exactly the experience a lot of us have. D&D is what we play in our social groups, but we'd still have the same social group if we weren't playing D&D. If any person isn't on board with a campaign or game idea, we try something else.

Honestly, if my groups fell apart for some reason I'd just stop RPing. I'm too old to go looking for new groups.

For me it's a bit of both. I have friends to game but we don't always play together because we have different tastes. We're still friends and we still hang out, but we don't play games together.

The value of a good session 0, where everyone tells their expectations for the game, including character death, is underestimated.

Exactly. And if anyone's not 100% on board with the game idea, genre, tone, concept, etc, they can excuse themselves. If that means no game, then no game. If that means a different group plays the game, then a different group plays the game.

 

[Bolares]

And if anyone's not 100% on board with the game idea, genre, tone, concept, etc, they can excuse themselves.

Or you (general you) could give players some leway and adapt a portion of the game idea, genre, tone, concept, etc, to try and accomodate everyone. Session 0 doesn't need to be a job interview. I think it's better to play 80% of everyones favourite game than not play 100% of my favourite game.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly. And if anyone's not 100% on board with the game idea, genre, tone, concept, etc, they can excuse themselves. If that means no game, then no game. If that means a different group plays the game, then a different group plays the game.

Or ideally, they get on board and be enthusiastic because compromise makes the world go around. No DM has ever run a game that's 100% taste to my taste, just as no restaurant has ever served a meal 100% to my liking, and no movie has ever been something I've 100% enjoyed. Things become more fun when we choose to enjoy them, despite not being perfect.

That applies to both players and DMs. DMs should be willing to be flexible with their vision, likewise, players should be flexible in helping the DMs to realize their vision.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Or ideally, they get on board and be enthusiastic because compromise makes the world go around. No DM has ever run a game that's 100% taste to my taste, just as no restaurant has ever served a meal 100% to my liking, and no movie has ever been something I've 100% enjoyed. Things become more fun when we choose to enjoy them, despite not being perfect.

That applies to both players and DMs. DMs should be willing to be flexible with their vision, likewise, players should be flexible in helping the DMs to realize their vision.

Do you, or do you not, believe in the existence of "deal breaking" criterion? Do you believe that compromise can overcome literally any disagreement? Yes or no?

 

[Bolares]

Do you, or do you not, believe in the existence of "deal breaking" criterion? Do you believe that compromise can overcome literally any disagreement? Yes or no?

Only the Sith deal in absolutes...

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you, or do you not, believe in the existence of "deal breaking" criterion? Do you believe that compromise can overcome literally any disagreement? Yes or no?

Not everyone considers 'everything isn't 100% what I want' to be deal breaking criterion.

Like, who is ever going to say compromise can overcome 'literally' any disagreement? That's not the argument here. The argument is about people who say they absolutely will not compromise.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you, or do you not, believe in the existence of "deal breaking" criterion? Do you believe that compromise can overcome literally any disagreement? Yes or no?

Of course not, that would be silly. Do I believe that compromise can overcome almost any aesthetic disagreement on how to play a TTRPG? Of course.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

But no one has said that they are unwilling to compromise simpliciter - just that there are certain things that are non-negotiable.

So, I guess in actuality there is no argument between you two parties.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I also understand most players don't want to invest a lot of time and energy into a PC who can die at any time. There are several reasons why it can be disruptive to the game, as well. But I have found IME that this leads to players taking chances which border on foolhardy, valiantly going forth instead of taking the time to plan, investigate, etc. a situation.

This is so radically opposite my own experience, I struggle to truly understand it. Every group I've been in as a player, there's been a majority of cautious folks wanting to play things pretty safe. Sure, they'll take risks if that really does seem to be the only way, but it can take a LOT of pressure before they'll truly accept that that IS the only way. The group I run for is very similar--sometimes gunshy to the point of neglecting adventure hooks because they seem too risky.

So it's all a bit hard for me to really respond to this. I've never had this experience, not even something like it. If this was how players responded to "we'll only kill off your character total for realsies pinky swear if you and I work it out," then yeah, I can understand why death would be a necessary stick to keep the players from riding roughshod over the game. But...if that's what the players are doing, they aren't on board for the game being offered.

That's kinda the crux for me with how most folks describe making relatively-likely, irrevocable death a campaign feature specifically with the goal of curbing this behavior. It strikes me as indicating that the only way to get the players to "play along," as it were, is to threaten them with not getting to play at all unless they behave themselves. At which point, wouldn't it be more productive to work with the players to seek a game premise or adventure hook that they find inherently appealing so you can just run that thing and everyone will play along because they genuinely want to? It just seems more useful to build a game where you don't need the "stick" of death, and can instead use other, more intrinsic motivators for both carrots and sticks (e.g. the safety of characters the players genuinely care about, major revelations, personal vendettas/mysteries/goals, etc.)

 

[Composer99]

I voted no, player characters can die for any reason, but I'm happy to run things differently if that's what the players wanted, or if we were playing a different system.