D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Lanefan]

I'd ask why the DM is not asking the players what level of challenge the players actually want to interact with

Why wouldn't I ask that? Becuase over the years I've had too many players whose answers to that hypothetical question wouldn't line up with reality once the puck dropped.

Which makes asking the question a pointless endeavour.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why wouldn't I ask that? Becuase over the years I've had too many players whose answers to that hypothetical question wouldn't line up with reality once the puck dropped.

Which makes asking the question a pointless endeavour.

So some people weren't honest, so now conversation is off the table?

That's... not how anything should work.

 

[Xenolith234]

Why wouldn't I ask that? Becuase over the years I've had too many players whose answers to that hypothetical question wouldn't line up with reality once the puck dropped.

Which makes asking the question a pointless endeavour.

I can't say I'd ask "hey do you want your characters to die" at the beginning of a campaign, either. It should be a foregone conclusion that it's possible. I would, however, tell them that death is always on the table.

 

[pemerton]

Cloak of Elvenkind in 2e:

A cloak of elvenkind is of a plain neutral gray which is indistinguishable from any sort of ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when it is worn, with the hood drawn up around he head, it enables the wearer to be nearly invisible, for the cloak has chameleon-like powers. In the outdoors, the wearer of a cloak of elvenkind is almost totally invisible in natural surroundings, nearly so in other settings. Note that the wearer is easily seen if violently or hastily moving, regardless of the surroundings.

That is identical to the AD&D text (DMG p 141), which I quoted some of. And it is followed by the same table of percentage chances to not be seen.

And I don't see how this AD&D version is any different from a 5e version of the cloak that reads like this?

A cloak of elvenkind is of a plain neutral gray which is indistinguishable from any sort of ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when it is worn, with the hood drawn up around he head, it enables the wearer to be nearly invisible, for the cloak has chameleon-like powers. In the outdoors, the wearer of a cloak of elvenkind is almost totally invisible in natural surroundings, nearly so in other settings (+10 to Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide in natural surroundings, or +5 otherwise). Note that the wearer is easily seen if violently or hastily moving, regardless of the surroundings.​

I mean, here is the published 5e version (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/4606-cloak-of-elvenkind):

While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage, and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide, as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you. Pulling the hood up or down requires an action.​

This could easily be rewritten to incorporate the AD&D descriptive text (but dropping the distinction between natural and other surroundings):

A cloak of elvenkind is of a plain neutral gray which is indistinguishable from any sort of ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when it is worn, with the hood drawn up around he head, it enables the wearer to be nearly invisible, for the cloak has chameleon-like powers: Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see the wearer have disadvantage, and the wearer has advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide. Pulling the hood up or down requires an action.​

So I'm not really sure what your point is. You posted that "they all have to have a firm rule with all the rough edges sanded down. We can’t just have a cloak that lets you meld into a shadow - it instead just gives you Advantage on Stealth rolls, or a +X modifier. To me that’s very, very boring." But the rules for the % chance to hide in AD&D were just as firm - the rules for the cloak didn't simply states "You meld into a shadow". I don't understand why a list of % chances to hide (which is not integrated with other rules, like a ranger's better chance not to be surprised) is less boring than a rule about a bonus to a stat or skill check.

 

[Lanefan]

So some people weren't honest, so now conversation is off the table?

Not intentionally dishonest (with perhaps one long-ago-punted exception), more just either not actually knowing what they want or not realizing what their own playstyle represents.

Two examples, greatly shortened for brevity, both from my own experience when topics like this came up less formally:

Player 1: "Sure, go ahead, challenge us!"
(player's character gets whacked)
Player 1: "<pout> I didn't mean challenge my character! Challenge those other guys!"
Me: <facepalm>

Player 2: "I don't really like being challenged."
(play begins and goes on for a while)
Me, said to self: "If Player 2 didn't want to be challenged then why does every character that player runs intentionally go out of its way to find more risk, danger, and challenge?" <facepalm>

 

[Umbran]

Why wouldn't I ask that? Becuase over the years I've had too many players whose answers to that hypothetical question wouldn't line up with reality once the puck dropped.

Sure. Lots of people don't actually know what they want if you ask beforehand.

It then becomes a GM's job to help them discover what they actually want, and scale accordingly.

 

[Umbran]

Player 2: "I don't really like being challenged."
(play begins and goes on for a while)
Me, said to self: "If Player 2 didn't want to be challenged then why does every character that player runs intentionally go out of its way to find more risk, danger, and challenge?" <facepalm>

This one is actually easy, and pretty common - sometimes, what folks want is the appearance of danger, but not the actual danger.

Like, you know, a roller-coaster, which has all the appearance of risk, but very little actual risk? You get all the rush, even when you know you're going to come out okay.

 

[Lanefan]

This one is actually easy, and pretty common - sometimes, what folks want is the appearance of danger, but not the actual danger.

Like, you know, a roller-coaster, which has all the appearance of risk, but very little actual risk? You get all the rush, even when you know you're going to come out okay.

Having been banged up on carnival rides and roller coasters a few times, I've come to accept that their risk is real.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the DM is running a game the players don't want, then yes I do blame the DM for not listening to their players.



I disagree. A newbie DM wouldn't know to back off which turns off new players. Meanwhile an experienced DM has plenty of way to make the game more difficult if it's what the players want.

What if the players are trying to make the game a way the DM doesn't want? Wouldn't you blame the players for not listening to the DM? Again, why do you think the DM's fun has to come from the enjoyment of the players? Does the DM not get to have fun of their own?

And also, we've been talking about how the book's very easy encounter standard makes it difficult to up the difficulty without pushback from players who feel this is unfair. Any comment on that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This one is actually easy, and pretty common - sometimes, what folks want is the appearance of danger, but not the actual danger.

Like, you know, a roller-coaster, which has all the appearance of risk, but very little actual risk? You get all the rush, even when you know you're going to come out okay.

Yeah, I feel a lot of players want that, and more appear every day (trained by the most popular current rules). It's very frustrating, because I've never wanted that as a player or a DM.