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

[Steampunkette]

There have been people who talked about why making that the default for the system causes problems and how said problems areade worse because it is the default. But I don't think anyone has said that you should not be able to dial down risk as you describe doing here or said that you shouldn't while making that point.

This seems to be a caricaturized rephrasing of what people are saying. Who do you believe is making this point & what post?

The system does not make it the default. Do you know how hard it is to stack the deck that precisely with CR being what it is?

The system makes it harder to TPK, for sure, since if people survive the encounter they can get the others back, or if someone drops to 0hp you can get them back up if someone doesn't beat on the body and you've got healing magic on hand.

And no. It's not meant to be a caricature of what people are saying. It's meant to present a broad spectrum of storytelling and gameplay between running the game entirely off the dice rolls to create the story at one end, and running the game with minimal dice impact beyond facilitating the story. I also specifically note how I've played all the way in between.

It's the illusion of risk. If they do something blatantly stupid eg walk into adult red dragon lair low level that's on them.

Short of some really bad dice rolls or high risk derp charge chance of death is remote.

You know what I find helps with that? Not having the lair of an adult red dragon within walking distance.

Eh. I find this characterization to be poor. If the chance of death is remote and you want it to be higher, change the deck. Increase the encounter rating, play tactically, and murder your players. I've done that, too.

Particularly in horror games.

If you're doing your 6-8 encounters per day (I surely don't) then mostly medium and a few hard is going to challenge most newbie players.

If you're running closer to 2-4 encounters a day, throw the hard and deadlies. Your players have a limited number of "Strong" resources and a larger number of "Weaker" resources so they can get through a bunch of encounters. But if you're only doing a few (like most) you need to stack the deck against the players so they're dropping their big bombs just to get by, and have less of the 'good stuff' for the next big encounter.

Hell, if you're playing with a group of skilled long-term players with strong tactical mindsets you might need to just -start- on Hard and Deadlies in order to challenge them. But there's always room for more danger if you need it.

You know, there is a place between "no chance of character death" and "completely random chance simulator". No one seems to bring that up, however. Maybe because extremes are easier to argue against?

Yeah, except I did mention it, specifically, in that post you quoted. And noted that I've played games that run the gamut. And specifically noted that I "have run games" with 0 chance of death, not that I only run games with 0 chance of death.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The issue with those default difficulty categories is that they're super misleading. They imply that deadly is basically the max difficulty you should use, whilst in reality it is more of minimum for any sort of meaningful challenge, and for proper challenge you need to go at least double, even triple deadly, which the rules does not even recognise as a thing.

And apparently they were better in the original playtest, but then all the categories were inexplicably dropped by one for the final release. (So the playtest medium became published hard etc.)

 

[Steampunkette]

The issue with those default difficulty categories is that they're super misleading. They imply that deadly is basically the max difficulty you should use, whilst in reality it is more of minimum for any sort of meaningful challenge, and for proper challenge you need to go at least double, even triple deadly, which the rules does not even recognise as a thing.

And apparently they were better in the original playtest, but then all the categories were inexplicably dropped by one for the final release. (So the playtest medium became published hard etc.)

Deadly -is- the max difficulty you should use...

With newbie players.

Y'all, this book and all of the books are written as guidelines for people who are just starting the game. Greater system mastery means increasing challenges to match that mastery.

That's -why- the "Playtest Medium" became "Published Hard". 'Cause they aggregated the data and skewed things based on the majority of new players and their playtest results.

Just like with MMORPGs you have to build a TTRPG for the newbie and the unskilled to get as broad a possible gathering of people able to play the game... and then trust them to go from there.

If the 5e or D&D24 book were built around people who've been playing for decades before they picked it up it would be either inscrutably arcane for new players and DMs (and honestly, D&D is one of the most complex game systems out there, already, like top 10%) or so brutally difficult most new players would try it once and give up because it's "Wildly unbalanced against the players."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Deadly -is- the max difficulty you should use...

With newbie players.

Y'all, this book and all of the books are written as guidelines for people who are just starting the game. Greater system mastery means increasing challenges to match that mastery.

That's -why- the "Playtest Medium" became "Published Hard". 'Cause they aggregated the data and skewed things based on the majority of new players and their playtest results.

Just like with MMORPGs you have to build a TTRPG for the newbie and the unskilled to get as broad a possible gathering of people able to play the game... and then trust them to go from there.

If the 5e or D&D24 book were built around people who've been playing for decades before they picked it up it would be either inscrutably arcane for new players and DMs (and honestly, D&D is one of the most complex game systems out there, already, like top 10%) or so brutally difficult most new players would try it once and give up because it's "Wildly unbalanced against the players."

Write the foundation for the fresh-faced new players.

Write the supplements for the old hands. (The MMO equivalent would be "write the raids for old hands", generally speaking.)

 

[Guest 7037866]

But isn’t this exactly what is supposed to happen?

Yes, if you use Hard and Deadly encounters all the time you will challenge your PCs.

Folks are repeatedly talking about how they cannot challenge their groups and here you’re saying that it’s working exactly as intended.

Because the guidelines are for an attrition game, but many groups don't play that way. The DMs try using medium and hard encounters, but allow too many / too frequent rests and the 5MWD, so the DM isn't running an attrition game.

The point is you don't challenge your groups with every single encounter.

IME most sessions run about 3-4 hours and have roughly 1 (or a bit more) encounters per hour. This means I am looking at 4-5 encounters or just about half the allotment for an adventuring day. Which in turn means during the session the PCs should have at least a short rest in there somewhere, and maybe a second short rest or a even the long rest if we push the encounter difficulties and/or frequencies.

But what happens is groups will get in at least one long rest each session, making the attrition end for the most part. That is fine while travelling if you are doing just random encounters, etc. but not while on the actual adventure. The adventure then starts to feel like it isn't challenging the PCs because too often the PCs are going into a fight at full (or near full) strength.

If you have the PCs going in at full strength most of the time and still want to challenge them, you aren't playing an attrition game and have to use more difficult encounters to create the feeling of challenge. Otherwise, you'll feel like the PCs walk over everything you throw at them.

So, yes, in general it is working exactly as intended, but IME when people complain about it it's because those DMs aren't using those guideliens as intented.

In your case (example) you only provided two encounters, which ended up rated at hard and deadly. Those should offer some challenge to PCs, even if you are giving them frequent long rests. So, it isn't surprising that you say you are challenging your PCs.

 

[Guest 7037866]

It can be a manifestation of a PC's will to live. (5e D&D does this via death saves; but it doesn't become less (or more) "realistic" to do this via an expenditure than via a random roll.)

I, for one, see it as very much less realistic to do this via an expenditure than via a random roll.

Fate decides if you live or die (the random roll), not the player. Such a system would never work for me, personally.

The difference is that an expenditure is entirely within the player's control. A random roll is not. Just like how people generally don't always get to decide not to die.

Yep. This is it.

People also don't get to decide their background, nor do they get to sit and have a real good think for five minutes about whether they're going to succumb to terrible temptation or reject it.

In RPGs you decide your past.

The premise is false from its foundation: RPGing is not real life, and never has been. The very act of roleplay is, itself, something "entirely within the player's control" when that is emphatically not true of real life.

As long as the dice (combat rolls) indicate you continue to live, you get to make choices on what your PC does in their life. You don't get to decide if you get hit or not, what damage you take, if you make or fail a saving throw, etc. all the time. PCs can use features to hedge their bets, of course, but when it comes to death saves you are entirely in the hands of Fate.

 

[pemerton]

The difference is that an expenditure is entirely within the player's control. A random roll is not. Just like how people generally don't always get to decide not to die.

In the world of D&D they might - just as barbarians get to choose when they get really angry, battle masters get to choose when they psych out a foe, all characters (or at least the protagonists) get to choose how courageous they are, etc. It's hardly a world in which will and drive operate randomly!

EDIT: I see that another poster beat me to my point:

People also don't get to decide their background, nor do they get to sit and have a real good think for five minutes about whether they're going to succumb to terrible temptation or reject it.

The premise is false from its foundation: RPGing is not real life, and never has been. The very act of roleplay is, itself, something "entirely within the player's control" when that is emphatically not true of real life.

 

[pemerton]

Are you familiar with OD&D?

One doesn't need much familiarity to know that, as @EzekielRaiden posted, pawn stance play is the default.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Because the guidelines are for an attrition game, but many groups don't play that way. The DMs try using medium and hard encounters, but allow too many / too frequent rests and the 5MWD, so the DM isn't running an attrition game.

The point is you don't challenge your groups with every single encounter.

Exactly. One medium encounter won't challenge your group.

If you only give a group medium encounters, you should have them face around SEVEN of them. If you give them only deadly encounters, they should still face around THREE.

5e is and can only work as an attrition game. It will not as be satisfying when you play it the wrong way.

 

[Oofta]

Are you familiar with OD&D?

Are you familiar with the idea that people that played OD&D modified and tweaked it heavily to be the game they wanted? Which included drastically cutting down on random death in our case?