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

[Micah Sweet]

This makes no sense. LotR is a novel, with (depending how you count them) two to five or more protagonists (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, Theoden, Merry, Pippin, maybe Faramir and/or Boromir).

Each of those characters had - in the fiction - a choice about what to do, where to go, etc. But of course the author has them make choices that will drive the story he wants to tell.

If, in your game, a player had their PC pick up on one of those adventure hooks, and exciting things happened as a result, presumably a story could be written that retold those exciting events. It may not be as long or intricate as LotR, but it would still - presumably - involve a sequence of events that follows from the choices made by the PC, including the choice to "bite" on the hook.

Are the characters in LotR provided any options other than follow the path to adventure or go home?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I would say that "the adventure hook" of LotR is a bad choice for more sandboxy game. It is basically about the fate of the world. That one thing is so big that it cannot really be ignored and it overwhelms any other potential "hooks." I think "multiple optional hooks" setup will probably produce something that resembles more an anthology of Conan adventures rather than an epic with one overarching plot like LotR.

Yeah. I tend to avoid "save the world" as an adventure hook. It allows no real choice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not so. There are examples of false rumors in many, many games.

False Rumors =/= "We RP doing nothing with no threats, no rewards, and no puzzles for a week of game time"

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's uncommon, certainly, but over the years I've seen each of the following happen at least once as either player or DM:

--- someone else got there first and the adventure site/mission had been largely cleaned out/dealt with by the time the PCs arrived

In this situation did the players do anything before finding the site cleaned out? Did they fight ANY monsters, deal with ANY mysteries, anything at all?

--- (related to previous) the rumour the PCs heard was out of date by the time the PCs heard it; had they investigated they easily could have learned this but for whatever reason they did not do so

Same question, as they leave to investigate this until they figure out their information was out of date, do they encounter ANY challenges, fights, struggles, ect?

--- the rumour was planted to lure either a) the PCs specifically or b) adventurers in general into a trap, ambush, or other situation that most definitely wasn't part of the rumour they heard

Oh, so there is a fight. So this doesn't count for my point.

--- the PCs never found or reached the rumoured adventure site due to either bad information or poor navigation

Does this mean they encounter no challenges, no fights, and nothing of interest?

--- the PCs never reached the rumoured adventure site due to getting distracted by (or distracting themselves with) something else along the way

PCs choosing to pursue something else is not the example I gave, so doesn't count as a rebuttal.

--- the PCs reached the rumoured adventure site but found it more or less empty, as in the intervening time the occupants they'd heard about had moved on

More or less empty? So they still had something to do and not nothing to do?

--- the rumour was complete BS and-or someone's practical joke.

Does this mean they encounter no challenges, no fights, and nothing of interest?


See, for most of this, you seemed to have missed my point. My point was not "rumors are never wrong in the games". That was not what I was saying. That is why I continued to expound. No monsters. No challenges. No puzzles. No treasure. Literally nothing happens as the party just camps in empty fields and in forests until deciding to do something else.

In "real life" this happens all the time. You go to pursue some goal or travel to some location, and it turns out there is nothing and you just wasted your time. You don't meet interesting people. You don't have any exciting stories. Just... nothing happens. But this doesn't happen in the game... because it is a game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because what you're describing isn't an adventure hook in my estimation. It's the beginning of a prepared adventure path, if one were to put the Lord of the Rings in gaming terms. What I'm talking about is a perfectly logical opportunity for exploration and interaction with the setting, to be presented in a way that makes sense within the setting.

I expect (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't see this difference as sufficiently...different, but I don't know what else to tell you. You and I simply simply experience and appreciate the hobby quite differently in many ways it would seem.

What the heck is an adventure hook if it is not the beginning of a prepared adventure path?

Are you thinking it is different because in an prepared path every detail is pre-planned? Because that has nothing to do with an adventure hook at all. But the hook has to LEAD somewhere, down a prepared path. Having a hook with no idea what step two is after "learn about hook" is a recipe for disaster. I mean, honestly, who would have a hook like "There are goblins in the western hills" and the players go "Okay, we are going to travel to the Western Hills" and the DMs response is "Oh.... I didn't think we'd get this far, I have no idea what happens next" That's just silly. Even if the plan is to improvise, you still have some clue what is going on over there when you introduce the rumor.

 

[Micah Sweet]

False Rumors =/= "We RP doing nothing with no threats, no rewards, and no puzzles for a week of game time"

That's up to the players.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's up to the players.

No it isn't, not if you understand what my point is.

The point is that, in the course of playing the game, you are never put in a situation where there is nothing interesting going on. IF your response to that is "well that only happens if the players ignore the interesting things going on" then the players were never in a situation where there is nothing interesting going on, because if they were, then there would be nothing for them to ignore or miss.

And I think the fact that this concept is proving so hard to grasp is just proving my point. This just does not happen. It is anti-thetical to the game itself, even if it is not anti-thetical to real life.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are the characters in LotR provided any options other than follow the path to adventure or go home?

Yes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is just the, "100% realism isn't practical or possible, so why bother with any of it" argument all over again. The quest for verisimilitude isn't all or nothing, and suggesting otherwise is just a way to denigrate the desire for it.

I don't see how. I'm not saying your quest for verisimilitude is bad. I'm saying that I cannot see how you square an allegedly "I do not want ANY narrative-driven concerns, EVER, for ANY reason" argument with using adventure hooks, however "in the world" the hook may be. Your description is not only knowingly narrative, it is knowingly narrative in a place where you could have instead chosen a less-narrative approach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

Can you provide a more than one word answer? Otherwise why bother replying at all?