D&D General Matt Colville on adventure length

[MerricB]

Because that's a thing I've seen in several 5e campaigns. Games falling apart that fast. Level 1 stretched out over 3-5 sessions. Brutally hard combats that reward paltry XP. DMs effectively forcing a TPK by (as noted) having us get jumped by bandits during our second short rest we've ever taken.

Some of the OSR has a lot to answer for. Why do I say that? Because there's a section of the OSR that promotes this sort of toxic DMing. Long, long stays at first level. Brutal combats. And no experiences to make new players want to stick around.

D&D should be challenging, and I'd love more advice in the core books on designing adventures for different levels. But that level of DMing? No thanks.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because there's a section of the OSR that promotes this sort of toxic DMing.

I wouldn't throw about "toxic" so trivially. It doesn't float my boat, but plenty of players like that sort of game. One of my players also plays with an adversarial DM, and they have a great time. They also enjoy my game - it's just very different.

Not for everyone? Sure. Prone to one-true-wayism? Often. But toxic? Not if the players are having fun. And if they aren't they shouldn't be there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thing that DM's really should remember is that you are not the only DM your player's have ever had. And much of the behavior that players display is learned at other tables. It takes TIME to build that rapport with players. I get this sense that there are a lot of DM's out there that think they are somehow owed trust just for running a game.

Sorry, trust is earned.

I've had far, far too many refugee players from other tables not to believe that there are a LOT of REALLY crappy games out there. Like far, far more than people seem to think.

I remember polling this repeatedly in the past, and about a third of players claimed that the majority of DM's they've had have been very bad experiences. If you've got a group if four or five players that is a fairly newly formed group, chances are that at least one and probably two of them have some seriously bad experiences under their belt before they sat at your table.

And it does show.

The worst part is, most crappy games aren't crappy because of a "bad" DM in the sense of one who has ill intent. Ill-intentioned DMs exist, but they're rare.

Most crappy games are crappy because of a "bad" DM in the sense of one who wants to do well, but messes up in a dramatic fashion.

No amount of rules, no matter how well-structured, can ever prevent either situation. But good rules, transparent rules, well-made and well-presented, help address both. They make it a lot harder for ill-intentioned DMs to conceal what they're doing. And they make it a lot easier for well-intentioned but mistaken/flawed DMs to figure out what they're doing wrong and how they can do better.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wouldn't through about "toxic" so trivially. It doesn't float my boat, but plenty of players like that sort of game. One of my players also plays with an adversarial DM, and they have a great time. They also enjoy my game - it's just very different.

Not for everyone? Sure. Prone to one-true-wayism? Often. But toxic? Not if the players are having fun. And if they aren't they shouldn't be there.

It crosses the line from "great for some, terrible for others, caveat emptor" into "toxic" when it's sprung upon the players without explicit, informed consent.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It crosses the line from "great for some, terrible for others, caveat emptor" into "toxic" when it's sprung upon the players without explicit, informed consent.

If someone isn’t familiar with other forms of play and are just running the game the same way as they have been since 1975 then then it won’t occur to them that consent is needed. The player’ consented to D&D, and, so far as they are concerned, what they are doing is the only D&D that exists.

But if the DM is not running a session zero, then it’s a pretty clear sign that they play this way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The worst part is, most crappy games aren't crappy because of a "bad" DM in the sense of one who has ill intent. Ill-intentioned DMs exist, but they're rare.

Most crappy games are crappy because of a "bad" DM in the sense of one who wants to do well, but messes up in a dramatic fashion.

No amount of rules, no matter how well-structured, can ever prevent either situation. But good rules, transparent rules, well-made and well-presented, help address both. They make it a lot harder for ill-intentioned DMs to conceal what they're doing. And they make it a lot easier for well-intentioned but mistaken/flawed DMs to figure out what they're doing wrong and how they can do better.

Hell no. Bad DMs hide behind rules, or don’t know when they should ignore them.

A good DM can run a fun game with no rules at all.

 

[Lanefan]

But that is the story I'm here for. It's literally the story the game itself tells me we're here to hear (emphasis added in both cases): "Everything a player needs to create heroic characters" (front cover); "Adventurers are extraordinary people, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead. They are heroes, compelled to...take on the challenges that lesser women and men can't stand against." (Ch. 3)

And this hasn't been a new development either. 2e PHB: "The warrior group encompasses the character classes of heroes who make their way in the world primarily by skill at arms: fighters, paladins, and rangers." "Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea. First, the AD&D game is a game of heroic fantasy. What is heroic about being a villain?" (Ch 4, "Alignment")

Perhaps needless to say, I've never bought into that heroic [naughty-word] no matter which edition was presenting it.

In D&D we're just playing characters; and something's wrong if we're not free to play those characters across pretty much the entire range we see both in real life and other forms of fantasy, from the most heroic to the most despicable.

And sure, the adventures might be set up such that if successful we end up doing heroic things as a party; but that doesn't mean any individual character has to do those things in heroic ways or by heroic means, or that we have to use heroism as a motivation.

You should be unsurprised to know that I have negative interest in ever reading any portion of The Song of Ice and Fire. Its sensibilities are not ones I find interesting--and even then, the shown story of what lies ahead has Jon Snow surviving his own murder.

Where to me ASoIaF / GoT presents a marvelous example of what a big sprawling long-running D&D campaign might look like, with many characters of all "alignments" meeting, parting, changing themselves and growing, dying, being revived, falling in love (and-or lust), fighting each other, etc. etc.; and with about six or eight different story lines weaving around each other and one big story behind it all that emerges in the end.

Depends on what one defines as "entertainment value." I often find such choices frustrating and disruptive, breaking whatever tone the game has attempted to cultivate.

The tone I want to cultivate is fun; and if a character makes us laugh (or my character makes others laugh) in its idiocy and-or disruptiveness, that's good enough for me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If D&D doesn't look like Monty Python and the Holy Grail you are playing it wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

And when it's literally the very first adventure we ever attempt? Literally the third or fourth combat we've ever attempted?

Because that's a thing I've seen in several 5e campaigns. Games falling apart that fast. Level 1 stretched out over 3-5 sessions.

By my standards, getting through 1st level in 3-5 sessions is lightning fast.

Brutally hard combats that reward paltry XP. DMs effectively forcing a TPK by (as noted) having us get jumped by bandits during our second short rest we've ever taken.

Was there any point during that bandit ambush when a PC could have cut and run for it with a decent chance of survival? If yes, and that opportunity wasn't taken, there's a lesson to be learned for next time.

Because all it needs is one survivor for the campaign - and game - to keep going.

This is why I find it so important to provide rules, tools, and assistance for dealing with problematic DM behavior. Because it isn't malfeasant DMs I'm all that concerned about. It's the well-meaning but barely-competent ones. The sincere, earnest ones that go whole hog for deeply foolish efforts, and who take the culture of "DM Empowerment" and thus become impervious to discussion, suggestions, or warnings. Why it matters so much to me to provide tools that really work, consistently, across a wide range of parties, levels, and situations. Etc.

There's a flip side to this as well: the well-meaning but misinformed players who are impervious to the fact that the game really is out to kill their characters and yet, safely cocooned in their assumption that every combat is winnable, don't ever think to have their characters cut and run to save themselves when things are clearly going south...even if it means abandoning others to their fate.

And that's the problem with telling players it's a game of "heroic fantasy". People are so conditioned to the idea that the heroes always win that as players of heroes they just naturally assume they're going to win every time no matter what; and then don't know what to do when the situation changes such that the main objective is no longer to win, but simply to - by any means possible - not lose.

 

[Lanefan]

Some of the OSR has a lot to answer for. Why do I say that? Because there's a section of the OSR that promotes this sort of toxic DMing. Long, long stays at first level. Brutal combats. And no experiences to make new players want to stick around.

Long runs at low level and brutal combats are not toxic DMing, thank you very much. Particularly the low-level piece: if one hopes a campaign will go 10 years and the game falls apart around 10th level, that to me screams going up about a level a year on average.

If they were, my DMing career (40 years as of June) would have likely ended within its first few months. Or, come to think of it, it never would have started; as my first DM's career would have ended before I ever joined his game and thus I'd never have played.

And, the experiences that IME make players want to stick around are when, despite all that, they win some of those brutal combats and reap their just rewards; be they xp, treasure, or both.