D&D 5E My New Players Have Quit 5th Edition

[Iosue]

FWIW, my first game, when I was 11, I rolled up a fighter. Playing solo with the DM, I went into the goblin cave of the Caves of Chaos. I killed a goblin or two, then they tossed money into the ogre lair. The ogre killed me in short order.

That very day, I borrowed my friend's copy of Moldvay Basic, read through it, and then ran a game for my sister.

I don't think new players these days are particularly gunshy about character death. They're used to dying in video games and with MMOs. I suspect the initial reaction is not to blame the game, but to start wondering what choices they could have made to avoid that result.

That said, if you have an involved character generation process, and the character dies in less time than it took to make the character, then yeah, I can see people being put off by the shaggy-dogginess of it all.

 

[barasawa]

Mine are loving it.

They pretty much turned the tables on the opponents by using some planning, tactics, stealth, and luck, though I think it was a bit close for a couple of them more than once.

The bugbear didn't stand a chance, but that'll happen when you get crit'd by the rogue with a sneak attack and fighter wails on you at the same time.

The hostage situation was probably the worst part for them.

Of course, they could really use a cleric now, but at least they know to take a rest and use the healing potions they've gotten.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That said, if you have an involved character generation process, and the character dies in less time than it took to make the character, then yeah, I can see people being put off by the shaggy-dogginess of it all.

Also if it takes a while to 're-spawn' your character, I suppose. Until you bring in a new character, you're sitting the game out, too. Another reason for faster combat, I guess, so that when you die you don't have to wait as long for you new character to blunder into the party, somehow.

There's another side to it, which I saw in the playtest (and which I hadn't /noticed/ for many years, because I'd played primarily with longtime gamers for so many of those years), which is that the way players treat NPCs (and even eachothers' PCs) shifts when they realize that life is cheap in the context of the game. PCs suddenly become a less heroic and more pragmatic. (Fine if the campaign is hard-bitten mercenaries or scrabbling for survival or anything along those lines, less fine if you're going for the 'heroic' in 'heroic fantasy.')

 

[ren1999]

I don't find the need to give up just yet. I think the Dungeon Master's/Masters Guide will allow me to construct the kind of game I want to run.

I just hope that there will be an option to add the full constitution score at first level in place of the constitution modifier.

It isn't just because the dead players need to sit out of the game until they fill-out a new character sheet.

One way around this problem of character deaths during the next game is to have them roll-up 3 NPCs with minimum stats and have them fill out the details as they adventure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In addition to waiting for the DMG to tell you it's OK to not kill your players' characters, you could:

start your campaign at 3rd level (It's the new first!)
fudge the odd dice roll
or even play monsters 'stupidly' (that is, as antagonists in a fantasy story)

Or, of course: implement whatever option you're 'hoping for,' right now.

 

[Zustiur]

No I will not start a campaign at 3rd level.
No I will not fudge numbers.
No I will not play monsters stupidly.
No I will not award Clerics with bonus actions to keep allies alive.
[Snip thread]
I don't find the need to give up just yet. I think the Dungeon Master's/Masters Guide will allow me to construct the kind of game I want to run.

I just hope that there will be an option to add the full constitution score at first level in place of the constitution modifier.

It isn't just because the dead players need to sit out of the game until they fill-out a new character sheet.

One way around this problem of character deaths during the next game is to have them roll-up 3 NPCs with minimum stats and have them fill out the details as they adventure.

I'm confused. It seems you're talking from the perspective of what you want, not what you feel is required as an option for all play-groups.

Since when have DM's needed something to be officially written in the DMG to make it a rule in their own game? If you want to have full con at first level. DO IT. You don't need the DMG to make it an option.

 

[Emerikol]

There's another side to it, which I saw in the playtest (and which I hadn't /noticed/ for many years, because I'd played primarily with longtime gamers for so many of those years), which is that the way players treat NPCs (and even eachothers' PCs) shifts when they realize that life is cheap in the context of the game. PCs suddenly become a less heroic and more pragmatic. (Fine if the campaign is hard-bitten mercenaries or scrabbling for survival or anything along those lines, less fine if you're going for the 'heroic' in 'heroic fantasy.')

I agree with the bolded part except I would prefer a different term than heroic. Our games are the hard, risk mitigation, strategic sort where often we are scrabbling for survival and counting supplies, but I wouldn't classify us as unheroic. If you go after a dragon I consider that pretty heroic however you get there.

Perhaps high cinematic vs low cinematic might work better.

I don't think my players ever treated the game like life is cheap. I guess because through their skill at playing they rarely died. I won't say never because they did die on occasion. Probably less than many of these games purporting to be high cinematic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If acting heroic gets you killed (and, absent a little DM tweaking or intervention, in most eds of D&D at low levels, it will), then 'skill at playing' that avoids getting you killed is just plain learning not to act heroic. Legitimate, if the aim is a dark or 'low' fantasy or fantasy Vietnam or whatever, where cunning anti-heroes go around murdering the marginally-worse villains, life is cheap, and death is a constant companion.

...

I get that some people want D&D to just do fantasy Vietnam like that, and others want it to do high fantasy by default. And, I get that 5e has tried to accommodate both by making Apprentice Tier lethal. It just strikes me as a very poor way to nominally support both styles. For one thing, while skipping a few levels is NBD for those wanting heroic play, it's ridiculous to cut off so many levels of play for the grim & gritty set. For another, it's bizarre to dump new players into that minefield by default, then expect them to do a 180 and get all high-fantasy after that.

This is another case where I have to ask "where's the modularity?"

 

[wedgeski]

This is another case where I have to ask "where's the modularity?"

It's way too early to level this criticism at the game. We have no idea what variants the DMG is going to describe, or what stuff is coming down the road.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's way too early to level this criticism at the game. We have no idea what variants the DMG is going to describe, or what stuff is coming down the road.

The two least helpful answers to a criticism of a new game are "it's too early to make that criticism, the whole game isn't out yet" and the typically hot-on-it's-heals "it's too late to make that criticism, they're not going to change it at this point."

I'm fully aware that the game is still in its early stages. If it were going to handle the theme/tone difference between heroic and gritty, /with modules/, though, you'd expect it to open with one or the other (or a mushy compromise between them), with modules to adjust it forthcoming - /not/ prescribe one set of levels for one and the rest for the other. That's neither modular, nor setting up for later modularity.