D&D General Player Driven Gritty Realism

[jgsugden]

Hypothetical: You're a player in a new game. The DM says, "I want the game to have more of a gritty realism. However, I don't want to make it feel like I'm punishing you. To that end, I want you as players, to decide a few things:

1.) When and how you've taken a real wound. You decide if a hit point loss means you were hampered by a real wound, and how it should heal.
2.) How quickly you recover spell slots and other rest restored resources. It can't be faster than the normal rules allow, but you can set a tempo that feels right for your PC and the situation.
3.) Whether you come back from the dead when their is a spell cast to restore you.

How would you feel about such an "extrme player agency" approach?

I can think of players that would just go for the minimum impact on their PC. And I can see group dynamics where it would not work because a few players would approach it very differently than others. However, I can think of several groups in which I played where it would have been interesting to try this out. So I'm not thinking this is a universally good rule - but I'm curious whether there are many groups out there where something like this might work.

(As an aside - I've decided my PC was really wounded by a huge hit before because it was good for a story. I've had my PC not recover spells or exhaustion because they would not have slept well given the situation. I've also had PCs decide not to come back when someone tried to raise them on a few occasions. Groups have responded differently than I expected, with some loving it and some people getting angry that I was "wasting" resources and opportunities).

 

[payn]

I think this would make GMing a bit difficult since you would not know the shape of the PCs in any given moment. The balancing the game rules part of me doesn't even want to attempt it in D&D. Other systems? Sure, I think they would handle this much better.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I tend to do this without wanting or declaring 'gritty realism'.

It's up to the player to decide how hurt HP loss makes them, when they rest, and when they want to come back if they die just like you said.

Some players buy into that type of drama, some don't and this way everyone's happy without forcing anything on anyone.

 

[Oofta]

I would rather discuss it during a session 0 and come up with the answers as a group. First question is do they buy into or would they enjoy a grittier system? If they heal faster or recover other resources more quickly is there a cost associated? Have everyone come up with a list of suggestions before the session 0 and then get together and hash out what you want.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'd say .... no.

Look, you have to start with why when it comes to gritty realism. It's not an affectation. When you're moving in the GR direction in D&D, you're doing it for a reason.

The surface level can be anything from "I like realism" to "de-magicking the game" but underneath it all is something more fundamental; you're trying to make resource management more important.

So either it's more important, or it isn't. If it's more important, then it matters- it's not a question of choice. If it doesn't matter, than you should be using GR.

To make the facile analogy-

The DM announces that he is going to require the players to keep track of their ammunition (arrows, bolts, etc.). But the DM doesn't want to punish players, so they can choose to track it, or not, or have infinite ammunition.


If all your players are interested in trying it out- just get a consensus and make it the rule. If they aren't interested in trying it out, then don't have it.

IMO, etc.

 

[jgsugden]

I think this would make GMing a bit difficult since you would not know the shape of the PCs in any given moment. The balancing the game rules part of me doesn't even want to attempt it in D&D. Other systems? Sure, I think they would handle this much better.

Do we ever know what shape the PCs will be in at any given moment? Outside the first combat of an adventure, we don't know how many resources will have been spent, when they'll have last rested, etc... Unless you're running a game in which the PCs full rest before every combat.... And if the PCs go into a combat in a weaker situation than we might have anticipated, is that a problem? Or might the PCs need to evaluate and figure out a way to withdraw, or use up more resources and rest earlier?

I would rather discuss it during a session 0 and come up with the answers as a group. First question is do they buy into or would they enjoy a grittier system? If they heal faster or recover other resources more quickly is there a cost associated? Have everyone come up with a list of suggestions before the session 0 and then get together and hash out what you want.

That is more of the standard scenario. You describe it, but don't say why it would be better for you by comparing the approaches. Why is a predefined and prescriptive approach better than allowing players to embellish these elements on their own?

 

[payn]

Do we ever know what shape the PCs will be in at any given moment? Outside the first combat of an adventure, we don't know how many resources will have been spent, when they'll have last rested, etc... Unless you're running a game in which the PCs full rest before every combat.... And if the PCs go into a combat in a weaker situation than we might have anticipated, is that a problem? Or might the PCs need to evaluate and figure out a way to withdraw, or use up more resources and rest earlier?

Yes, perhaps not exact shape at every fight, but I do have an idea. I actually plan my adventures around expected resources by day. As a GM, I am a big sign poster and if the PCs are too wiped very early in the adventure I want to wave a big flag that they should leave while they can. Historically, the withdraw, retreat, or run option has been a very poor one for PCs. Also, adventures are set up where resting whenever you need to is, either not, or a very poor option.

That is more of the standard scenario. You describe it, but don't say why it would be better for you by comparing the approaches. Why is a predefined and prescriptive approach better than allowing players to embellish these elements on their own?

Consistency. Again, these are my thoughts for D&D, which I have a very specific idea and expectation of.

 

[iserith]

I would expect a player to choose optimally for rules 1 and 2 - whatever benefits them the most.

What a player would do in the face of rule 3 I would expect to be determined chiefly on what the "cost" is for creating a new character (start at 1st level, start at level of lowest level PC in party, etc.) and secondarily whether they just wanted to play something new.

 

[SteveC]

While I'm sure there are some players who are into gritty realism, I've never really run into them. Especially in D&D. It's been my experience that requests for grit almost always come from the GM side of the aisle.

So for me, I'd say "no thanks" to this. I have played and enjoyed games with more grit (CoC comes to mind) and they have a very different mindset, goals, and expectations than D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, perhaps not exact shape at every fight, but I do have an idea. I actually plan my adventures around expected resources by day. As a GM, I am a big sign poster and if the PCs are too wiped very early in the adventure I want to wave a big flag that they should leave while they can. Historically, the withdraw, retreat, or run option has been a very poor one for PCs. Also, adventures are set up where resting whenever you need to is, either not, or a very poor option.

Consistency. Again, these are my thoughts for D&D, which I have a very specific idea and expectation of.

From my interpretation, the players are the ones deciding when to recoup resources and how they describe their damage. So I don't think there's a lot of mechanical difference you'd have to account for. I could be wrong though.