D&D General Player Driven Gritty Realism

[payn]

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.

I'd find it very inconsistent from one player to the next. Again, I want to emphasize that I have mechanical expectations of D&D (one that I know some folks are very down on) that I expect met. I could see this dynamic working much better in other RPGs that are more narrative driven and have a lower level of mechanical expectation in play.

 

[Scott Christian]

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).

I think, as a table, it would largely depend on how many of the players have a "keeping up with the Joneses" style attitude. Those that do have a problem with someone having an extra +1 more than them or feeling they aren't highlighted enough would take issue. Those that put greater preference on their character's psyche and like using that psyche to make game decisions might enjoy it (assuming they like gritty games).

 

[Tutara]

I don’t really see any of the examples given as ‘extreme player agency’ in all honesty.

The first point - that the player can narrate the impact of mechanics such as HP lose on their character (but not affect the mechanics from what you’ve written?) is pretty standard at the tables I play at. It’s flavour, nothing more.

The second isn’t really anything as far as I can tell - players can’t recover faster so the only control is whether they say ‘actually, I want to reflect a poor night’s rest by gaining one less slot’ - again, this is something that happens.

In regard to the first two points, I get players asking for disadvantage (because it makes sense to them for their character to be hindered) as often as asking for advantage. As such I guess both are pretty normal for me and in no way extreme.

The third point is normal to me too - a soul has to be willing or able to return. Applies to NPCs as well.

I tend towards more player-enabling systems than D&D usually, which may explain my position.

 

[Reynard]

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?

Let's assume for a moment that everyone at the table is on the same page and everyone buys in to the idea.

I would take some inspiration of Joe Abercrombie's fiction for deciding how this stuff worked in play. Despite the grimdarkness of his work, the characters are still heroic -- right up until they are dead. So I think one way to urge players to remember to hold their guts in while still hacking down mooks is to utilize the bloodied condition. You only get inspiration when you are bloodied. You recharge a short rest ability or spell when you are bloodied. Stuff like that. But, when you are bloodied you have to pick a negative condition. Maybe your speed is halved. Maybe you took a hard hit to the head and have disadvanatage on dex checks. Stuff like that. The player decides what the negative is, preferably based on the blow that put them into bloodied.

 

[Golroc]

My enjoyment of this would depend heavily on the other players. It puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of players. If everyone is on the same page as to how to play this way - and have the ability to pull it off (at least most of the time) - then I'm good with it. But if there's a problem player - or someone who is bad at narrative authority and will (to me) stupid calls, it could easily ruin my fun. It's an interesting idea. Could be fun in the right kind of context and with the right people.