D&D General Should D&D Be "Hard"

[Micah Sweet]

Conversely, starting the game tortuously hard makes me never ever want to do anything more with it because I'll just feel more and more demoralized.

This is why I basically never play "roguelikes." Desktop Dungeons and Hades are the only two I've ever truly enjoyed, and both significantly reduce the difficulty factor unless you want that.

And that's fair. I  like roguelikes. Nethack is one of my favorite video games of all time. I just discovered Dwarf Fortress.

 

[Mallus]

There’s no answering this outside of individual group preferences. Or definitions of what constitutes a difficult challenge. Or what abilities are even being challenged.

For example, most of my games feature an element of friendly competition over making the most amusing character.

 

[Reynard]

A lot of that depends on how you construct the OP.

Fair enough. I thought I made it clear I was talking about folks preferences, not some mandate for The One True Way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fair enough. I thought I made it clear I was talking about folks preferences, not some mandate for The One True Way.

Well, the issue is you're talking about the game's design. Which means that, because these things are finite and imperfect, something will fail to be the absolute core, fundamental expression. Some bit will be opt-out, not opt-in, even if you work very hard to make the opt-in bits effective and functional.

Once we recognize that, it is inevitable that different folks will assert different positions about what the "default" should be. Others are thus liable to ask, "Why should your preference be default?" And if they feel slighted (or just peevish), there's likely to be accusations of One True Way-ism.

I, personally, try to aim for a default that is the most broadly accommodating and easiest to bend toward other ends. As a rule, for example, it is much easier to add difficulty than to remove it. It is much easier to throw something out of balance than to bring balance into an existing unbalanced structure. It is much easier to design things which conform to typical (even if poorly-justified) human intuitions, rather than trying to defy those intuitions and just expect folks to think differently.

All of these are why I advocate for well-made, fully-featured "novice levels" or the equivalent. Because those can be specifically tailored to be hard challenges, something players can opt in for if they want a more difficult thing. That doesn't mean 1st level should inundate players with choices--it's good to give new players a chance to get their feet wet--but a 1st-level character being wet tissue paper is a pretty serious problem that will drive people away from the game. Unfortunately, DMs and players alike have the facile but understandable belief that "first level is where you start, because it is first, that is what starting IS, the first thing, so you shouldn't start anywhere but first level. Because it's first."

Such deeply-ingrained intuitive responses are best treated as unfortunate but unavoidable limitations on the design space.

And, as noted, I want things like the above to be GENUINELY well-made and fully-featured, present in the core books, explicitly presented to both DM and player alike as useful options for a particular campaign feel/tone. Because that is how you avoid OTW-ism: both sincere/full-throated support for non-default choices, and actually telling players those choices exist.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is not the DM free to make the game as hard or as easy as they desire??? This is the age of DM empowerment!

 

[Reynard]

Well, the issue is you're talking about the game's design.

I wasn't actually, but I obviously didn't make that clear. I suppose I should have written "When you sit down to play D&D, do you want it to be hard." The way I phrased the OP obviously made people think I was asking about something else. I find that a little frustrating, but it's ultimately my fault so I'll own it.

 

[Reynard]

Is not the DM free to make the game as hard or as easy as they desire??? This is the age of DM empowerment!

Sure, but what do YOU want at YOUR table?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Sure, but what do YOU want at YOUR table?

When I play, I prefer it to be on the easier side to be honest. I'm more then capable at impeding my group so the DM can worry about other things besides making the game hard.

 

[pointofyou]

Unfortunately, DMs and players alike have the facile but understandable belief that "first level is where you start, because it is first, that is what starting IS, the first thing, so you shouldn't start anywhere but first level. Because it's first."

I mostly agree enthusiastically with you but I will point out there are reasons to start at first level that are neither facile nor circular. It is my preference because I want to give everyone a chance to grow into the PCs and I want there to be at least some opportunity to reconsider choices.

 

[LordEntrails]

5e sort of has this, except that above about 3rd level, it's pretty hard to make a fair encounter with much of any chance of killing a pc

That is so not my experience. As a player and a DM I've enjoyed encounter failure and TPKs in the second and third tiers of play. Not yet at tier 4, but that's probably just because we've only played there a relatively small amount. There have certainly been times that we were close to failure and/or TPKs. It's seems to me pretty easy to make encounters that have both real chances of failure and separately real chances of lethality.

Or maybe you mean something else with your qualifier of "fair"?

Sure, but what do YOU want at YOUR table?

Today? Today I'm looking for something with a small (10% over duration of campaign) of character perma-death, but high (80%?) chance of individual encounter failure that leads the campaign into recesses and unforeseen paths.