D&D 5E The Mainstreaming of D&D

[Charlaquin]

Unless I say otherwise, I am always speaking for myself.

Sure. Sorry, I was just casually using the turn of phrase, not trying to suggest you were putting words in anyone’s mouth.

Regardless of gameplay norms, though, it’s a wild notion that a group of explorer-mercenaries would face 6-8 dangerous encounters per day, even as an average, much less as a flat out norm.

It may be fun, but like many dndisms, it’s a wild notion in any in-world sense.

I disagree. If said adventurer-mercenaries are in the midst of enemy territory, what’s so wild about the notion that they would end up in half a dozen small skirmishes with those enemies while they’re there? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So are Magic Missiles, 700 year old Elves or being able to shoot 12 arrows in a minute while doing acrobatic stunts. The game is not really going for "realism" as such.

Sure, thus my "like a lot of dndisms".

Not saying everyone has to play that way, and I love that they designed a game that allows for fun when not going full throttle.

And I like that 5e has guidance for going full "dnd dungeon delve with skilled play as a focus" style, all the way to the freeform RP with only climactic confrontations using the combat mechanics at all, or super story focused where character death only happens with player buy-in to tell a good story, and it all works.

Which is what I was trying to get across.

Sure. Sorry, I was just casually using the turn of phrase, not trying to suggest you were putting words in anyone’s mouth.

Ah, fair enough.

I disagree. If said adventurer-mercenaries are in the midst of enemy territory, what’s so wild about the notion that they would end up in half a dozen small skirmishes with those enemies while they’re there? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I think 6-8 potentially deadly encounters per day is...extreme. Like, on the extreme end of the extreme spectrum. Like only matched by the most gonzo action movies, extreme. It's God of War or other metroidvania style games style, where you are expected to just kind of not think about how incredibly exhausting this would be, and how you'd need weeks of rest to recover from just a couple such days, if you somehow managed to survive.

I mean, imagine doing a really, really, brutally, intense martial arts competition with full contact combat, every day, for a week. You'd suck at all physical activities by the end of the second day, if not before that. In dnd terms, you'd be making saves against exhaustion every day, and eventually every fight.

 

[el-remmen]

I think you’re getting at something here that I’m going to have to borrow some Forge jargon to describe. A lot of pixels have been spilled on what the Forge called “Story Before” and “Story Now”: respectively, coming up with a story first and playing it out at the table, versus creating a story as you play. But I think there’s another approach to story that didn’t really get attention on the Forge, tending to be lumped in with one of the other two. You might call it “Story After”: where there is no story planned out, and no particular effort is made during play to craft a story out of what’s happening; rather, you explore the world and as you put it, just see what happens. It’s only in looking at the events that occurred during play retrospectively that a story emerges. The story is neither something the DM plans nor something that occurs during play, it’s what you tell when you’re looking back on the game, saying, “remember that time when…”

Right, but I am not describing a wholly sandbox style - my longest running game "Out of the Frying Pan" had defined conceit for making characters and the direction of the first few adventures (escaping conscription into a war you don't care about to go on your own adventures) - but the actual shape of how it ended up with transplanar fortress, the rise of an orcish empire, the return of ancient dwarf king, and the return of an evil god at the cost of a PC's life (that he sacrificed willingly!) all emerged from the choices developed by where they chose to go within the initial framework and with opportunities to leave it altogether.

 

[Parmandur]

I think 6-8 potentially deadly encounters per day is...extreme. Like, on the extreme end of the extreme spectrum. Like only matched by the most gonzo action movies, extreme. It's God of War or other metroidvania style games style, where you are expected to just kind of not think about how incredibly exhausting this would be, and how you'd need weeks of rest to recover from just a couple such days, if you somehow managed to survive.

I mean, imagine doing a really, really, brutally, intense martial arts competition with full contact combat, every day, for a week. You'd suck at all physical activities by the end of the second day, if not before that. In dnd terms, you'd be making saves against exhaustion every day, and eventually every fight.

Well, a party doesn't need to do an Adventure Day every day: it would make some sense to space them out, and the week for a long rest rule is pretty fair. But, yes, a pretty gonzo action movie or pulp novel set-up.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think 6-8 potentially deadly encounters per day is...extreme.

Well, it’s 6-8 medium or hard encounters, which in D&D parlance means “might have one or two scary moments but the PCs should emerge victorious with no casualties” or “a slim chance one of the PCs might die”. Most of these encounters are not seriously life-threatening for the characters.

Like, on the extreme end of the extreme spectrum. Like only matched by the most gonzo action movies, extreme. It's God of War or other metroidvania style games style, where you are expected to just kind of not think about how incredibly exhausting this would be, and how you'd need weeks of rest to recover from just a couple such days, if you somehow managed to survive.

I mean, imagine doing a really, really, brutally, intense martial arts competition with full contact combat, every day, for a week. You'd suck at all physical activities by the end of the second day, if not before that. In dnd terms, you'd be making saves against exhaustion every day, and eventually every fight.

Ok, I see what you mean. Unrealistic that this sort of thing happens to the characters regularly with no apparent long-term complications. Yeah, that’s a D&D-ism.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right, but I am not describing a wholly sandbox style - my longest running game "Out of the Frying Pan" had defined conceit for making characters and the direction of the first few adventures (escaping conscription into a war you don't care about to go on your own adventures) - but the actual shape of how it ended up with transplanar fortress, the rise of an orcish empire, the return of ancient dwarf king, and the return of an evil god at the cost of a PC's life (that he sacrificed willingly!) all emerged from the choices developed by where they chose to go within the initial framework and with opportunities to leave it altogether.

I’m not describing a sandbox either, necessarily. A sandbox is a type of campaign structure - as opposed to linear, branching, or complex (involving elements of multiple structures). But what I’m talking about here is the approach to narrative. Is it planned out in advance, created during play, or realized in retrospect?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, it’s 6-8 medium or hard encounters, which in D&D parlance means “might have one or two scary moments but the PCs should emerge victorious with no casualties” or “a slim chance one of the PCs might die”. Most of these encounters are not seriously life-threatening for the characters.

Ok, I see what you mean. Unrealistic that this sort of thing happens to the characters regularly with no apparent long-term complications. Yeah, that’s a D&D-ism.

Yeah, exactly, and it's a dndism that many groups dislike and avoid, and have done for many editions at this point, which is why I pointed out the other way to make PCs not feel invulnerable, and that it doesn't rely on this particular dndism. I should have spent more time on that post, and made it more clear in the first place. Sorry about that.

 

[Undrave]

Augh... sometimes when I read you all I feel like I'm just not playing this game right or that my group isn't that good at it or something... Like I don't have any paticularly interesting story to share.

Off course, I haven't actually PLAYED since later 2019 so 'DnD' for me has been, basically, just hanging out in here with you lot...

Well, would you hate Worlds Without Number... (Which is a shame, since it has great mechanics.)

I always felt that every single DMG was terrible. They are all mostly optional or expanded rules, without really anything useful to learn doing GM tasks. (The Star Wars d6 Gamemaster Handbook is the only such book I know of that does that.)

The 4e DMGs were generally well regarded too.

 

[Azuresun]

Unless I say otherwise, I am always speaking for myself.

Regardless of gameplay norms, though, it’s a wild notion that a group of explorer-mercenaries would face 6-8 dangerous encounters per day, even as an average, much less as a flat out norm.

It may be fun, but like many dndisms, it’s a wild notion in any in-world sense.

Standard reminder that the DMG does not mandate 6-8 encounters if you read it for yourself rather than going on hearsay.

 

[Charlaquin]

Standard reminder that the DMG does not mandate 6-8 encounters if you read it for yourself rather than going on hearsay.

Standard reminder that no one here has claimed it does.