D&D 5E "The so-called '5-Minute Workday' is Something I've Seen Regularly Playing 5E D&D" (a poll)

[Mort]

Again, we're talking about a situation where apparently everyone but the DM is on the same page and therefore no, it is the players who are wrong.

Frankly I would immediately nope out of any game where the DM tells me they consider my character inherently expendable and not to get too attached. That would be a waste of time for me and a game I wouldn't enjoy. So I and any other player who feels the same aren't obligated to participate in it.

There's a large gap between inherently expendable and "might die."

But that's the point of having this conversation early one (with the DM) about what to expect from the play experience. Then, as long as everyone is being up front and honest - the play experience will be better.

I mean if the players want a fun exploratory heavy/interaction heavy campaign where combat is minimized/non existent and the DM wants/is running a meat grinder - there's been a huge lack of communication somewhere! And the group likely won't last long in its current incarnation.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's a large gap between inherently expendable and "might die."

Yeah, but then this is the actual thing you were quoting:

To me characters are fictional constructs that can be moved, dropped, traded away, driven like it’s stolen, and discarded with ease.

That's... what expendable means?

 

[Blue]

I guess that'd depend on what I'm trying to find out. . .

That would be true if you were the only one reading the results of the poll and making judgements on it.

Which isn't the case.

 

[Mort]

It's unreasonable to expect Gencon & similar get on an airplane book a hotel & maybe even wait in line events to be used as the standard of normal AL play. Gencon AL games & similar are almost certainly such a tiny minority of AL games that I would be surprised if they even amounted to a number high enough for them to be counted as a rounding error just compared to weekly/biweekly D&D/AL night games at hosted in various FLGS that host it. Things might be different in more remote rural areas wher ther os one FLGS with a little table in the back coner, but thatr too is not the only style. I live in an area with high population density & high tourism, back when I was still running AL (precovid) I think we usually had 6-8 GM's running tables of 3-6 players each with (many) tables left over if there were people who wanted to setup somewhere.

I'll have to check out the AL games at my local game store (I don't bother because I have a great steady group), maybe I'll even volunteer to run a few to see how it's actually like.

IME the problem is usually less "the table agrees" & more "the rules are setup in a way that encourages the table to say "sure ok" rather than standing up being the one everyone stares at trying to wear the fun police hat.". There is absolutely no mechanical reason to support someone saying no other than preference vrs preference and a whole bunch of mechanical reasons for the player pushing for a rest to use as support for why another rest is important.

Also players who don't care about narrative deadlines in the world are totally understandable once you look at it from their PoV on the game. Crawford & other Wotc folk has repeatedly told them that d&d lets you tell "your story" & the chapter1 step by step character creation* in the PHB doesn't even mention working with the group or anything till they have gone through with your choice your character your backstory your background your etc so the other players are just sidekicks & extras. Plenty of video games are setup where an NPC dies bad thing happens or whatever no matter what the player dies despite appearances to the contrary, d&d is no different to them because they keep getting told that it's a chance for them to tell their story. If the npc dies or whatever that's just more content to consume next week, here is a great post on that mindset.

* Yes it's the entire chapter & working with others doesn't even come up till a brrief mention at the very end of character creation.

I guess, having a steady group of old grognards, I just don't see it. But I don't remember EVER encountering this type, grade school on up!

 

[Mort]

Yeah, but then this is the actual thing you were quoting:



That's... what expendable means?

I think he was just expressing amazement at someone being SO attached to a piece of paper figment of the imagination. Regardless, I think the later posts clarified what I thought on the issue and your comments.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I've just never had players like this.

I mean, I've had risk averse players, and players playing risk averse characters.

But to just completely shut down ANY risk whatever? Why are you playing D&D then? It just seems totally alien to me!

Right? I wish I knew. I don't get it. It's completely alien to me as well. Near as I can tell it's a part of OC style play, often referred to as main character syndrome. By default the PCs are the main characters of an unfolding story and they're guaranteed to survive no matter what. Or something. It sounds utterly boring to me.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do AL games not usually have time pressure?

Yes. They will often have some level of pressure or deadline, but may allow choices to mitigate it. (If you choose to travel stealthily over the safe route, you won't have time for any rests. If you choose to go fast you may risk more trouble with encounters/hazards, or levels of exhaustion but you will have time for a long rest.) - That sort of choice.
Furthermore, some may have areas where they just plain say "You cannot rest here. It is too extreme an environment." (Too hot, too cold, choking spores etc.) The adventure may have a specific encounter or area within it that will allow a rest however.

However, this often doesn't mitigate the "one or two encounter day". Because most AL adventures are designed to be run in 2 or 4 hours, they often have only a few combats in them, and they very rarely distinguish between short or long rests. Thus they do tend to favour long-rest classes by a large margin.

Or…as I said in other posts…the players ignore any and all time pressure.

I believe that your player experience is highly unusual.

 

[overgeeked]

But if every time a "dangerous" situation comes up, you just say "nope, I'm out..." what kind of collaborative story are you telling?

You're not. That's part of the problem.

I mean, ok, if the table as a group agrees - we want no ACTUAL risk to the characters EVER and that's the style of play -sure why not?

For me, why not is because that's utterly boring. If others want to play that way, cool, have "fun" of whatever kind that provides you, but I want no part of it. And I certainly won't run a game like that.

I'll agree that character death is kind of a boring risk, sure. There are plenty of more fun ones to incorporate into the game.

I think that's maybe part of my uniquely bad experience with 5E. If the players don't care at all about anything outside their characters, there's nothing but loss of their characters to lever as the referee. If they don't care about the X, you can't use a threat against X as leverage for story and drama. When X = everything other than their character...you're left high and dry. I've had players literally let towns and cities burn rather than risk their characters.

As always, the BEST option is for the players and DM to all be on the same page as to what they actually want out of the play experience.

Absolutely. If a referee offers to run a game in a style you don't want...maybe don't play in that game.

There's a large gap between inherently expendable and "might die."

I think they're inherently connected. For someone to accept that their character might die, they have to view the character as expendable. Because if they don't, when the possibility becomes a reality, they will freak out...because they're too attached to their characters...unless they view them as inherently expendable. I don't want players to treat their characters like nameless soldiers being moved around a battlefield far away, but I also don't want them so attached that they cannot do anything that involves risk to their character. It's a game of fantasy action-adventure that involves risking life and limb. If you don't want that you're playing the wrong game.

To me the best course of action is to not forget that it's a game. Treating a fictional character you've created as something that's actually alive and cannot be lost is...inherently weird. It's numbers on a sheet of paper. It's a name and some stats you put together. It's not real. It's not alive. And it's most certainly not you. Nothing bad happens to the player when the character dies in the game. But a lot of players act like it's some huge ordeal. It's not. It's a fictional construct you've created to share in a mutual hallucination with other people involving dice. You made one character. You can make another.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I believe that your player experience is highly unusual.

I'm going to agree. (modern*) D&D frustrates me that you have to put in time pressures (or other, similar things) to make not going and resting after every encounter not be, frankly, the strategically optimal choice. However, I still don't see it come up continuously, and I certainly don't see players actively resisting time pressures.
*BITD we played that the play session ended when you went to rest (or that the dungeon occupants would plan traps/run away with the loot) when you went to rest. Gameplay has moved away from the style without anything coming it to replace it as a mechanism other than DM finding yet another reason why they need to rush

Right? I wish I knew. I don't get it. It's completely alien to me as well. Near as I can tell it's a part of OC style play, often referred to as main character syndrome. By default the PCs are the main characters of an unfolding story and they're guaranteed to survive no matter what. Or something. It sounds utterly boring to me.

There is absolutely no reason why the fail-state of the game as to be character death for it to not be boring. Were the initial inspiration for the initial RPG not a wargame, it's unclear that that would even be the primary tension point*. Plenty of RPGS, from Toon to Ghostbusters have had character death not be am outcome with a delineated mechanic. Any form of failure can work. Other games, such as GURPS or Hero System, often have it much more likely that a character will be knocked out, rather than killed, and few if any of those lack tension. These sound like perhaps better games for these players (whether you want to GM for them is of course another matter).
*Let's say it had been En Garde instead of Chainmail -- death certainly could have been a possibility in-game, but other outcomes like consistent losing of duels/honor/social standing might have been more likely and salient outcomes to fear.

 

[overgeeked]

There is absolutely no reason why the fail-state of the game as to be character death for it to not be boring.

When the only thing the players care about is their own character...you have nothing to leverage for story and drama. They don't care about the town or the townsfolk, so threatening them doesn't evoke story or drama...it evokes a resounding "meh." Same goes for basically everything else. If the only important thing to the player is their character, that's the only leverage you have as a referee.

Were the initial inspiration for the initial RPG not a wargame, it's unclear that that would even be the primary tension point*. Plenty of RPGS, from Toon to Ghostbusters have had character death not be am outcome with a delineated mechanic. Any form of failure can work. Other games, such as GURPS or Hero System, often have it much more likely that a character will be knocked out, rather than killed, and few if any of those lack tension.

Well, look at all the other kinds of games that exist and have existed before D&D. The parlor games, story games, card games, non-D&D RPGs, etc.

These sound like perhaps better games for these players (whether you want to GM for them is of course another matter).

Absolutely. The players are not interested in D&D as I understand it. They want something else. But, because of the dominance of D&D as the RPG, they try to play D&D like...whatever it is that they're actually after.