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

[Mort]

I’ve found that they prefer not losing, or even risking, their characters over completing their goals. If they can complete a goal with zero risk, they will. If they have to risk anything, they’d rather sit at home and do nothing.

Absolutely. Which is almost the opposite of what I want. To most 5E players, in my experience, their characters are more precious than gold. They refuse to risk them. To me characters are fictional constructs that can be moved, dropped, traded away, driven like it’s stolen, and discarded with ease. To me “this is challenging” means “don’t be too attached to your characters.” When I spotted that was a miscommunication I made that clear to the players. That did not go over well. One player literally gasped and a few quit.

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!

 

[Vaalingrade]

But to just completely shut down ANY risk whatever? Why are you playing D&D then?

To tell a fun story collaboratively with my friends while embodying a character of my creation?

 

[Mistwell]

Some yes, most no. ToA is really the only one that did.

Speaking of that, I am going through Tomb of Annihilation right now and have been for the past year (?) and I have to say, this is a fantastic adventure! In the right hands, this is really a superb romp of exploration and discovery and action. And as you mentioned, every hour, and every day, counts. Every side trek we decide to go on is a risk due to the time pressure. If we get lost, lives are at stake. If we get badly injured and are low on resources and need to rest, lives are at stake due to that delay. And it's hard to rest - very difficult to find a secure location where something won't find us and try to eat us.

 

[Mort]

To tell a fun story collaboratively with my friends while embodying a character of my creation?

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

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?

But assuming a "standard" adventure which the players have all agreed to engage with, that type of play just seems weird.

 

[Shardstone]

Most of D&D gets weird if you think about it... and you're assuming that the Level 1 and Level 2 adventures take place back to back. You might have several days between adventures.

Still, I ran a game in which PCs leveled from 1 to 20 in less than three months. It was essentially a 100% Dungeon Delve Mega Dungeon and they had no real option to take a break as there were several 'Swords of Damocles' hanging over their head that gave them incentives to resolve issues expediently.

In my setting, I actually do have an answer for this capability to rise in ability. When the Raven Queen ascended to Godhood, she killed a Dwarven God of Death and shattered his power and sent it out into the world. Beings across the plains, mostly humanoids, were touched by these shards and became 'God Touched'. She then grew into her Godhood through other/related means...

The benefit of being Godtouched? You get to advance like a D&D character does and you get to make death saves as the PHB describes it. If you're not God Touched, going from level 1 to 5 might take a typical human a lifetime of work and devotion. The most dedicated humans that are not God Touched might take 100 years to reach level 7 as a wizard. Elves and Dwarves might reach level 9 or 10 over their several centuries if not God Touched. However, a God Touched might get to level 10 in a very active month.

Fortunately for story purposes, God Touched tend to be drawn together, both as allies and enemies...

I have made an answer for my setting as well, so in retrospect, my flabbergastedness was completely baseless hahahahaha

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

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?

But assuming a "standard" adventure which the players have all agreed to engage with, that type of play just seems weird.

If it's just the DM that wants the 'actual risk' (the one risk or stake that ever seems to exist with no variation ever and the one that is most boring and time wasting -- character death), then it's weird that they're the one that feels the others are bad and weird.

 

[Mort]

If it's just the DM that wants the 'actual risk' (the one risk or stake that ever seems to exist with no variation ever and the one that is most boring and time wasting -- character death), then it's weird that they're the one that feels the others are bad and weird.

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.

But it's still the most common one in most D&D games. And if the response to any of that kind of risk is "nope, I'm out..." maybe the better option is to have a talk with the DM about what you actually want out of the game?

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Regularly? No. But I have seen it. In my experience, the remedy is to have multiple encounters per day.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

But it's still the most common one in most D&D games. And if the response to any of that kind of risk is "nope, I'm out..." maybe the better option is to have a talk with the DM about what you actually want out of the game?

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.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

You're talking about players that approach AL play in horribly bad faith.

I tend to play AL at places like Gen Con (Did about 16 hours last year) and have never once ran into this!

And While I'm sure these players exist, basing any opinions on such bad faith play seems misplaced IMO. These would be the type to pervert just about any gameplay.

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.

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

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?

But assuming a "standard" adventure which the players have all agreed to engage with, that type of play just seems weird.

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.