D&D 5E Why my friends hate talking to me about 5e.

[EzekielRaiden]

That’s why you want to avoid combat whenever possible, and if you do get into combat, try to keep above 0.

Which was my point. We don't avoid rolling skills "whenever possible." Sure, it's better if you don't need to. But it's not like people are fearful about it in most cases.

People should be fearful about combat in the proposed environment. Yet there is a class which is designed to offer essentially nothing beyond an incredibly anemic baseline) to any task other than combat. That seems to produce rather a contradiction for that specific class: you can either play that class, and thus constantly be afraid of situations where you might actually need to use literally ANY of your class features, or avoid playing it, because the rules have soft-banned it. "Oh sure, you COULD play a dragonborn Fighter, but everyone will be racist to you every fight will will punish you severely for trying to make use of the only things your class is designed to contribute. Have 'fun'!"

Also, "try to keep above zero" is essentially impossible in 5e. Healing output is piddly-nothing compared to damage input from opponents. The only way to "try to keep above zero," especially if you're a melee character, is to never fight in the first place. You WILL drop. It is not a debate. It's just a matter of how long it takes to happen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep, very difference experiences...

Now, I don't want characters to die at all. But I also what is the point of combat, challenge, overcoming the foe if dying isn't there?

Do you want to play in Candyland or something? Again, what kind of game do you want???

Again you act as though the only possible states are "death waits behind every corner" and disparaging insults about childish, saccharine, candyfloss wish-fulfillment.

It would help a lot if you, y'know, didn't instantly resort to being rude to a position you don't currently grok.

As for actually answering your question, well, I already said this above, but...because there are other things that have value besides mere survival. Survival value only matters so long as there are things which give value to survival, to riff off one of my favorite CS Lewis quotes. Why not drive at those things directly, rather than using the (IME often kludgy and unsatisfying) proxy of survival?

My players are deeply invested in our game. They care about various NPCs. I can hear it in their voice when they get choked up because of a heartwarming moment or righteously pissed about a villain's shenanigans. They care about the world. They want to know more, they love seeing things unfold or putting in time and effort to make bad things better and good things great. And they care about their fellow adventurers. They want to do right by one another and build each other up, helping one another achieve their personal goals alongside the group goals.

I don't need death to motivate them. Threats to the things they care about, coupled with the prospect of making the world a better place and learning a thing or two along the way, are ample motivation. Hence why I told them I wouldn't randomly, permanently, and irrevocably kill their characters. Either it won't be random (the player and I will work it out), or it won't be permanent (they'll be restored on their own or without needing help to do so), or it won't be irrevocable (they can be brought back, and will probably have their own adventures and revelations while they're "out" as it were.) So long as the players show good faith as participants in the game, I won't take their characters away. If they exploit my goodwill, all bets are off, because I don't tolerate exploitative behavior. But they never have done so in four years of play, so I'm not expecting them to start now.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's a good question, that. I don't really have an answer, because I've been too focused for a long time on "what could go wrong" and trying to adjust for it.

Hmm... I think that is part of the issue. The rest is great: taking time to plan, making great encounters, etc. but it isn't for you to obsess (too strong a word?) over "what could go wrong". The game is random, even if the odds are strong one-way or another...

I've had a player up and leave my house when they died in the middle of a challenging encounter, realizing that they weren't going to be able to play their character for the rest of the night.

Yeah, that would definitely not fly with me as DM. I get it that its frustrating when a PC dies, especially when it is just rotten luck, but walking out in the middle of an encounter is just rude.

But, here is an option you might want to consider, regardless of other rules you adopt--and if your group is up for it--PCs don't die unless the entire group, except that player, (or majority) decides the player's actions (recklessness, typically) were directly responsible.

Take most of the luck out of that part of the equation. Put it to a vote (or ballot if you want to keep it anonymous) where you, as DM, break ties if needed.

Optionally, turn "death" into permanent injury of some sort. Then, recovering from that injury might become a later adventure in itself...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again you act as though the only possible states are "death waits behind every corner" and disparaging insults about childish, saccharine, candyfloss wish-fulfillment.

Again, what again? I certainly didn't act like that...

Also, if you don't care for the tone of my post (when it was said in good humour), ignore me. If the person I was responding to didn't seem to take offense, why should you?

Otherwise, read my other posts and you'll see I am actually trying to help.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again you act as though the only possible states are "death waits behind every corner" and disparaging insults about childish, saccharine, candyfloss wish-fulfillment.

It would help a lot if you, y'know, didn't instantly resort to being rude to a position you don't currently grok.

As for actually answering your question, well, I already said this above, but...because there are other things that have value besides mere survival. Survival value only matters so long as there are things which give value to survival, to riff off one of my favorite CS Lewis quotes. Why not drive at those things directly, rather than using the (IME often kludgy and unsatisfying) proxy of survival?

My players are deeply invested in our game. They care about various NPCs. I can hear it in their voice when they get choked up because of a heartwarming moment or righteously pissed about a villain's shenanigans. They care about the world. They want to know more, they love seeing things unfold or putting in time and effort to make bad things better and good things great. And they care about their fellow adventurers. They want to do right by one another and build each other up, helping one another achieve their personal goals alongside the group goals.

I don't need death to motivate them. Threats to the things they care about, coupled with the prospect of making the world a better place and learning a thing or two along the way, are ample motivation. Hence why I told them I wouldn't randomly, permanently, and irrevocably kill their characters. Either it won't be random (the player and I will work it out), or it won't be permanent (they'll be restored on their own or without needing help to do so), or it won't be irrevocable (they can be brought back, and will probably have their own adventures and revelations while they're "out" as it were.) So long as the players show good faith as participants in the game, I won't take their characters away. If they exploit my goodwill, all bets are off, because I don't tolerate exploitative behavior. But they never have done so in four years of play, so I'm not expecting them to start now.

As I said above, that works great, for everything except combat. I just can't see it being any fun without risk.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which was my point. We don't avoid rolling skills "whenever possible." Sure, it's better if you don't need to. But it's not like people are fearful about it in most cases.

I mean… In my opinion they should be. Ability checks can fail and failure has consequences. Having to make a check is absolutely the soft fail state of an action. Of course, lots of DMs call for checks even when failure has no consequences, so that will change the dynamic.

People should be fearful about combat in the proposed environment. Yet there is a class which is designed to offer essentially nothing beyond an incredibly anemic baseline) to any task other than combat. That seems to produce rather a contradiction for that specific class: you can either play that class, and thus constantly be afraid of situations where you might actually need to use literally ANY of your class features, or avoid playing it, because the rules have soft-banned it. "Oh sure, you COULD play a dragonborn Fighter, but everyone will be racist to you every fight will will punish you severely for trying to make use of the only things your class is designed to contribute. Have 'fun'!"

This just comes across to me as complaining that tanks exist in WoW even though taking damage is bad in that game. There is value in having a character type who’s shtick is being good at a part of the game everyone else wants to avoid.

Should Fighters also have more they can do outside of combat? Yes, absolutely.

Also, "try to keep above zero" is essentially impossible in 5e. Healing output is piddly-nothing compared to damage input from opponents. The only way to "try to keep above zero," especially if you're a melee character, is to never fight in the first place. You WILL drop. It is not a debate. It's just a matter of how long it takes to happen.

You avoid falling to 0 by taking your enemies down to 0 first, and by retreating when your health starts to get low. But, yes, it is inevitable that someone will eventually fall to 0. The point of a rule like this is to make that the point where you shift focus away from delving further into the dungeon for more treasure towards trying to get back to safety with the treasure you’ve acquired.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Which was my point. We don't avoid rolling skills "whenever possible." Sure, it's better if you don't need to. But it's not like people are fearful about it in most cases.

I believe you said in another thread that you haven't played D&D in 5 or 6 years. You might mention this in discussions so there isn't such a disconnect with other posters - like here with this being a 5e thread and all.

 

[James Gasik]

I admit, my right eye twitched at the candyland comment, because I have seen people disparage the games of others with comments like that. But after stopping to read DND Reborn's post, I felt he did make a good point- if my experiences have led me to think that player death can lead to a fail state for my session, or even my campaign, what is the alternative?

I've never taken death off the table, for example. Friends of mine have toyed with "permanent injury instead of death". 13th Age has a mechanic where you revive at the end of an encounter, and you can actually still get a turn in combat where you can support your allies in spirit.

The Sentinels of the Multiverse card game gives you actions you can take even when your hero bites the dust in a similar vein.

I've never adopted these kinds of strategies though, and I'm not sure why. I guess because there reaches a point where it stops being the game called Dungeons and Dragons at a certain point (to me!). So instead, I work hard to try and make falling to 0 or dying less likely through encounter design. I try to have backup plans. I avoid "time out" mechanics like stunning or petrifying the PC's unless I know they can handle it.

Like, if I want to have an encounter with a Medusa, the players will find anti-petrification options long in advance. If they sell, lose, or forget those options, then it's on them, and I don't mind cruelly describing the process of petrification to them, lol.

And maybe I am trying too hard to slap an engine on a wagon and calling it a car, but if the game fails, I for damn sure want to be able to look at myself in the mirror and say "it wasn't my fault".

At the same time, though, if a player dies, I want to be able to say it was their fault, and a lot of times when it happens, I can't think of anything they really could have done differently with that character.

The last player death I presided over, for example. This was a Pathfinder 1e game, so how relevant this is to the topic is debatable, but I digress- my friend Andrew had decided to play a Fighter who employed reach and big damage to get the attention of enemies. Unfortunately, this involved using a two handed weapon and being enlarged, as well as often using Cleave, all things which limited his AC.

All three other players, on the other hand, were heavily focused on keeping their AC's high. Two of which had healing, and one was a Swashbuckler who was psychotically adverse to taking damage, so they would limit their activities to one attack a turn with Spring Attack, or use ranged attacks.

This made for a terrifying situation; when it was my turn, my monsters had two hard targets, one nonexistent target, and one giant guy with a big sword who did a lot of damage.

So they targeted the Fighter. And he would drop fairly often, because he was taking all the damage, and Pathfinder 1e healing spells are just as anemic as 5e ones.

So when he finally did die, it was because he did the thing he said he was going to do, and everyone else was happy to let him. And no one else was taking their "fair share" of hits.

I didn't think this was his fault at all. Nor did I see it as mine. But it still felt unfair to me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I admit, my right eye twitched at the candyland comment, because I have seen people disparage the games of others with comments like that. But after stopping to read DND Reborn's post, I felt he did make a good point- if my experiences have led me to think that player death can lead to a fail state for my session, or even my campaign, what is the alternative?

Well, I apologize if you saw it as disparaging, that wasn't my intent so much as to make my point and challenge you with what you do want.

Death is just one fail state, as I said above, and hopefully I've provided some insight to help you mitigate it and/or find other fail states that work for you and your group.

Not allowing PCs to die would never work for me, personally, but others have posted here about their groups which do not allow PC deaths. It is a game style they enjoy. To each their own, I suppose...

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how combat can be fun and engaging if there's no risk. The rest of D&D, sure, if you build for it, but not combat.

For the same reason people play cards for fun, or do crosswords.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I said above, that works great, for everything except combat. I just can't see it being any fun without risk.

Why is death the only form of risk?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I believe you said in another thread that you haven't played D&D in 5 or 6 years. You might mention this in discussions so there isn't such a disconnect with other posters - like here with this being a 5e thread and all.

You do realize this has no impact on whether I've played 5e, right? It's been out for eight years. I have, in fact, attempted to play in multiple 5e campaigns. All of them didn't last long, and the ones I played with people I actually knew crashed and burned. Hard. I haven't run 5e, of course, but that's beside the point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean… In my opinion they should be. Ability checks can fail and failure has consequences. Having to make a check is absolutely the soft fail state of an action. Of course, lots of DMs call for checks even when failure has no consequences, so that will change the dynamic.

You really think players should be paranoid about making rolls? I struggle to see how this would be an enjoyable play experience, but I suppose different strokes for different folks.

This just comes across to me as complaining that tanks exist in WoW even though taking damage is bad in that game. There is value in having a character type who’s shtick is being good at a part of the game everyone else wants to avoid.

Should Fighters also have more they can do outside of combat? Yes, absolutely.

Then...you're agreeing with my core point. Because my core point is not and has never been "people shouldn't have features for dealing with undesirable events." As I've explicitly said. My position is, and has always been, "Isn't this a problem given that we already have a class specifically designed to ONLY contribute to the thing that isn't supposed to ever happen, while (nearly) everyone else gets stuff for all the other things, which are supposed to happen?"

You avoid falling to 0 by taking your enemies down to 0 first, and by retreating when your health starts to get low. But, yes, it is inevitable that someone will eventually fall to 0. The point of a rule like this is to make that the point where you shift focus away from delving further into the dungeon for more treasure towards trying to get back to safety with the treasure you’ve acquired.

Then you are actively fighting against 5e design. As in, you will need to redesign monsters so that this can play out effectively. Otherwise, you're literally just forcing the players into a meatgrinder, forever, and you're going to have lots of dead characters. Like, frequent and regular dead characters. Which is what I said. The amount of damage output from creatures in 5e is such that falling to 0 is not merely inevitable, it is going to happen frequently. And as you say, as soon as it does, either it's paranoia time, escape escape escape, run way and hide until you're better, or accept that you're probably gonna die.

That's not particularly heroic. And I don't really see the point of playing D&D (as opposed to some other game) if you aren't going to be either big damn heroes, ambiguous Han Solo-esque puckish rogues (whether heroic, neutral, or barely-justified), or villain protagonists. The game isn't, and has never really been, made for much of anything else. I do enough running away from things in real life as it is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again, what again? I certainly didn't act like that...

Yeah, you kind of did. And do.

Like a lot.

People seem to dislike when I say I don't like a certain play style, so maybe being straight up insulting with this 'Candyland' crap isn't a way, yeah? It's not challenging, it's just confrontational.

Actually, any one any time trying to 'challenge' people in a discussion are actually just trying to justify being unnecessarily aggressive. It's on par with 'I'm just doing a social experiment' or 'I'm just asking innocent questions'.

 

[Charlaquin]

You really think players should be paranoid about making rolls? I struggle to see how this would be an enjoyable play experience, but I suppose different strokes for different folks.

Paranoid? No. But it should be an undesirable outcome. You should describe actions with the intent of succeeding without a roll. When a roll is necessary, it should be tense, because as mentioned before, rolls can fail and failure has consequences. That said, you have skills and other proficiencies as failsafes for when you do inevitably end up needing to roll.

Then...you're agreeing with my core point. Because my core point is not and has never been "people shouldn't have features for dealing with undesirable events." As I've explicitly said. My position is, and has always been, "Isn't this a problem given that we already have a class specifically designed to ONLY contribute to the thing that isn't supposed to ever happen, while (nearly) everyone else gets stuff for all the other things, which are supposed to happen?"

My answer to the bolded portion is no, that isn’t a problem. First of all, combat is supposed to happen, it’s just something you’re supposed to want to avoid when you can. Second of all, it is ok to have a class whose shtick is helping the party survive when combat does break out despite their best efforts to the contrary. But, additionally, it would be nice if fighters had more abilities that were useful outside of combat.

Then you are actively fighting against 5e design. As in, you will need to redesign monsters so that this can play out effectively. Otherwise, you're literally just forcing the players into a meatgrinder, forever, and you're going to have lots of dead characters. Like, frequent and regular dead characters. Which is what I said.

I don’t have a problem with character death being a fairly common occurrence. That said, I think even with a rule like this, character death is pretty avoidable, so long as you take precautions, and most importantly, retreat to a safe location to rest when things start to go south. This is precisely the sort of gameplay a rule like this is designed to encourage.

The amount of damage output from creatures in 5e is such that falling to 0 is not merely inevitable, it is going to happen frequently. And as you say, as soon as it does, either it's paranoia time, escape escape escape, run way and hide until you're better, or accept that you're probably gonna die.

In my experience, characters dropping to 0 isn’t all that common after like 4th level. And, yes, when it happens, it should absolutely be time to flee back to town to rest.

That's not particularly heroic. And I don't really see the point of playing D&D (as opposed to some other game) if you aren't going to be either big damn heroes, ambiguous Han Solo-esque puckish rogues (whether heroic, neutral, or barely-justified), or villain protagonists. The game isn't, and has never really been, made for much of anything else. I do enough running away from things in real life as it is.

Umm… The game very much has been for something else. Being Big Damn Heroes or whatever is a perfectly valid and fun way to play D&D, but it is far from the only way to play it, either historically or currently. Not knocking it as a playstyle, and I definitely think a house rule like this one is ill-suited to that playstyle. But there are other viable playstyles, including old-school push-your-luck dungeon delves, which a house rule like this is indeed well-suited to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is death the only form of risk?

In combat? Yes, death needs to be a risk. Not necessarily the only risk, but it needs to be there. Unless everyone you fight just wants to take you prisoner.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the same reason people play cards for fun, or do crosswords.

Neither of those activities are intended to be dangerous.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You really think players should be paranoid about making rolls? I struggle to see how this would be an enjoyable play experience, but I suppose different strokes for different folks.


Then...you're agreeing with my core point. Because my core point is not and has never been "people shouldn't have features for dealing with undesirable events." As I've explicitly said. My position is, and has always been, "Isn't this a problem given that we already have a class specifically designed to ONLY contribute to the thing that isn't supposed to ever happen, while (nearly) everyone else gets stuff for all the other things, which are supposed to happen?"


Then you are actively fighting against 5e design. As in, you will need to redesign monsters so that this can play out effectively. Otherwise, you're literally just forcing the players into a meatgrinder, forever, and you're going to have lots of dead characters. Like, frequent and regular dead characters. Which is what I said. The amount of damage output from creatures in 5e is such that falling to 0 is not merely inevitable, it is going to happen frequently. And as you say, as soon as it does, either it's paranoia time, escape escape escape, run way and hide until you're better, or accept that you're probably gonna die.

That's not particularly heroic. And I don't really see the point of playing D&D (as opposed to some other game) if you aren't going to be either big damn heroes, ambiguous Han Solo-esque puckish rogues (whether heroic, neutral, or barely-justified), or villain protagonists. The game isn't, and has never really been, made for much of anything else. I do enough running away from things in real life as it is.

So what you're really saying you don't want to play that way. That's fine.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Paranoid? No. But it should be an undesirable outcome. You should describe actions with the intent of succeeding without a roll. When a roll is necessary, it should be tense, because as mentioned before, rolls can fail and failure has consequences. That said, you have skills and other proficiencies as failsafes for when you do inevitably end up needing to roll.

This whole concept is just bizarre to me. Rolls are needed whenever anything is in doubt. To treat that as a "failure" condition is just...you're literally saying using the rules ever, for any reason, is a failure condition. If it is a failure to need the rules, why are we even playing a game at all?

My answer to the bolded portion is no, that isn’t a problem. First of all, combat is supposed to happen, it’s just something you’re supposed to want to avoid when you can. Second of all, It is ok to have a class whose shtick is helping the party survive when combat does break out despite their best efforts to the contrary. But, additionally, it would be nice if fighters had more abilities that were useful outside of combat.

If it's supposed to happen, it's not a failure state. If it's a failure state, it's not supposed to happen. Like, that's literally what a "failure state" means! If it's supposed to happen, it is at least in some way intended. If it's a failure state, it occurring means something went wrong.

What else could those words in that combination mean?

In my experience, characters dropping to 0 isn’t all that common after like 4th level. And, yes, when it happens, it should absolutely be time to flee back to town to rest.

In my experience, it is, though I admit I don't have quite as much experience with those levels as I have with the earlier levels. Where characters dropping to 0 (and then outright dying) happened. A lot. Repeatedly. It ruined several games as a result. Hence why I am so skeptical about a rule like this. When four totally different DMs have each caused undesired and campaign-ending TPKs at early levels, yeah, I take rather seriously that death lurks around every corner.

Umm… The game very much has been for something else. Being Big Damn Heroes or whatever is a perfectly valid and fun way to play D&D, but it is far from the only way to play it, either historically or currently. Not knocking it as a playstyle, and I definitely think a house rule like this one is ill-suited to that playstyle. But there are other viable playstyles, including old-school push-your-luck dungeon delves, which a house rule like this is indeed well-suited to.

The bolded bit is covered by the puckish rogues or, for the darkest versions, villain protagonists. Like, that's the whole point of being a murderhobo diving into a murder-hole. You're supposed to take big risks for big reward. You aren't supposed to respond with fear to the murder-hole. Constantly running away leads to rather dull gameplay in the Gygaxian dungeon-heist model. Which is why I said what I said.

In combat? Yes, death needs to be a risk. Not necessarily the only risk, but it needs to be there. Unless everyone you fight just wants to take you prisoner.

Let me rephrase:

Why is random, permanent, irrevocable character death the only form of risk?

I already said death can happen in my game. It hasn't yet (because my players are extremely cautious...frankly, cautious to a fault despite my assurances), but it can happen. The only guarantee I offer is that I won't take away a player's character. If a character dies, then their death will either be an agreement between us, or it will only be temporary, or it can be reversed later but that will require effort from the players.

Neither of those activities are intended to be dangerous.

Rock climbing, football, and being an astronaut are all dangerous. No one looks forward (or, rather, should look forward) to the possibility of dying from them. But, as stated, it is totally possible that a character could die in my game--they just either won't stay that way, or will pass on because the player thinks that's for the best. The quest to save a friend from death becomes one of the main consequences, which is dramatically more interesting than "welp, guess they're dead and never getting any resolution about anything ever, what do you want to roll up now?"

So what you're really saying you don't want to play that way. That's fine.

I'm saying the game is fundamentally designed not to be played that way, and stuff needs to be done to adjust it so that it can actually work for that goal. The Fighter being an absolute desert for anything except combat features is one of those things that needs adjustment. Monster design is another.

I legit don't care if people want to use a rule like this or not. I'm solely pointing out that going for a rule like this without changing anything else to match it is a recipe for upset players and poor experiences.

 

[Slit518]

This reminds me of a homebrew rule where players suffer 1 level of exhaustion each time they drop to 0 hit points.

Her rule just adds another level for each failed Death Save, but you're conscious.