D&D 5E Why penalize returning from death?

[5ekyu]

Edit to correct odd quote results and add some clarity.

I had ABSOLUTELY no idea how powerful a goblin was to my first level character. Complete misplay on my part. I learned from the mistake, though, and I rage in 90 percent of my combat encounters now. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...
Thats cool, but as a GM my main question to myself would be "why did i want character death to be the way the player realizes he is "misplaying" the character knowledge?" (referencing the part of the discussion earlier which characterizes the second character knowing it as "the first was mis-roleplayed"

If a player running a rogue decides to try to jump a chasm to grab a wet slick wall over a fall to death, when i say "you will need a 25 athletics roll to make the jump, then a 20 to catch the wall and hang on plus more for every 15' climb" etc etc etc... That player can look at his sheet and go "whoa.... Thats a bad idea" Now of course some may use more narrative ways to describe it, but few are likely to just let the character do the almost certain death move without a nudge of "are you sure."

But a first level barbie get double goblined and decides "save rage for later" - if that is *actually* a bad idea likely to result in death and something as GM seen as "not roleplaying the character knowledge" as someone references above... Why did the GM choose to not say "just so you know... Your character knows goblins like this kill individuals almost as good as your best all the time so holding back is a real risk..."

Combat is a series of events and rolls, not as easily expressed by a high DC, but if character knowledge says "this is a deadly encounter" why for combat wait until after death to let the player know that and make decisions armed with that knowledge?

Just seems odd for the decision of "that was knowledge the character has to draw on" to be hinged on some other one stranger's demise.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Arilyn]

A game in which death is not penalized is like playing in a sports league that doesn't keep score and gives everybody a participation trophy. Both are relatively recent concepts in relation to my age and experience. Maybe the two are linked, and just a symptom of generational differences.

I think that D&D suffers a little from it's shaky foundation here. It started as a war game and tried to evolve into a role-playing game. It got stuck somewhere in the middle. I think that it would do better if it chose one of those paths to focus on. Either be a competitive combat and magic game with well-defined rules that inspires a hint of role-playing, or be a narrative dramatic storytelling and role-playing system that utilizes light rules to organize game play. I don't think that it is possible to cater to both groups very well with the same game.

Your points are very valid, and is an issue plaguing the game. DnD, however, is the entry point to the hobby for a large percentage of players, and therefore, is forced to straddle the fence. 4e was marketed more as a tactical, skirmish kind of game, and it failed to garner the support WOTC wanted for a DnD game. If DnD went in a more narrative, light rules approach, I think there would also be a large exodus of players.

5e satisfies most "traditional" DnD players, and has enough of a narrative vibe to suit players wanting to emulate their favourite stories. It doesn't do either end super well, but it is a fun system, easy to learn, and has made the necessary compromises to do well. Of course, having the DnD brand name helps a lot, but is not necessarily a guarantee of success. New players, who fall in love with the hobby, may branch out to other games that fit their play style better. Lots to choose from these days!

 

[Wulffolk]

[MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] You are right about D&D being the flagship product of our hobby and being the gateway into role-playing for many new players. D&D casts a wide net over the hobby and provides a common ground for many of us to relate to. However, the fact that it does not do anything particularly well is why we see so much division amongst it's fans. Many people like D&D and know it, but few people are satisfied with it as is. Hence the reason for so much house-ruling and home-brewing. I suppose that is part of the magic that is D&D, every difference of opinion generates more discussion and publicity, keeping it from dying. An extremely well-written and self-contained system has no need for more rule books or newer editions, and generates less discussion.

 

[Arilyn]

[MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] You are right about D&D being the flagship product of our hobby and being the gateway into role-playing for many new players. D&D casts a wide net over the hobby and provides a common ground for many of us to relate to. However, the fact that it does not do anything particularly well is why we see so much division amongst it's fans. Many people like D&D and know it, but few people are satisfied with it as is. Hence the reason for so much house-ruling and home-brewing. I suppose that is part of the magic that is D&D, every difference of opinion generates more discussion and publicity, keeping it from dying. An extremely well-written and self-contained system has no need for more rule books or newer editions, and generates less discussion.

True. DnD has so many past experiences and expectations attached to it that it may be impossible for an edition to be published without huge amounts of discussion and argument. Shortly after the very original game was published, there were heated debates over how it should be played. It wasn't just because the first rules were confusing, either.

I think 5e could have been a better game, but my problems with the system are probably different than your problems. Other games don't have as many debates swirling around them, because if players are unhappy with a particular rule set, they will quit playing. Also, other games narrow their focus. The White Wolf storytelling system appeals to a certain type of player, for example. DnD is ubiquitous, and can be hard to escape, especially, if your group doesn't want to play anything else.

So, we will continue to get new editions of the game, and it will probably never be perfected. Keep on houseruling...

 

[24Fanatic365]

Edit to correct odd quote results and add some clarity.



...
Thats cool, but as a GM my main question to myself would be "why did i want character death to be the way the player realizes he is "misplaying" the character knowledge?" (referencing the part of the discussion earlier which characterizes the second character knowing it as "the first was mis-roleplayed"

If a player running a rogue decides to try to jump a chasm to grab a wet slick wall over a fall to death, when i say "you will need a 25 athletics roll to make the jump, then a 20 to catch the wall and hang on plus more for every 15' climb" etc etc etc... That player can look at his sheet and go "whoa.... Thats a bad idea" Now of course some may use more narrative ways to describe it, but few are likely to just let the character do the almost certain death move without a nudge of "are you sure."

But a first level barbie get double goblined and decides "save rage for later" - if that is *actually* a bad idea likely to result in death and something as GM seen as "not roleplaying the character knowledge" as someone references above... Why did the GM choose to not say "just so you know... Your character knows goblins like this kill individuals almost as good as your best all the time so holding back is a real risk..."

Combat is a series of events and rolls, not as easily expressed by a high DC, but if character knowledge says "this is a deadly encounter" why for combat wait until after death to let the player know that and make decisions armed with that knowledge?

Just seems odd for the decision of "that was knowledge the character has to draw on" to be hinged on some other one stranger's demise.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I honestly don’t think the GM was trying to kill me off for not playing a barbarian correctly. It was just one of those things that happened. I was the only one in melee with those two goblins, so when it was their turn, of course they attacked me. After their turn, I was unconscious, and failed 3 death saves in a row, if I remember correctly. The GM felt kinda bad that I had died so quickly, so gave me the option to be resurrected by an unknown entity that I’ll owe something to in the future. I think the whole experience added a cool, unforeseen twist to my character’s story.

I had no idea the scenario of my character’s untimely death would strike so many nerves in this thread! [emoji15][emoji848][emoji44][emoji2]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5ekyu]

I honestly don’t think the GM was trying to kill me off for not playing a barbarian correctly. It was just one of those things that happened. I was the only one in melee with those two goblins, so when it was their turn, of course they attacked me. After their turn, I was unconscious, and failed 3 death saves in a row, if I remember correctly. The GM felt kinda bad that I had died so quickly, so gave me the option to be resurrected by an unknown entity that I’ll owe something to in the future. I think the whole experience added a cool, unforeseen twist to my character’s story.

I had no idea the scenario of my character’s untimely death would strike so many nerves in this thread! [emoji15][emoji848][emoji44][emoji2]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i get it... honestly i never thought of this kind of thing as a "did not roleplay character right" either until it was brought up here. i just thought of it as "made a choice, took a risk, turned out badly kind of thing." It was made more direclty relevant for me since the session we had played right before yours, the gang of mine engaged an adversary group "knowing" there were more to come later and held back for that fight - decided to not use "expendables" they might need in the other fight. As a result, one character held back and got whammied in... get this... two rounds by an adversary he underestimated and who did not hold back one bit.

Sound familiar?

Now the difference there was there were other PCs who took the time and risk to stabilize him so he did not die.

The funny thing about the situation was two were on the advance team and they did the initial fight. the other two were just a few rounds back.

So, as the adversary dropped the first PC, he had one PC left in direct combat and saw two more approaching. So he made a break for it but was chased down and caught and then... talked his way out of dead by agreeing to betray his allies. They were stunned by "wait we dont have to torture info out of you??"

"Heck no. i got no loyalty to them, especially when my hide is on the line. i can tell you the whole thing and even i can draw some away and and and ..."

it was loads of fun, to be sure, though I am pretty dang sure the character who got filleted in two round wont be as forgiving the next time.

That NPC ("Sonny") still lives and will be back!!!

 

[abirdcall]

Many people like D&D and know it, but few people are satisfied with it as is.

Are you sure about that?

 

[5ekyu]

Are you sure about that?

Actually, i think you can replace D&D with "any rpg" and be just as accurate... well maybe not about the know it.

"of the people who play "ANYRPG: The Metaphor", like it and know it, few of those people are satisfied with it as is."

i say that because regardless of the RPG, beyond a few cases like "newbies" or "shared games/competitions" every RPG i have asen played in practice had either house rules in play or discussions rampant about "this or that should be" or both. For most every even moderately successful RPG there is only a small subset who "are satisfied with it as is."

I don't see any difference with D&D vs those except the scales involved.

 

[Wulffolk]

Are you sure about that?

While i lack the statistics to back this up, I am absolutely confident of it's accuracy. In my anecdotal experience I have not seen any D&D group play the game as it is written since the earliest editions. The only edition my groups ever played as written was the basic D&D red box, and that did not last long. The only other exceptions have been convention games and organized play like AL, where strangers need a common point of reference.

When it comes to that statement applying to every game I disagree. For competitive style war games with well-defined rules almost everybody plays them as written, because "rules lawyers". I think most people play narrative focused games as they are written because rules mean much less to them to begin with and are usually fairly light. The only games that I really see house-rules as being the norm, with few people playing as written, are games like D&D that try to straddle the fence between war-game and role-playing game, especially when they carry over non-sensical and imbalanced rules over many editions for the sake of tradition.

 

[abirdcall]

While i lack the statistics to back this up, I am absolutely confident of it's accuracy.

Seems strange to me to be so confident. Are you aware of how immensely popular 5e is? The sales are huge.

In my anecdotal experience I have not seen any D&D group play the game as it is written since the earliest editions.

Your world is a small one. So is mine. So is this and other message boards. So are all the players at conventions. All of the people who frequent every D&D 5e message board and conventions only make up a very tiny amount of the player population. I think you are not aware of the scope of the game.

The only other exceptions have been convention games and organized play like AL, where strangers need a common point of reference.

What is the difference between this and...

For competitive style war games with well-defined rules almost everybody plays them as written, because "rules lawyers".

This? They're playing the game as written because they like playing the game. And this is organized play at stores. This isn't considering the vast amounts of "casual" players.

Take my group, I am one of the few players who frequent message boards, and yet my group just wants to play by the book. And my group has players who play in other groups who also play by the book. None of them frequent message boards.

Also, while 5e is not as modular as first advertised, it still has a wealth of both optional rules and suggestions for various ways to make rulings. The philosophy of 5e is rulings not rules. It's designed that way. Many rules are left ambiguous on purpose both for flow of gameplay and so that groups can play in styles they prefer. This isn't houseruling, this is the game as designed.