D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[Lanefan]

The party isn't a thing unto itself; its composed of its members. This isn't the Ship of Theseus.

Yes it is, and yes it is.

The party is whose story is being told. Individual characters come and go within said party as time passes; and even if eventually the entire lineup turns over the party is still identifyably what it is and was.

Analogy: the New York Yankees are still the New York Yankees even though none of the players currently on the team were there 25 years ago.

No, really, it doesn't. Its not like "we all go home or none of us do" doesn't have a history among heroes. To the extent it doesn't, its individual characters throwing themselves on the grenade, not everyone else playing devil take the hindmost.

In practice it often boils down to the same thing in the end: someone has to hold the pass while the others get away.

 

[Guest 7034872]

It is a truism in military life that everyone--absolutely everyone--is replaceable. Given the nature of the work, they have to be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm tempted that should the party decide to book it, to drop initiative and make it some sort of group skill + story check - failure being taking a couple whacks on the way out, or if the result is too poor, the fight starts back up again (possibly in a new area).

Like Oofta mentions above, the way I've seen a lot of more sensible approaches do it is to use the particular game's chase rules (if they have them) when that happens.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes it is, and yes it is.

No, really it isn't, and the fact you see it that way doesn't require other people to. And I have little evidence many people do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is a truism in military life that everyone--absolutely everyone--is replaceable. Given the nature of the work, they have to be.

D&D (and most other RPG) parties aren't military groups. They don't usually have an existence separate from their members. They may have paramilitary elements, but rules that apply to how one is expected to operate do not apply to the other, and its not reasonable to expect players to think it should.

 

[Guest 7034872]

D&D (and most other RPG) parties aren't military groups. They don't usually have an existence separate from their members. They may have paramilitary elements, but rules that apply to how one is expected to operate do not apply to the other, and its not reasonable to expect players to think it should.

Sorry, the point of my analogy there was only that individual sacrifice for the survival of the group is utterly common among those who, working as a group, fight for a living. Warfare would not work without this. "We all go home or none of us do" is a pleasant maxim so long as the fights one encounters are almost never truly life-threatening. As soon as they are, though, that really doesn't work.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sorry, the point of my analogy there was only that individual sacrifice for the survival of the group is utterly common among those who, working as a group, fight for a living. Warfare would not work without this. "We all go home or none of us do" is a pleasant maxim so long as the fights one encounters are almost never truly life-threatening. As soon as they are, though, that really doesn't work.

But again, that's because a military unit is an entity in and of itself, that serves a purpose separate from the individuals making it up.

As a parallel, a PC group may accept casualties because they're doing something important that needs to get done even if it costs some of them their lives. But that's the choice of the individuals losing their lives; its not just a case of "this encounter is too tough so some of us get thrown under the bus so the others can live". There's worlds of difference between the two, and deliberately setting up the second only works when you consider characters disposable, not something most people have felt or at least 40 years now in the hobby.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I started playing just about forty years ago. I've always felt my characters were disposable. This fear of character death has never made much sense to me (I mean, at an emotional level of course I understand it, but intellectually I don't think it makes much sense in the game).

My whole point in my post here was to emphasize that I think Lanefan is right about this: a party is an entity in and of itself. That's the way I and my friends have always played it. If you don't, no worries and that's 100% your business, but it is inaccurate to claim that this just isn't how D&D adventuring parties work. All of mine totally have.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Only play with humans? That sounds like bad advice to me... behold a rather engaging game with some stuffed toys... note the content smile on the cupcake's face!

View attachment 151800

I concur, we once had a cat that a fiend when it came to jumping on the table and rolling nat 20s. The party made him a mute fighter named Sir Slays-A-Lot. He lived up to the name.

 

[billd91]

But again, that's because a military unit is an entity in and of itself, that serves a purpose separate from the individuals making it up.

And so might an adventuring company.

As a parallel, a PC group may accept casualties because they're doing something important that needs to get done even if it costs some of them their lives.

Which was part of Lanefan’s point. If you’re on an important mission, someone might need to survive to keep that mission going and recruit more help.

But that's the choice of the individuals losing their lives; its not just a case of "this encounter is too tough so some of us get thrown under the bus so the others can live". There's worlds of difference between the two, and deliberately setting up the second only works when you consider characters disposable, not something most people have felt or at least 40 years now in the hobby.

Throwing people under the bus is baggage you’re bringing to this conversation. Leaving the dead behind and fleeing a tough fight to enable fighting another day isn’t throwing them under the bus - and particularly not when there’s a more important mission at stake.