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

[Cruentus]

I have trouble reconciling these two posts!

I was showing that, contrary to common wisdom, it is possible to flee from combats, as long as the game/DM/players accommodate that, and that combat isn't a "once in, its do or die."

But a lot of discussion about grittiness, deadliness of combat, healing, etc. here often talks about my first post - once you're in combat, you have to fight to the end. The end often being a foregone PC win because you can't kill em, and you can't keep em down (unless they agree) because those things would be unfun for the player.

 

[James Gasik]

Like I said, I'm loath to take death off the table entirely, but man, it really has been a drag every time it's occurred when I've run a game. Even if there is a handy NPC or a quick way to introduce a new character, I've found players want to keep playing that character.

Probably, the best solution would be to have a character pool, that players switch off playing (and that level up simultaneously), so as to lessen the impact of a character death. This gives them a character they know and can play, even as they seek a way to bring back the original (or not).

This still has the problem of getting them back in the action if the other character is nowhere nearby, however. For me, it's about the same level of obnoxious as a player who can't show up for a session, but obviously it's much more so for the player.

If I can figure out how to best troubleshoot that approach, I wouldn't need worry about death, and could even feel comfortable implementing whatever crazy rule my players want to make the game "feel more hardcore/realistic" (at least until they see the repercussions of said rule firsthand and decide maybe that wasn't a great idea, lol).

 

[CleverNickName]

I've scheduled the rolling party for our next campaign. (I call it a "rolling party," everyone on ENWorld seems to call it a "session zero." We're basically going to roll up new characters and introduce the new campaign setting.) This thread and others like it has given me much to discuss with my players...

From following this thread, I think one of the first things we should talk about is combat.

For my part: I don't want to play "Tabletop Skyrim," where every encounter is expected to be a battle, and every battle is expected to be balanced for the party. I need combat to be dangerous and unpredictable, or I will quickly lose interest.

Besides, I need to give them all a heads-up. I recently picked up a copy of The Monsters Know What They're Doing, and it's awesome. I want intelligent opponents to fight intelligently: I want them to coordinate, focus fire, double-tap, and flee/surrender. Fighting a group of bandits should feel very different from fighting a group of skeletons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You'd think. But based on other threads, that exhaustion at 0 HP leads to the death spiral, to be avoided at all costs!

What @James Gasik is saying, I think, is that modding 5e to be "what I want/what my table wants" isn't often as easy as a couple of toggles. IME, those toggles either aren't well thought out, or they lead to these death spirals (apparently WOTC's designers never heard of that term, or they'd never had put exhaustion in the game ). I've tried to make 5e more "old school" according to my table's desires, and it wouldn't work without either 1) making 5e into an older edition, or 2) making it unrecognizeable. We realized that after a year and a half, and went back to an older edition. We're enjoying ourselves much more now, and we're happy to let others play 5e however they want.

Re: end states of combat. I would think combat, fighting something/anything, would be inherently dangerous. Ergo, there would be two basic states at the end: 1) players win or 2) monsters win (not counting one of the other side running, which has been established in other threads as to be impossible ), so we'll stick with 1 or2. But if player death isn't on the table every time they fight something, it defaults to 1 = players always win. Unless I'm missing something (and I don't count "players decide if they want to die, or players get captured (a lot), or other add-ons outside of the dice rolling and combat mechanics). Maybe I just don't see any other outcomes

I've been told recently that D&D combat without danger can be just as fun as playing poker without stakes, or doing the crossword. That second one at least can be fun if you're in the mood.

 

[James Gasik]

I've scheduled the rolling party for our next campaign. (I call it a "rolling party," everyone on ENWorld seems to call it a "session zero." We're basically going to roll up new characters and introduce the new campaign setting.) This thread and others like it has given me much to discuss with my players...

From following this thread, I think one of the first things we should talk about is combat.

For my part: I don't want to play "Tabletop Skyrim," where every encounter is expected to be a battle, and every battle is expected to be balanced for the party. I need combat to be dangerous and unpredictable, or I will quickly lose interest.

Besides, I need to give them all a heads-up. I recently picked up a copy of The Monsters Know What They're Doing, and it's awesome. I want intelligent opponents to fight intelligently: I want them to coordinate, focus fire, double-tap, and flee/surrender. Fighting a group of bandits should feel very different from fighting a group of skeletons.

I would strongly urge your players to have someone who is an excellent scout, so that they can suss out enemy strength from a distance. Also, it would behoove your players to all have strong ranged attacks, spellcasters to have "escape" spells like fog cloud, and more than one character who can be an emergency healer.

Advice I give my own group, but like Crom, they do not listen.

 

[James Gasik]

I've been told recently that D&D combat without danger can be just as fun as playing poker without stakes, or doing the crossword. That second one at least can be fun if you're in the mood.

Maybe so. Personally, I'm mostly ok with 5e's current level of danger, though I do wish healing was rebalanced so it felt more rewarding to be a healer, and you didn't have gobs of healing (if only you can find a place to hole up for an hour!) out of combat, but I'm really unwilling to mess with the rules to do that, unless my players campaign for it.

I really liked 4e's paradigm; you get 2+ Minor Action ranged heals per encounter, everyone can Second Wind as a Standard Action, and you can also heal after a 5 minute rest, all of which relied on your pool of Healing Surges, so you couldn't be super reckless.

The higher hit point pool of starting characters was nice to start out, so you can bloody the nose of a 1st level guy without having them go down in one hit to an Orc.

But that's a personal preference not shared by all.

 

[Electrik Wizard]

So I said "I had a whole spiel about this, but nobody wants to hear it, lol."

"He replies with, I think this is a really good idea, what's wrong with it?"

After laying down all these points, the response?

"James why do you have to ruin everything?"

You: "You don't want to hear my reply"
Them: "Tell me anyway!"
You: explains problems with idea in well thought out way
Them: "Why did you tell me the thing you warned me I wouldn't like but I insisted you tell me anyway??"

 

[Charlaquin]

Like I said, I'm loath to take death off the table entirely, but man, it really has been a drag every time it's occurred when I've run a game. Even if there is a handy NPC or a quick way to introduce a new character, I've found players want to keep playing that character.

Probably, the best solution would be to have a character pool, that players switch off playing (and that level up simultaneously), so as to lessen the impact of a character death. This gives them a character they know and can play, even as they seek a way to bring back the original (or not).

Yep, each player having a stable of characters is the way to go, in my opinion. I don’t think they necessarily need to level up with the other characters though. Having them level up separately encourages players to rotate through their stable, and/or to keep at least one character at each tier so they can decide who to bring each week based on what levels the other player’s’ characters are at.

This still has the problem of getting them back in the action if the other character is nowhere nearby, however. For me, it's about the same level of obnoxious as a player who can't show up for a session, but obviously it's much more so for the player.

Hirelings. If a PC dies, have the player take over a hireling for the rest of the session.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep, each player having a stable of characters is the way to go, in my opinion. I don’t think they necessarily need to level up with the other characters though. Having them level up separately encourages players to rotate through their stable, and/or to keep at least one character at each tier so they can decide who to bring each week based on what levels the other player’s’ characters are at.

Hirelings. If a PC dies, have the player take over a hireling for the rest of the session.

This emphasizes not putting too much of your attention and investment into a single character, which i really recommend. I know its not the current style, but I find the world feels more real to me if the entire universe doesn't revolve around the PCs.

 

[James Gasik]

You: "You don't want to hear my reply"
Them: "Tell me anyway!"
You: explains problems with idea in well thought out way
Them: "Why did you tell me the thing you warned me I wouldn't like but I insisted you tell me anyway??"

Yeah, this happens to me a lot.