D&D 5E I'd like to see individual difficulty settings in 5e

[harpy]

One thing I've longed for in D&D has been individual difficulty settings, much like in a video game.

I don't really like to be challenged in my games. I want to be able to kind of glide through combats as my character ascends to being "the one" who saves the world. I don't want it to be much of a struggle personally, rather I want to see the world resisting my ascent to destiny and being frustrated that, well... I'm destined to beat the tar out of the bad guys. Loosely I'm wanting a kind of narrativist game. I'm there to just enact out a story I want told.

The problem is that I could be sitting next to a hard core gamist who's seeing this more as a competitive sport. He wants to be pushed the the brink, and if he dies he dies but he had a great time being challenged. He'll just roll up another character and look forward to the next test.

Normally having such polar opposite views just ends up making the game have a lot of stress and tension. The GM has to juggle, fudge and just have a hard time trying to figure out how to accommodate both players. Make the game hard for the gamist and it can ruin the narrativst story arc. Make the game easy and the gamist is going to be bored.

So, why not just have individual difficulty settings. How those get implemented is beyond what I'd want to comment here, save that I'd think you could do it. There would be ways that the underlying math could function in different ways for different players through bonuses, penalties, or other tweaks to how the game functions depending on what setting the player selects.

If they would want to unify the player base then this would be one piece of the puzzle.

 

[DonTadow]

One thing I've longed for in D&D has been individual difficulty settings, much like in a video game.

I don't really like to be challenged in my games. I want to be able to kind of glide through combats as my character ascends to being "the one" who saves the world. I don't want it to be much of a struggle personally, rather I want to see the world resisting my ascent to destiny and being frustrated that, well... I'm destined to beat the tar out of the bad guys. Loosely I'm wanting a kind of narrativist game. I'm there to just enact out a story I want told.

The problem is that I could be sitting next to a hard core gamist who's seeing this more as a competitive sport. He wants to be pushed the the brink, and if he dies he dies but he had a great time being challenged. He'll just roll up another character and look forward to the next test.

Normally having such polar opposite views just ends up making the game have a lot of stress and tension. The GM has to juggle, fudge and just have a hard time trying to figure out how to accommodate both players. Make the game hard for the gamist and it can ruin the narrativst story arc. Make the game easy and the gamist is going to be bored.

So, why not just have individual difficulty settings. How those get implemented is beyond what I'd want to comment here, save that I'd think you could do it. There would be ways that the underlying math could function in different ways for different players through bonuses, penalties, or other tweaks to how the game functions depending on what setting the player selects.

If they would want to unify the player base then this would be one piece of the puzzle.

I can't figure out a way a system could help this. This is purely a gaming group/dm issue. Ask your DM to structure multiple types of combats. Easy stuff that you enjoy and stuff the other guy enjoys. Tell the DM to explain that he is trying to put in stuff for everyone.

No group has the perfect group of players who love the same thing. A good DM structures encounters so that he can make everyone happy at some point.

 

[ahayford]

I don't really see how it would be possible to change player difficulty in the same encounter other then to decrease/increase the abilities of different characters in the group...and that doesn't really solve the problem. It even leads to more.

 

[harpy]

I can't figure out a way a system could help this. This is purely a gaming group/dm issue. Ask your DM to structure multiple types of combats. Easy stuff that you enjoy and stuff the other guy enjoys. Tell the DM to explain that he is trying to put in stuff for everyone.

I think it would depend on how the mechanics would be implemented. There could be degrees of difficulty. One way of doing it would be to give out hero/fate type points. The narrativst players would either be getting more than the gamist players, in a certain sense being like a handicap in a sport. They just have more metagame currency to use to help shape their characters actions. On the extreme end of the difficulty setting would be something to the effect of "your character is a major protagonist in the campaign arc. Your character can only die or made completely ineffective if you so choose."

But just because the character can't be knocked out of the narrative against their will, it doesn't mean that the character is immune to all effects. They can still suffer and have various situations and conditions applied to them, some that might even be permanent.

So in terms of PvP, the gamist who attacks the narrativist might be able to give a beat down, and likely can do it very effectively, but ultimately the narrative is invoked and in whatever fashion the GM can devise things will prevent the narrativst character from leaving the play. There is all sorts of story space for this. It might be that the narrativst dies, but then is resurrected to the chagrin of the gamist. Maybe the narrativst character becomes a ghost... they key thing is that whatever story arc the narrativst wanted to have happen will get delivered up.

No group has the perfect group of players who love the same thing. A good DM structures encounters so that he can make everyone happy at some point.

I think part of the benefit is that pressure would be taken off the DM to have to juggle everything. If the underlying mechanics can help avoid killing off the thespians while letting the hardcore players do the thing then life becomes a lot easier for the DM to focus on other more creative elements of the game.

Having this kind of mod as an option is just a way for people to negotiate the social contract. Not everyone has a black and white playstyle. Some guy might be very heavily leaning on the gamist side, but in the end what he also wants is his buddy who mostly plays indie rpgs to be able to come play D&D and enjoy the fellowship. These kinds of mod would make the playstyles more explicit and let the table figure out what the group really needs.

There is a huge diversity of interests and usually people are a mixture of competing interests and so this would just be another tool to negotiate through all of those different tastes.

What would also be useful with this mod is that it could help educate the larger player base on playstyles. We're the forumite illuminati who care about this stuff and can articulate it in great detail. 95% of the people I know who game don't have a clue about playstyles. They just show up and play, and I can see how the unreflective play can cause tension which could easily be dealt with if people actually understood the underlying competing aesthetics. If you can at least partially codify the playstyles into rule mods then it is a lot easier for people to wrap their minds around them in a hands on fashion, rather than it all being "theory."

 

[harpy]

I don't really see how it would be possible to change player difficulty in the same encounter other then to decrease/increase the abilities of different characters in the group...and that doesn't really solve the problem. It even leads to more.

What would be the other problems?

 

[Argyle King]

I get the idea, but I don't think I'd like how it would work in actual play.


Imagine a TPK scene. Everybody fights valiantly and perishes. Well, that is except for the one guy who is using the rules which says he can't be removed from the game. That seems a little unfair.

It also seems like it would be very gameable. "C'mon Jim, just have your wizard dive into the lava and get the item we need. You're using the narrativist rules, so you won't die anyway."

 

[harpy]

Imagine a TPK scene. Everybody fights valiantly and perishes. Well, that is except for the one guy who is using the rules which says he can't be removed from the game. That seems a little unfair.

It would seem unfair from someone who was deeply invested in a gamist style of play. That's kind of the unspoken element about gamism. It isn't just PvE, but it's also a subtle PvP. People might not actually attack each other, but they desire a jocular atmosphere in which each person is on the line to perform.

But of course this is all a matter of degrees. Someone who's a strident gamist might flip out at the thought of someone else playing on God mode and they might be completely unwilling to compromise. They might even admit that the come to play to show off how much more clever they are then some people at the table. But that's just kind of an extreme form of it.

Other people might want that competitive atmosphere, but are willing to negotiate a bit. So it's really just a tool for those willing to have multiple play styles going at the same time.

It also seems like it would be very gameable. "C'mon Jim, just have your wizard dive into the lava and get the item we need. You're using the narrativist rules, so you won't die anyway."

It could be gamable however There is the push back from the narrativist player. They can just say "No, that isn't what my character would do, right now I'm in the reluctant hero stage of the heroes journey. Besides, your characters don't know I'm the THE ONE anyway, so quit metagaming. You're the guys who want to be challenged, go charge in."

 

[Ahnehnois]

One thing I've longed for in D&D has been individual difficulty settings, much like in a video game.

I don't really like to be challenged in my games. I want to be able to kind of glide through combats as my character ascends to being "the one" who saves the world. I don't want it to be much of a struggle personally, rather I want to see the world resisting my ascent to destiny and being frustrated that, well... I'm destined to beat the tar out of the bad guys. Loosely I'm wanting a kind of narrativist game. I'm there to just enact out a story I want told.

The problem is that I could be sitting next to a hard core gamist who's seeing this more as a competitive sport. He wants to be pushed the the brink, and if he dies he dies but he had a great time being challenged. He'll just roll up another character and look forward to the next test.

A difficulty setting is an interesting idea.

I don't think it's a gamism thing to want difficulty. I run a very story-focused game with little combat. I want difficult battles for several reasons. First so you can level up after one or two battles (and some other stuff) and feel like you earned it. Second, so each one is individually dramatic. Third, it gives a tone of danger and adventure to the campaign world that hacking and slashing a bunch of incompetent orcs doesn't.

You wouldn't like my game.

That said, that's really the rationale for a difficulty setting. I'd be quite happy to see one explicitly included in some form.

 

[Nagol]

Would not a reasonably easy solution be to run PCs at different starting levels?

The player who does want to be pushed starts @ level 5. The player that loves edge of the seat gaming starts at level 1, and the adventure is designed for level 3?

The only real change necessary is to award commensurate xp such that the level gap never closes.

 

[DonTadow]

I think it would depend on how the mechanics would be implemented. There could be degrees of difficulty. One way of doing it would be to give out hero/fate type points. The narrativst players would either be getting more than the gamist players, in a certain sense being like a handicap in a sport. They just have more metagame currency to use to help shape their characters actions. On the extreme end of the difficulty setting would be something to the effect of "your character is a major protagonist in the campaign arc. Your character can only die or made completely ineffective if you so choose."

But just because the character can't be knocked out of the narrative against their will, it doesn't mean that the character is immune to all effects. They can still suffer and have various situations and conditions applied to them, some that might even be permanent.

So in terms of PvP, the gamist who attacks the narrativist might be able to give a beat down, and likely can do it very effectively, but ultimately the narrative is invoked and in whatever fashion the GM can devise things will prevent the narrativst character from leaving the play. There is all sorts of story space for this. It might be that the narrativst dies, but then is resurrected to the chagrin of the gamist. Maybe the narrativst character becomes a ghost... they key thing is that whatever story arc the narrativst wanted to have happen will get delivered up.



I think part of the benefit is that pressure would be taken off the DM to have to juggle everything. If the underlying mechanics can help avoid killing off the thespians while letting the hardcore players do the thing then life becomes a lot easier for the DM to focus on other more creative elements of the game.

Having this kind of mod as an option is just a way for people to negotiate the social contract. Not everyone has a black and white playstyle. Some guy might be very heavily leaning on the gamist side, but in the end what he also wants is his buddy who mostly plays indie rpgs to be able to come play D&D and enjoy the fellowship. These kinds of mod would make the playstyles more explicit and let the table figure out what the group really needs.

There is a huge diversity of interests and usually people are a mixture of competing interests and so this would just be another tool to negotiate through all of those different tastes.

What would also be useful with this mod is that it could help educate the larger player base on playstyles. We're the forumite illuminati who care about this stuff and can articulate it in great detail. 95% of the people I know who game don't have a clue about playstyles. They just show up and play, and I can see how the unreflective play can cause tension which could easily be dealt with if people actually understood the underlying competing aesthetics. If you can at least partially codify the playstyles into rule mods then it is a lot easier for people to wrap their minds around them in a hands on fashion, rather than it all being "theory."

The problem is, in game, you create one player character who is better and damn near invincible compared to another player. You essentially have two players playing tow separate games. The player who needs the challenge will truly not get the challenge.

I don't discount the way you play, i love games like that. But DND is a system geared towards players who have some interest in combat.

To make your style work in DND, you'd need all players and the DM on board, else you get a disparity in fairness and only you would be happy (as the other players looking for challenging combat would be bored knowing the outcome.) Part of the challenge of combat is not just winning or dying, it's using the triumphs and pitfalls of combat to add o the narrative. If all there are are triumphs, in dnd,

Narrative types of rpgs include True D20, Mutants and Masterminds, Unknown Armies, Cortex system. These RPGs have systems built into them where the default is that the players are heroes and won't die (unless apart of the story).

This problem is not going to be fixed by a system, as any system already has the things you described as fixed. I've had a few campaigns where certain players elected to be resserected or come back as ghosts or receive a death pledge, and others just opt for another character.