D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

Retreater said:

Maybe I'm a grognard, but I have never needed Critical Role to show me how to roleplay. It's designed for entertainment. It's like watching the Bachelor to find out how to date.
Many of the players I know who champion it are the type who will steal from your character and betray them because it's "dramatic for the story." And the DMs play NPCs as if they were PCs taking all the spotlight and will cancel sessions if they think their players aren't acting "in character."
So yeah, it's good for the hobby like Big Bang Theory is good for geek culture.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification and sorry if I implied you wren't into RP (not that there's anything wrong if you are not). But the issues you raise like not stealing from fellow PCs or not being a jerk are things that should be discussed during a session 0. Then again, I haven't had time to listen to more than a dozen or so episodes and it sounds like they do things I wouldn't allow.

5ekyu said:

i am glad that works for you and certainly every group plays to their preferences and should have rules that serve that...

But in the interest of the other side of this - i *wanted* to like STA especially since it did several things mechanically i find enjoyable - but - the momentum system and how integrated it was to every facet of the resolution system was what drove me to say loudly "no" as would my players as well. We have not liked in play systems with gimmick pools at the player's side that trump the in-game character abilities much, if at all, or that allow scene edits much or at all and STA basically weds those into the DNA of their resolution mechanics.

I watch Shield of Tomorrow for quite a bit of time and seeing any scene with any resolution involved almost always focus around momentum, momentum spent, momentum gained, momentum to edit, momentum to get more out of an ability etc etc etc... i think if you did one of those word clouds on their episodes the biggest word would be "momentum" over even the character names and name of their ship.

But, those are our biases and preferences based on our play with a variety of systems that maybe had none of those, a little bit of those or a lot of those... we favor the none of those.

As you might guess, when we play 5e, we do not use inspiration.

But... again... just my perspectives on our experiences.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean. STA is definitely built around managing momentum. I guess that, at least in part, it is a side effect of trying to get a game session to feel a bit like a television episode.

I should say that my game sessions aren't all that crazy in this respect. Each player will get inspiration roughly every 1-4 sessions, which seems like a lot more than before I implemented the changes. It is also rarely that the players have used it to alter the narrative. I think the only time it was used that way so far was to have a window be unlocked for some snooping. They haven't even stalled long enough for me to feel like awarding myself threat, so the thought of that seems to have done it's job.

I use inspiration all the time. Pretty much every session. Helps that my players dive into their bonds/flaws etc when they make decisions.

Pretty much every session I hand out multiple inspiration tokens.

We never did like the backgrounds as presented. They felt incomplete for lack of better word. Our solution was to incorporate the backgrounds and skills from Talislanta. For us the combinations of background you choose define what your "class" is.

77IM said:

It's definitely possible that a rule can work well for some groups and not others, or even for some individuals and not others. BUT I've played enough other role-playing games to have experienced rules SIMILAR to Inspiration, but which work much better, for most people. For example, I'm terrible at arithmetic, so to me, Advantage/Disadvantage is an amazing, wonderful rule.

I love 5E, and I'm not afraid to criticize it. No game is perfect, and I think these very forums are the ideal place to discuss what does and doesn't work -- you folks really are the experts, compared to the vast majority of players. For example, for my next campaign, I am totally going to steal your idea of giving advantage any time the Traits apply, and making the players call out for it.

Click to expand...

I think the thing about forum posters being the experts is what I'm trying to get at. I don't know if that is true.

There is a tendency to feel like we know better. But we aren't the main player base. And we tend to play the game differently than most. It's important to check ourselves.

It's one thing to say that you don't like an aspect of the game, it is another to say that it is bad or poorly designed.

Close to 100% of the time when these threads pop up it's just a matter of the poster not liking the design goals of the game. Looking at Retreater's posts here and in other threads this is surely the case. It isn't a failure of the game that it isn't all things to all people.

I agree, of course, that the game isn't perfect. It's one thing to say that there is a missed opportunity in a small detail, like the 4E Monk perhaps, and another to say that the core design philosophy is wrong.

It's also important to recognize that this is an echo chamber. Group think is a real thing. I have seen opinions repeated so often that they are assumed fact. The harsh truth of the matter is that most or all of us aren't qualified to evaluate the nuances of balance. Those who are, are either designing games or more likely playing games professionally. I've seen this in other groups, opinions of optimal strategy. Only to have an outsider come in and crush them. I've even seen them hold onto their beliefs despite being beaten over and over again. These are competitive games where strategies can be put to the test, not so in a cooperative game like D&D.

Blue said:

If you need a 20, you have a 5% normally, and a 5% + 95%*5% = 9.75%. Slightly less than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum.

If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum.

Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target.

Click to expand...

Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag.

That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION], [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

Ovinomancer said:

Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag.

That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION], [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

Click to expand...

The beautiful thing about it is how complex it is mathematically, yet very intuitive in value to mediocre mathematicians.

Retreater said:

I've been running 5E on a consistent basis for several groups since it was officially released. Now that I'm basically leaving 5E, I'm looking at a few things that never quite worked for my groups and me.

...(issues)....

What did I miss?

Click to expand...

Well, IMO you missed the opportunity to personalise the system for your table.
Besides the DM's Guild as well as Enworld and other forum sites which can be mined for a range of interesting ideas to incorporate into the game, the system is so malleable that it really allows you pull, twist and tease it into the type of game you wish to play.

For instance, the monsters are a bag of hit points comment always suprises me.

I can easily take a monster like an Ogre who is fairly uninteresting and turn it into something memorable by incorporating interesting mechanics just by using the ideas and inspirations from the core books.

(A) Incorporate Degrees of Success (DMG 242) into the creature's Attack, where every 5 or more on the hit roll adds a special effect in addition to the normal damage done.

Special Effect (1d6)
1-2. Disarm (DMG 271)
3-4. Shoving a Creature (PHB 195)
5-6. Sundering Armour/Weapon (DMG 246-247)

(B) Have the fluff mean something, so Furious Tempers, allows them to Overrun or Shove Aside (DMG 272) as a bonus action. Allow Greedy Collectors to play a part for smart PCs, so if in the middle of the combat, if a PC throws a handful of coin into the air, have the Ogre make a WIS save or be distracted, Incapacitated condition (PHB 290).

(C) Not all monsters have to fight to the death. The Primitive Wanderers reflects that they like to take advantage of poorly protected livestock, undefended larders and unwary farmers. This reflects a rather cowardly beast, if things turn dangerous for the ogre it will more than likely make a run for it, especially if it is outnumbered and if its attacks are proving ineffective. Their rage will only take them so far. Ogres look for easy game.

(D) Weather conditions, physical terrain all play a part in making encounters interesting and not a chore. Many DM's ignore this. Smart PCs can use the terrain to take advantage of this against these dumb brutes, Legendary Stupidity luring them into narrow passageways to take advantage of Squeezing into a Smaller Space (PHB 192) or into makeshift traps to take advantage of tool proficiencies and skill checks (PHB Chapter 7).

(E) PCs do not necessarily need to use their combat prowess to defeat monsters. Too often DMs these days set safe encounters using the CR and encounter building rules so as to ensure character survivability instead of encouraging players to think outside the box to accomplishing their mission/s or to overcome difficult obstacles.

As a basic example - PCs want to retrieve an item stolen by a group of raiding ogres, they use their knowledge of these beasts, Gruesome Gluttons, to lure them to a campfire where they have left copious amount of cooked food, with the ogres feasting on the "free food" the ogre den is now empty allowing the PCs safe passage to retrieve the item.

(F) Play your monsters naturally. Have them Interact with Objects Around them (PHB 190) while attacking, so let them rip the hood off a PC's cloak, break a branch from a nearby tree, smash a glass, overturn a table...just generally let them be the destructive-natured beasts they are creating interesting narratives.
Have them move in straight lines toward their targets, jumping over/on things, shoving things aside, trampling, lunging...

Combat is not supposed to be a slog and the fluff is there for a reason.

Retreater said:

I've been running 5E on a consistent basis for several groups since it was officially released. Now that I'm basically leaving 5E, I'm looking at a few things that never quite worked for my groups and me.

1) Backgrounds. They just don't contribute enough to the character's abilities and feel tacked on.
2) Inspiration. Half-baked idea that is literally never remembered. Unless you have people always fishing for bonuses in annoying ways.
3) Treasure Hordes. This is in the DMG, and there is actually a recommended schedule for awarding magic items and treasure. Too bad no official products ever used these guidelines.
4) Advantage/Disadvantage. +5/-5 is too big of a modifier for most conditions. Flanking is lethal against the PCs (so we didn't use it).
5) Bonded Accuracy. A good idea in practice, except that it turns monsters into bags of hit points.

What did I miss?

Click to expand...

1) Backgrounds are, well, backgrounds. I don't see why they should add a lot to a PC. That's what his class is for. Heck, the Background is more like the *second* background as his actual background is the part where he trained to be a 1st level PC.

2) Inspiration is something that many tables seem to have a hard time remembering. On the other hand, it's not a core part of any class nor a required part of any aspect of the game, which is probably why it's hard to remember. You've been given many ways to ensure Inspiration adds to your game.

3) I have no idea why Treasure Hordes is a missed opportunity. It's there for DM's creating their own adventures and a guideline for them.

4) The +5/-5 is only for passive checks. As has been pointed out the actual effect is, on average, lower than that.

5) Bounded Accuracy isn't what ultimately causes bags o' HPs out of creatures. What causes it is PCs with the potential to do lots and lots of damage.

iserith said:

Out of curiosity, do any of the players (including yourself) take the Lucky feat and then forget to use it?

Click to expand...

No. We did have a halfling who never forgot to reroll his 1s. Him getting a 1 was a celebration. In fact, getting to reroll after the fact was what made the ability so fun similar to the PCs use of Inspiration.

But, again, if the party of 6 could get Inspiration 20 times per 4 hour game session (or about once every 12 minutes) the fun would transfer to how the PC claimed it.