D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Umbran]

A lot of people argue that unless DMs are playing their monsters/NPCs for maximum lethality they are playing them 'dumb'. Well, unless your monsters are well-drilled suicidal zealots with nothing to lose, sacrificing 3 goblins and a bugbear to kill a wizard or a rogue is really, really 'dumb'.

That depends on the value of goblins and bugbears, now doesn't it?

I mean, from the bugbear's point of view, you're correct. If the bugbear is smart, and running the show, he should only attack if he's pretty darned sure he's going to win. Outnumbered and outgunned? He's going to retreat unless he has no other choice.

If the Dread Necromancer is running the show... well, it's just a bugbear. Who cares?

 

[AverageCitizen]

That depends on the value of goblins and bugbears, now doesn't it?

I mean, from the bugbear's point of view, you're correct. If the bugbear is smart, and running the show, he should only attack if he's pretty darned sure he's going to win. Outnumbered and outgunned? He's going to retreat unless he has no other choice.

If the Dread Necromancer is running the show... well, it's just a bugbear. Who cares?

Yeah, good point. I think a game where the DM planned out the motive profile and the tactics of each monster reflected that it would be cool.

That being said, at low levels the profile of most monsters would be something like 'vaguely itinerant ill-tempered murdering thief' which means they'd fight for a bit and then run

 

[SteveC]

It's statements like this that make me harp on you constantly about you're lack of acknowledgement that you are a common outlier on this board for your perspective and experience of the game. And understand I have always said that you being an outlier is not itself bad - there is no judgement one way or another that you have an uncommon perspective and experience of the game. No, the judgement comes in you refusing to acknowledge that your perspective is different, that your experience is different, and therefore everything that's gone into honing your instincts about how others view the game is off.

Almost every poll we take here, you're in the incredibly small minority response. Almost every thread here when a huge overwhelming majority of posters is positive about X, you're negative about X (and sometimes the reverse). Almost every thread where people say their experience is Y, you disagree and say your experience is Z.

Again, that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is you not appreciating the ramifications of you being an outlier. It means you probably shouldn't be speaking for "a lot of other players" or for your view of what others think. Because everything you've built with your history of viewpoints says you are not closely in touch with what other people's views are or what they think about this game, given your very consistently differing perspective and experience with the game.

Just wanted to make a quick comment here. Ruin Explorer is coming forward to say some things that I strongly agree with, but don't actually comment on, because of edition fatigue and not wanting to be "that guy," who's always negative.

The other ENWorlders who I know and talk with on other boards (or in real life) who agree with that point of view similarly don't chime in that often to actually comment. This comes from a loooong Fourth Edition flamewar that I think most folks are just tired of.

At the moment, 5E is being received very well for its return to the roots of the game: people who have been critical of the last edition have been very positive, and I think that's great for them. The issue that I have is that when someone posts like Ruin Explorer, the comments start: they're immediately being negative, and should stop being that way, and why can't we all just get along?

This is especially ironic, since it comes from some folks (not you, Mistwell: I want to be clear that I'm not directing this part at you!) who spent the last few years doing the same thing about 4E. How many times did I have to read about no roleplaying or how the game was just an MMO-wannebe?

So I guess the point I'm making is that there are more than a few people who agree with views like Ruin Explorer has, but they're just not looking for a fight at this point. I'm just tired, and hoping that I'll find something in the new Edition that will make me want to keep playing it. I have a lot of hopes riding on the DMG, most of them are probably unrealistic ones, but there we are.

I suspect that we'll see modules that address a lot of my concerns in the next couple of years, since the issues that people are finding fault with have been discussed since pretty much the start of the hobby, and many of them were addressed in 4E, so WotC acknowledged at some point that they actually were a thing. We simply get to have a lot of these old discussions and debates again, until something is done to address them.

Just to be clear: nothing personally directed at you Mistwell... I really like how excited you (and others) are about the new Edition, it's just something that excites me at this point.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I agree with ruin explorer on a lot of the things he claimed many players felt. Like losing a PC to random chance is unsatisfying and rolling a new character mid game is a bummer more often than not.

People play these games very differently. I think wotc was surprised to find even they were wrong about where the majority of opinions were

 

[Mistwell]

Just wanted to make a quick comment here. Ruin Explorer is coming forward to say some things that I strongly agree with, but don't actually comment on, because of edition fatigue and not wanting to be "that guy," who's always negative.

The other ENWorlders who I know and talk with on other boards (or in real life) who agree with that point of view similarly don't chime in that often to actually comment. This comes from a loooong Fourth Edition flamewar that I think most folks are just tired of.

At the moment, 5E is being received very well for its return to the roots of the game: people who have been critical of the last edition have been very positive, and I think that's great for them. The issue that I have is that when someone posts like Ruin Explorer, the comments start: they're immediately being negative, and should stop being that way, and why can't we all just get along?

This is especially ironic, since it comes from some folks (not you, Mistwell: I want to be clear that I'm not directing this part at you!) who spent the last few years doing the same thing about 4E. How many times did I have to read about no roleplaying or how the game was just an MMO-wannebe?

So I guess the point I'm making is that there are more than a few people who agree with views like Ruin Explorer has, but they're just not looking for a fight at this point. I'm just tired, and hoping that I'll find something in the new Edition that will make me want to keep playing it. I have a lot of hopes riding on the DMG, most of them are probably unrealistic ones, but there we are.

I suspect that we'll see modules that address a lot of my concerns in the next couple of years, since the issues that people are finding fault with have been discussed since pretty much the start of the hobby, and many of them were addressed in 4E, so WotC acknowledged at some point that they actually were a thing. We simply get to have a lot of these old discussions and debates again, until something is done to address them.

Just to be clear: nothing personally directed at you Mistwell... I really like how excited you (and others) are about the new Edition, it's just something that excites me at this point.

I am not buying this secret well of substantial silent support for RE's viewpoints. There is no point in remaining silent with a poll - you don't have to post your view, but there is absolutely zero incentive to refrain from voting in a poll. And it's been very very consistent that RE's views come out in the extreme minority view on those polls. For example we recently had a poll where I think it was 60 in favor of one thing, and 3 against that thing, and RE was one of those 3. That's not something that tends to indicate a lot of silent support for his views.

In addition, all we have to go on is what people say. We cannot make assumptions about views that are not expressed, and both positive and negative views will have their silent supporters. It's pretty well documented that people with negative views are more likely to post a complaint, than people with positive views will post praise. If anything tends to get under-represented in general (particularly on the Internet), it's the positive views. So if we are going to make assumptions about the views of people who remain silent (and I do not think we should be), then the assumption should be there is even less negativity out there than represented in the posts, not more.

Finally, we have WOTC doing extensive open playtesting, open surveying, closed (but very large) playtesting, extensive consultation, and internal testing. They also have sales data, and older survey data, and other market research. And then they have poll results, posts, blogs, G+, FB, Twitter, etc.. to draw from. When all of that is pointing, by strong majorities, in one direction, then it's fair to say that one direction is a well represented one among the fan base.

I am sorry you're not liking what you're seeing. And sure, there are definitely people who will not like 5e, and I am not arguing that liking 5e is some universal view or that there is something good or bad about either view. But I am arguing that RE's views tend to be outliers, and he should not be speaking for others when he expresses his views, given how different his perspective and experience tend to be when it comes to this game. I don't think that's an unfair thing for me to be saying at this point - we've seen that his views are an outlier enough to be able to rationally make a generalization like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue that I have is that when someone posts like Ruin Explorer, the comments start: they're immediately being negative, and should stop being that way, and why can't we all just get along?

This is especially ironic, since it comes from some folks who spent the last few years doing the same thing about 4E.

It's really not anything new. The last rev-roll, there were 3.5 fans who had been defending 3.5 from charges, leveled by 2e fans for years, of being 'too grid dependent,' who immediately turned around and declared 4e was too grid-dependent. Now, in a PF vs 5e review, it's back to saying how great minis and a grid are.

Every time there's a new edition there'll be those who balk at it, those who embrace unquestioningly, and those who approach it cautiously or suspiciously. There'll be criticisms, both valid and invalid, and they'll both be dismissed as 'too soon to judge the game,' until such time as they can be dismissed as 'too late to change anything.'

This time around, at least, it shouldn't really matter. 5e isn't facing any extraordinary challenges or impossible goals, so it /should/ (hopefully, WotC, for once) be able have a 'normal' run, regardless of nerdrage, instead of being cut short or changing direction after only a couple of years - and we'll be able to watch it reach it's full potential (and maximum bloat).

Finally, we have WOTC doing extensive open playtesting, open surveying, closed (but very large) playtesting, extensive consultation, and internal testing. They also have sales data, and older survey data, and other market research. And then they have poll results, posts, blogs, G+, FB, Twitter, etc.. to draw from. When all of that is pointing, by strong majorities, in one direction, then it's fair to say that one direction is a well represented one among the fan base.

The 'WotC has the data, they know best' line was trotted out to defend 4e and Essentials, to. Was it wrong then, but correct now?

 

[Mistwell]

The 'WotC has the data, they know best' line was trotted out to defend 4e and Essentials, to. Was it wrong then, but correct now?

I disagree. For 4e, WOTC did no large open playtest, their closed playtest was much more limited in both scope and timeframe, they did not hire a larger staff of outside consultants, they did not engage in a large amount of open surveys, they did not engage customers as much on social media, in fact almost none of the stuff I mentioned is stuff they did for 4e. And some of the very same people who did 4e are now saying they made a mistake by basing decisions on assumptions that they had not tested with consumers, and they're now finding some of those assumptions were false.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Not everyone has the same olden days. Mine started in '80. Experiences with groupthink probably varied by region, too.

I've heard third-hand accounts of a DM with a little interest or experience in military tactics running monsters like asymmetrical-warfare skirmishers - inflicting pain, breaking contact, etc - with pretty horrific results. Talk about 'fantasy Vietnam.'

But, yes, most 5e-guidelines combats are weighted heavily in the PCs favor and hypothetical 'really played smart' monsters would travel in larger groups and/or flee & mobilize more capable defenders when confronted by a threat posed by a party of spellcasters and heavily-armored warriors.

All the more reason for the DM to play smart, /as a DM/ (as the 'facilitator of the fun' you could say), not just 'smart' in-character as a monster.

It's funny how a single gaming experience (run by a guy at Ft. Bragg, iirc) has morphed to become some kind of "touchstone" of early D&D gaming. I never experienced anything like Tucker's Kobolds in all my years of OD&D, 1e, 2e, et al. And yet, for some (I think mostly folks who weren't gaming back then), it's become this Holy Grail of old D&D "flavor."

I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the lethality of OD&D and 1e was simply the product of a very swing-y system, that also usually included random encounters totally independent of level (that Hill Giant that stumbles across your 2nd level party is always a good time ). Which in some ways the bugbear in the SS is kind of reminiscent of, honestly...

 

[AverageCitizen]

It's funny how a single gaming experience (run by a guy at Ft. Bragg, iirc) has morphed to become some kind of "touchstone" of early D&D gaming. I never experienced anything like Tucker's Kobolds in all my years of OD&D, 1e, 2e, et al. And yet, for some (I think mostly folks who weren't gaming back then), it's become this Holy Grail of old D&D "flavor."

I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the lethality of OD&D and 1e was simply the product of a very swing-y system, that also usually included random encounters totally independent of level (that Hill Giant that stumbles across your 2nd level party is always a good time ). Which in some ways the bugbear in the SS is kind of reminiscent of, honestly...

What is this ft. Bragg touchstone you are referencing? I am piqued!

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's funny how a single gaming experience (run by a guy at Ft. Bragg, iirc) has morphed to become some kind of "touchstone" of early D&D gaming. I never experienced anything like Tucker's Kobolds in all my years of OD&D, 1e, 2e, et al. And yet, for some (I think mostly folks who weren't gaming back then), it's become this Holy Grail of old D&D "flavor."

Not what I was alluding to - I wish I remembered more of it, but it was gnolls in the wilderness, not kobolds in a dungeon, and I'm pretty sure it was a modern ed, 3e or 4e, too - though, it's a good example of what a DM could do, back then, to make low-level monsters deadly even without bounded accuracy.

I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the lethality of OD&D and 1e was simply the product of a very swing-y system, that also usually included random encounters totally independent of level (that Hill Giant that stumbles across your 2nd level party is always a good time ). Which in some ways the bugbear in the SS is kind of reminiscent of, honestly...

The system was very lethal at low level - and, thanks to saves that genuinely scaled across the board, almost forgiving at very high level, in some ways. And, yes, I agree that 5e has, so far, done a good job capturing much of the feel of classic D&D - even where that may seem a bit undesirable to those who don't have fond memories of that era.

I disagree.

So it was wrong for 4e and wrong again for Essentials, when they did claim they had a mountain of feedback data that pointed at the majority wanting exactly Essentials, and we heard a constant refrain of "WotC has the data! WotC did the market research!" but is right, now, because this time the vaguely-referenced mountain of data is claimed to be pointing in a direction you like.

Fine. It's always "different this time."