D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Manbearcat]

To me, the 4e table was a straight jacket, and serves primarily to make the DM's ruling predictable... which actions like those you mention above really shouldn't be.

<snip>

In my experience, it just added a whole level of, "Oh, I guess I have to look at this table and resolve everything the same way. Everything's got to be translated into a Power, I guess. Can't have things being unpredictable." It was too many rules for things that don't have them because they shouldn't​.

See this is where things get really, really difficult to discuss because our preferences are literally diametrically opposed.

Here you actually opine that predictability in the resolution mechanics is damaging to gameplay generally and creativity specifically. I'm incapable of disagreeing more. As a GM, I want predictability for a few specific purposes:

1) When I'm composing challenges, I want to understand how each PC specifically (with respect to the mesh of their fictional archetype and [ii] the numbers that represent the tendency toward properly manifesting that protaganism during conflict) and the party generally will perform relative to that challenge. GM-side, this should be predictable so I can interpose the proper frequency and potency of antagonism between the PCs and their goals, thus making conflicts exciting, engaging and climactic. If this becomes unpredictable to me (the GM), then I lose climax or engagement or excitement (or perhaps all 3) and I may have to resort to player-agency subordinating GM force/illusionism to attain it. I NEVER EVER want to have to result to force or illusionism.

2) When the players are making action declarations on behalf of their PCs, I want them to have as much agency as possible, reflecting the OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) Loop that our brains undergo in real life. In the real world our brains perform an extraordinary number of high resolution subconscious computations. This creates a high level of confidence in the prospect of outcomes in most actions that we undertake. If the stakes are high (life or limb or loved one) and the margin of error of any particular course of action becomes something that is untenable, our OODA Loop pretty much drops that out of the "decide phase" of our loop.

Players need to have some (it doesn't have to be 100 % perfect, but the margin of error better be pretty ascertainable) analog to this in game, lest (i) their agency be short-shrifted and (ii) their field of potential action declarations NARROWS DRAMATICALLY. If you devise an opaque stunting system or an inconsistent stunting system (or both), then you should expect the field of potential action declarations to narrow accordingly (eg players do NOT stunt).

In my experience, players improvise when one player tries something unusual and it works. The framework doesn't make that happen, the DM does. When players see improvisation work, they start to expand their creativity. And what I want to reward is creativity, not encouraging the players to swing from every chandelier or topple every bookcase or carry around a mug of ale to cast into every thug's face.

In my experience (in life and in gaming), players include "improvise" amongst their field of potential action declarations when the prospective outcomes of resolution fall within a reasonable level of predictability/margin of error and the risk/reward is tenable.

I don't want "creativity" to become "find the stage prop to abuse." Or, worse, for the improvised actions to become the rote tactic. Predictable improvisation is... I mean, no, it's not particularly different than a Barbarian's rage or Rogue's sneak attack, but improvisation rules shouldn't encourage players to be creative once.

Why does

A) The GMing advice and action resolution mechanics that govern the stunting system are coherent, functional, and effectively reward "playing to archetype".

have to inextricably produce the dynamic of

B) creativity all of a sudden becomes "find a stage prop to abuse."

? If A then B? Is that the premise? Are you putting over before reward in A above and then implicitly asserting that there is no system paradigm that exists, or can exist, that does not adequately (neither over-reward nor under-reward) reward "playing to archetype." If so, I don't know what to say, because I've managed to run a lot of systems (not just 4e) with robust advice and resolution mechanics for stunting which adequately reward "playing to archetype."

 

[tyrlaan]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with thinking someone is wrong in a discussion... (and everyone at some point in time makes objective statements but that isn't what you called me out on)... but you were the one who gave it negative connotations and attributed it specifically to me in this thread for some reason.

I don't either. And I'm very unsure if you're saying you see nothing wrong with the quotes of mine you called out, but you feel they're on par with what I called out of yours OR if you're saying you do see something wrong with the quotes of mine you called out. If those comments irritate you, my apologies.

Either way, I think I see the disconnect. The difference to me is that I don't feel any of my statements are trying to ascribe thoughts/stances to others, claim consensus to support my position in an argument, or discredit the opposing view.

So for example (in which I feel you claim consensus and discredit the opposing view):

Personally I, and quite a few players of D&D, think that variation between games is a good thing but apparently some want us all running a particular type of campaign with a specific playstyle for D&D across all tables... go figure.

And for example (in which I feel you claim consensus and ascribe thoughts/stances to others):

So again we see the issue of I want to be a god of combat and have a ton of non-combat stuff as well... something has to be given up in one area to gain in the other

And for example (in which I feel you ascribe thoughts/stances to others, discredit the opposing view, and claim consensus):

I guess for a few... 5e sucks because it's not 4e. Of course a lot of us see that as a feature, not a flaw.

If you feel my interpretations of your statements are hogwash, that's fine. However, if I see them that way, there's a chance others do as well, so it might be something you want to consider going forward. Clearly you are at no obligation to do so and I don't want to keep wasting thread space on this, so I won't spend further time discussing, I'll just ignore you if this is your continued argument style (which I'm sure at this point doesn't bother you in the slightest )

 

[Ashkelon]

Shaken is also the reason the only people I knew who played it stopped. In D&D called shots are used to get round the actual mechanisms of combat, which is why I've never been a fan.

To each his own. I love shaken as a way to model any kind of distraction in combat from "sand in the eyes", to feints and bluffs, to combat intimidation. Some people like things to be more specific, I get that.

As for called shots in D&D, I completely agree. They don't make sense with HP, and I am glad D&D doesn't typically include them.

But in that instance you would appear to be trading up a basic attack to be better than an at-will. The action economy in 4e requires you to manage the actions pool you have to choose from, why bother if you can make up actions as good or better than your at-wills on an ad hoc basis? Every system has its limitations.

Is a basic attack with a conditional prone rider better than your other at-wills? Sometimes...maybe. There are a lot of good at wills out there. Some of them even knock enemies prone without needing an additional skill check.

But as has been noted by others knocking anything down is easier in 4e. I was never fond of how easy it could be in 3e in any case, and as noted not everyone has been a fan of SW Shaken. Didn't they tone it down a couple of years ago?

And why is knocking things down being easy a bad thing? Do your players have no imagination at all? Have you seriously never tripped over a small object? The bigger they are, the harder they fall afterall. It is easy to imagine hitting an enemy in the right place to send them tumbling over.

As you have such a solid grasp of such things, how likely would the knee biter scenario you envisage be in 4e?

I realized I had mispoke when I said STR contest before. Because the fighter isn't trying to force the giant over with brute strength, but rather with a well placed hit, I would have had the fighter roll Athletics but the giant would roll Acrobatics to stay standing. This is all in addition to the basic attack.

In 5e the giant's advantage over an appropriate level fighter/barbarian focusing on stat gain in a STR contest would be in the region of +2 to +4, + 1 to +4 for a dwarf. so not likely but nowhere near impossible as you seem to think. And in most cases less than advantage would give him.
Of course we also have the fact that because giants are huge medium sized creatures can't knock them over in RAW. So there is a rule for that (it would be a STR(Athletics) check and take up an attack if they were just large).

And you prove my point. There is no way for a 5e fighter to knock over a giant by raw. There is also no way for the fighter to attack AND knock the giant over without losing efficacy of his basic attack. So you originally stated that the player had to use his action to knock the giant over, thus getting no attacks, you now say the player cannot knock the giant over. Why would players improvise at all when you have no chance to succeed?

In games I have run there was an early lack of improvisation, but that appeared to be due to people getting used to the rules and, in some cases, losing bad habits from earlier versions. As they got used to what their characters were capable of they've been a lot more creative.

I've been playing 5e for a while now and the trend I have noticed is to focus on complete obliteration of enemies HP through stacking accuracy bonuses (bless, advantage, etc) with GWM and SS. Why waste an action improvising when HP damage can simply eliminate a foe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure why you feel that advantage only works with 'bounded accuracy'. I think advantage works the same in 4e, if you add it in. A +1 bonus in 4e and 5e means exactly the same thing 5% more success. Bounded Accuracy is really just a sales term.

The 4e 'treadmill' was notorious, and was a real, mathematical, intentional thing: PCs advanced evenly and substantially as they leveled, but the DM could always provide challenges for them, regardless. As long as you played everything the same level, you walked on the 'treadmill.' Bounded Accuracy is no different, there's just much less advancement in terms of absolute numbers. A much slower treadmill.

And Advantage not only 'could' work in 4e, it does. Roll-two-dice-take-the-highest was not an unusual mechanic in 4e - most notoriously, for the Avenger. (Take the lowest was less common, but it happened.) Re-rolls were also common, and a very similar mechanic. And, of course 4e Combat Advantage consolidated multiple bonuses and denial-of-dex-bonus mechanics in 3.x into one, simple, non-stacking mechanic, much as Advantage, does relative to 3.x, that is.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure why you feel that advantage only works with 'bounded accuracy'. I think advantage works the same in 4e, if you add it in.

I'm glad it works for you.

A +1 bonus in 4e and 5e means exactly the same thing 5% more success. Bounded Accuracy is really just a sales term.

Nope. You are missing out. But that is ok because you obviously have a game you love.

Bounded accuracy brings a substantial new dimension to the game, IME. And while Advantage obviously works perfectly well from a pure mechanical perspective in other Roll + Mod style systems, the nuance of how it fits into the overall balance and intersection between story and model of story is quite different within the bounded range.

If you don't observe that, I'm already finding it quite easy to live with your difference in perception.

 

[Bihlbo]

I hate that the wording of the OP has resulted in a tidal wave of stupidity. Instead of people actually answering the question, half of the responses on the first 4 pages assume that hating an aspect of something equates to hating the whole thing; or worse they assume that hating an aspect of something doesn't matter because they can change it. If instead the question had been "What changes do you find desirable at your game?" then I wouldn't have to weed through mouth-breathing nonsense like "I only hate the haters," "If I hate it I change it," or "I don't hate 5th edition." You people, who don't know how to use words and understand basic things, you frustrate me enough to consider using the word hate in reference to you.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I hate that the wording of the OP has resulted in a tidal wave of stupidity. Instead of people actually answering the question, half of the responses on the first 4 pages assume that hating an aspect of something equates to hating the whole thing; or worse they assume that hating an aspect of something doesn't matter because they can change it. If instead the question had been "What changes do you find desirable at your game?" then I wouldn't have to weed through mouth-breathing nonsense like "I only hate the haters," "If I hate it I change it," or "I don't hate 5th edition." You people, who don't know how to use words and understand basic things, you frustrate me enough to consider using the word hate in reference to you.

It's one of the problems with forums. They attract people who like to argue, including those who worry an issue to death. Threaded forums like Hacker News or Reddit are often better, ironically because they encourage less discussion.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The 4e 'treadmill' was notorious, and was a real, mathematical, intentional thing: PCs advanced evenly and substantially as they leveled, but the DM could always provide challenges for them, regardless. As long as you played everything the same level, you walked on the 'treadmill.' Bounded Accuracy is no different, there's just much less advancement in terms of absolute numbers. A much slower treadmill.

And Advantage not only 'could' work in 4e, it does. Roll-two-dice-take-the-highest was not an unusual mechanic in 4e - most notoriously, for the Avenger. (Take the lowest was less common, but it happened.) Re-rolls were also common, and a very similar mechanic. And, of course 4e Combat Advantage consolidated multiple bonuses and denial-of-dex-bonus mechanics in 3.x into one, simple, non-stacking mechanic, much as Advantage, does relative to 3.x, that is.

What I didn't like about 4th edition was the challenge treadmill. I like the fact that in 5th edition, creatures of a lower challenge rating are still a threat. I hated that I had to use Gods and beyond to challenge high level PCs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If used as given... I would assume so. Can DW using it's default play procedures create a gritty feeling game? One where only those who are competent and skilled succeed? One where everyone has a chance to succeed at everything... and so on. And note if your answer is yes, just ignore the play procedures... well we can do that with any game and thus it only really works for those who want the default play style /campaign style that DW offers. When you standardize something you're by nature limiting its possibilities (both good and bad) that's kind of the point...isn't it?

Every game is good at what it is good at. It may be good at several things, it may be good at only one thing. DW is quite good at emulating the NARRATIVE of 'classic' B/X D&D, but with a completely different type of mechanics and a wholly different type of game. B/X is a procedural player-challenge game of hidden knowledge and logistical problem-solving, with some tactics thrown in. DW is a story-telling game.

So, when you ask "Is DW 'gritty'?" there isn't an answer to that. It should produce the narrative of a group of characters grittily grubbing through dungeons and such trying to husband their torches, find and avoid hazards, etc. However the players DO NOT in any sense in DW keep track of inventories or anything like that. Instead the DM might 'Reveal an Unwelcome Truth' with "your last torch is showing signs of burning down, you have maybe 10 more minutes of light and then you'll have to continue in pitch darkness..."

Now, there's a narrative consistency aspect to the game, like any RPG, so if the party has explicitly acquired a vast stockpile of torches you'd have to explain how they're no longer available. Still, its very hard to use the sorts of terminology with DW that you would use with procedural exploration games like D&D, although 4e is in some sense in a bit different class.

 

[tyrlaan]

What I didn't like about 4th edition was the challenge treadmill. I like the fact that in 5th edition, creatures of a lower challenge rating are still a threat. I hated that I had to use Gods and beyond to challenge high level PCs.

It's still a treadmill though, just with a different "shape to the tread" so to speak, right? In either game you can toss easier or harder tasks/obstacles at the party.

Actually, isn't it completely fair to say all (or most; i'm sure there are exceptions out there) level-based RPGs have a "treadmill"?