D&D 5E My Players Didn't Like 5e :( Help Me Get Them Into It!!

[Remathilis]

PF is a great game for people who like building characters. You can have hours of fun just designing your character, and it's satisfying to play the game with a character that has some intricacy. So I understand your players when they say they miss the feeling of control over character design and rapid evolution in the game.

But having run an on-again, off-again high-level PF game for the past couple of years, I've enjoyed the chance to experience high-level play but will never run such a game again.

PF is NOT a good game for DMs. Even if you're playing Core only, there are too many opportunities for PCs to stack bonuses and the game rewards such specialization. So you very quickly have to start designing encounters that play to the PCs weaknesses, just to challenge them, and the rules end up driving the story instead of the other way around.

So I agree with a lot of previous posters: tell them you're happy to play PF, but only if someone else DMs. And if they say "no, YOU'RE the DM", then try to address some of their concerns in the 5E framework.

My own PF game just ended at 10th level, and it was a slog to get that far. To be fair, a bit of it was my own fault (I allowed for half-or-better on hp rolls), but come the end nothing short of CR 17 was challenging 5-6 10th level PCs. This was do to a good combination of teamwork and and some broken parts of PF (a summoner who usually had his eidolon + 1-2 cannon fodders soaking up attacks, a gunslinger/rogue who never missed due to touch AC, a cleric who usually selective/quicken channel burst to keep hp high, A paladin that nuked anything evil from orbit, etc.) In the end, I could only run a decent fight if verged on TPK or took several hours for the PCs to break through the foes defense systems. It was very unsatisfying and more often then not felt like the combat metagame was the important part, story came second.

I'm hoping 5e makes this more manageable, because the effort I put into making PF fights work vs. the ease they got slaughtered in a hail of summons, smites, and gunshots was pathetic.

 

[Agamon]

I had this problem a few years ago. 4e came out, we played it for about 6 months and one of the players really didn't enjoy it. So I switched to Hackmaster, as the new version of that had just released its basic rules. A different player didn't like it. So I asked what they could agree on. The answer was 3.5 or Pathfinder. The problem was, I was burned out on d20. I gave it a go, but if the GM isn't feeling it, the game will die pretty fast.

I got tired of starting new games and trying to please everyone, so I stopped roleplaying for almost 2 years. Then 5e was announced and I got the itch again and checked out the OSR movement. That led to me starting up a new game with most of regulars from the last group, this time running Adventurer Conqueror King System. Everyone was content with that game, and we played for almost 2 years before 5e came out. When it did, we switched over to that and everyone is having fun playing it.

I guess the point is pretty similar to advice already given. Find something everyone wants to play (or try, even). Or, get someone else to run a game if you would rather not run it. Failing that, you need to find a new group or take a break from it.

It's a game, a means to have fun. No one should be playing anything when they aren't having fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me, I think the perfect D&D lies somewhere between 5E and Pathfinder.

For me, "perfect D&D" is a contradiction in terms. D&D is, if anything, a game defined by it's imperfections.

I have been a DM since the 1980s, and I am thrilled with 5e. Especially the 6 saves, the spells, the lack of a christmas tree of items . . . but my players were unhappy.

I take it they didn't start as early in the game's history as you did?

Let’s start with my biggest gripe – the lovely backgrounds. Yes you know my problems with this – “You don’t limit your player’s creativity game” Yea it’s cool that your history matters but you just don’t. At least they are easy to make, but if you have to make 100 of them why don’t they just give you – Here this is what you can pick, mix and match it until you are happy.

At any given moment you'll need a maximum of 1/player.

And then they talk about personality – the fabled IBF. Here there be the basics of your character. This mechanic I’m sad to say is useless for us.

I question the wisdom of the 'carrot for RP' approach, myself. So, just don't use it. Fixed.

Fewer magical items you say, well that sounds good because before I used to look like a christmas tree whenever someone looked at me with detect magic. In theory it is fine, a great idea even, until you understand that you get them super rarely, thusly being unreliable reward.

I've heard (wohoo! hearsay!) that uncertain rewards are psychologically quite powerful.

what can I do with that gold? Buy ponies and that’s about it, can’t buy magical items, they are too rare, can’t improve myself in any way really, so I have more money than god and no way to use it.

There's not much you can spend it on in your powergaming wish-list, but who knows what campaign factors might suck up money. Re-building a ravaged town, fortifying a captured manor, currying political influence, etc...

downtime and social interactions and something that could be broth up but it has 0 mechanical support. I wish I had the DMG so I can really get to the core of these problems, but alas I have to just point some of them out.

AL has a some downtime ideas for you.

Finally I will tell you what I think about “rulings not rules”. I think it is lazy and uninspired way to pander to everyone. Well we didn’t want to tell you how to run your game so you decide. Sorry, but did I but a rule system or a guideline no how to create my own.

If you created your own game - and you were good at game design, it'd do exactly what you wanted. OTOH, if you use a published game, and just over-rule it any time it doesn't /accomplish/ exactly what you want, you may not have the perfect system, but you're providing your players the experience you might, had you such a system. An imperfect solution for an imperfect universe. The only downside is that such a game is only as good as the DM. Making the game better only somewhat alters that formula. A game like 5e is bad in the hands of a poor DM, OK in the hands of a competent one, and good in the hand of a great one. A game that is much better-written and balanced, OTOH, is bad in the hands of a willfully bad DM, OK in the hands of a merely poor one, good in the hands of a competent DM, and great in the hands of a great one.

But, the effort to design - and the increasingly group-specific appeal of - a 'better' quality game makes it hard to create one that people don't get passionate about, including some really, really hating it.

My own PF game just ended at 10th level, and it was a slog to get that far. To be fair, a bit of it was my own fault (I allowed for half-or-better on hp rolls), but come the end nothing short of CR 17 was challenging 5-6 10th level PCs. This was do to a good combination of teamwork and and some broken parts of PF (a summoner who usually had his eidolon + 1-2 cannon fodders soaking up attacks, a gunslinger/rogue who never missed due to touch AC, a cleric who usually selective/quicken channel burst to keep hp high, A paladin that nuked anything evil from orbit, etc.) In the end, I could only run a decent fight if verged on TPK or took several hours for the PCs to break through the foes defense systems. It was very unsatisfying and more often then not felt like the combat metagame was the important part, story came second.

I'm hoping 5e makes this more manageable, because the effort I put into making PF fights work vs. the ease they got slaughtered in a hail of summons, smites, and gunshots was pathetic.

PF still sounds like 3.5, I guess. While not to the extent 4e did, 5e does make encounter creation easier than 3.5/PF. It's still tricky, you can certainly have a tough fight turn into a rollover, but at least you didn't put as much effort into it's creation, and, you also get the reverse, for variety. Mainly, though, the big difference is on the player side, you won't be seeing PCs as game-wrecking as PF, or even as 3.5 core-only.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Thx so much for all the varied replies. Gives me things to ponder.

Always remember this.

You can keep Pathfinder with in limits be limiting the amount of books and options you will allow. You don't have to allow each and every option out there that exists.

 

[DaveDash]

I find this...incredibly surprising. Both parts, actually--almost everyone who likes 5e seems to be crazy about "rulings-not-rules," and the rigor of 4e seems to be the usual thing that ruins other game experiences (such as 5e). It's...shocking, actually. Would you be willing to discuss why? (Perhaps in another thread/over PM, since this is rather off-topic.)

5e is the most fun edition of D&D for me, which is why I play it, but:

1. I am all about player and DM agency being on equal footings, since I view the DM as the first among equals. I can't stand DM's who just love house ruling things for the sake of house ruling things. 5e pushes agency firmly in the hands of the DM, which I don't like. I've seen otherwise good DM's take this to heart and do silly (IMO) things like house rule action surge, sneak attack, all sorts of things. This happened in older editions sure, but there was less agency for DM's to do so.
2. Many parts of 5e decrease workload, which is great, but some parts of 5e needlessly increase workload. The DMG was a big disappointment to me in this regard. I want more crunch around things like encounter tables, traps, diseases, etc, instead of just a hand-wave and "You figure it out, you're the DM!".
3. I started playing D&D with AD&D 2nd Edition. All the editions I have played have been quite rules heavy (AD&D 2e had a table for everything, 3rd Edition, 4th edition both rules heavy). I don't know a D&D where it's rules light and based on improvisation instead of rules.

I get why it's the all the rage, I really do. I'm just not a fan of that component personally. I don't view D&D from the lens that you're living out this grand story. Honestly, if I wanted that experience I'd spend my time reading a fantastic novel, or get engrossed in one of the amazing stories that many CRPGs on the market tell.

D&D to me is still a game, it has dice, it has rules. The less rules the less of a game it is, and the more of interactive story time it becomes. I like playing games, not story time, so that really is the core of the issue why I am a fan of rules not rulings.

I can really sympathize with the OP's group. I really do. I hated 5e in principal when I first read it. But since playing it I have found it to be really fun. The positives outweigh the negatives.
5e better watch out though if pathfinder come out with a more streamlined version that decreases combat time, and borrows many of the fun things about 5e, while retaining player agency and crunch.

 

[Celtavian]

I can really sympathize with the OP's group. I really do. I hated 5e in principal when I first read it. But since playing it I have found it to be really fun. The positives outweigh the negatives.
5e better watch out though if pathfinder come out with a more streamlined version that decreases combat time, and borrows many of the fun things about 5e, while retaining player agency and crunch.

You ain't kidding. I can't emphasize enough how much I miss Pathfinder APs. So much more interesting than WotC big modules. If Pathfinder came out with a system similar to 5E, I'd be all over that just to get back to using their adventures without needing as much mechanical modification. I'd probably be ok with a few more rules, though I do prefer hand-waving unnecessary stuff like climbing and swimming checks, overly complicated grappling rules, and skills for the most part. I thought I would love skills in 3E due to my love of GURPS, but I grew to hate them, especially Knowledge skills. My players wanted to roll for every monster they met to find some useful piece of information like a knowledge skill meant they were a biologist with a PhD on nearly every creature. Each character with the knowledge skill rolled. Monsters completely lost their mystery once knowledge skills became useful for that ability. I much prefer knowledge skills to be background based than codified. I prefer only important skills that affect combat be codified. Background or knowledge type skills I prefer to be left in the hands of the DM for use when appropriate or obvious circumstances like Arcana being used to figure out a magical door or trap or Survival being used to track or survive in the wilderness.

 

[DaveDash]

You ain't kidding. I can't emphasize enough how much I miss Pathfinder APs. So much more interesting than WotC big modules. If Pathfinder came out with a system similar to 5E, I'd be all over that just to get back to using their adventures without needing as much mechanical modification. I'd probably be ok with a few more rules, though I do prefer hand-waving unnecessary stuff like climbing and swimming checks, overly complicated grappling rules, and skills for the most part. I thought I would love skills in 3E due to my love of GURPS, but I grew to hate them, especially Knowledge skills. My players wanted to roll for every monster they met to find some useful piece of information like a knowledge skill meant they were a biologist with a PhD on nearly every creature. Each character with the knowledge skill rolled. Monsters completely lost their mystery once knowledge skills became useful for that ability. I much prefer knowledge skills to be background based than codified. I prefer only important skills that affect combat be codified. Background or knowledge type skills I prefer to be left in the hands of the DM for use when appropriate or obvious circumstances like Arcana being used to figure out a magical door or trap or Survival being used to track or survive in the wilderness.

Even though I mentioned in the other thread I enjoy rollplaying along with roleplaying, I agree with you on knowledge checks. I tend to be pretty vague with them now, and read more flavour text from the Monsters Manual than anything from the statblock.

I also made the mistake of allowing my players to do Arcana checks in 5e to identify spells being cast (DC 10 + spell level), which I regret, as it makes counter spelling way too potent.

 

[Celtavian]

Even though I mentioned in the other thread I enjoy rollplaying along with roleplaying, I agree with you on knowledge checks. I tend to be pretty vague with them now, and read more flavour text from the Monsters Manual than anything from the statblock.

I also made the mistake of allowing my players to do Arcana checks in 5e to identify spells being cast (DC 10 + spell level), which I regret, as it makes counter spelling way too potent.

I'm a little worried about counterspell with abjuration specialists and high stat creatures. They have a good chance of eliminating a high level spell using a 3rd level spell and a roll. Not very fun if the casters 9th level slot is countered with a 3rd level spell and a fairly easy roll. Given it's an ability check, you could use guidance or a Bardic inspiration on the role to make it ridiculously easy. That leaves you in a situation where DM mercy is the only thing preventing the high level caster from getting screwed by a low level spell. I might have to tweak the game some to deal with this. I may make it so that equal level spell to counter equal level spell eliminating the possibility of a roll.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm a little worried about counterspell with abjuration specialists and high stat creatures. They have a good chance of eliminating a high level spell using a 3rd level spell and a roll. Not very fun if the casters 9th level slot is countered with a 3rd level spell and a fairly easy roll. Given it's an ability check, you could use guidance or a Bardic inspiration on the role to make it ridiculously easy. That leaves you in a situation where DM mercy is the only thing preventing the high level caster from getting screwed by a low level spell. I might have to tweak the game some to deal with this. I may make it so that equal level spell to counter equal level spell eliminating the possibility of a roll.

It's kind of one of those things, if you have a Abjurer and Bard like you do in my group, you just kind of have to accept the fact they're an incredibly good anti-caster party.

Yeah they will eat a CR20 caster for breakfast, they're highly optimized to face those threats, but then on the other hand they stagger against being swarmed by tough melee.

Shocking Grasp though used in the right circumstances can be pretty nasty - since it takes away your reaction. So an Undead Sorcerer with quicken can get in their faces and still cause some issues, or a couple of casters working together with their familiars to shut down their reactions.

 

[Blue]

There isn't One RPG To Rule Them, even a particular edition of D&D. 3.x and Pathfinder were a more more detailed simulation of fantasy physics. That simulation took time to process, including looking up the subsystem for whatever you need to deal with today.

As a player, I liked that level of customization and liked having all of the rules spelled out so I knew what to expect. On the flip side, I've left games because that level of simulation put 40 minutes between actions in combat and I was bored still whenever we got into combat. As a DM I liked that there were rules for everything, and went absolutely crazy at the amount of prep I needed to do and the way the simulation math broke down at high levels.

5e is a much more streamlined game that puts ease of game play before depth of simulation, with the tradeoffs that implies. It also starts to marry mechanics and story more with the Inspiration mechanics though not as much as many indie games out there. (D&D used to do this through just alignment, but it's mechanical support was minimal and usually punitive, while Inspiration can be as widespread as your table wants and is a positive effect.)

I prefer to both run and play 5e and games like that (13th Age is my preferred) to Pathfinder and D&D 3.x. I ran two back-to-back campaigns lasting 12 years of regular play in 3.x as well as played a lot - it's just not the system I prefer to play.

I said all that to say that all of the choices are valid, and pick a game that matches the playstyle of all the people playing it. The problem sounds like that what the DM is looking for is different then some/all of the players. A system that provides a good level of character customization for a player might give an overwhelming amoun of detail per NPC for a GM. This sounds like a right path isn't pushing 5e towards your players, but talk to them about what you want and build on what they say they want. Both DM and players should be having fun.