D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[The Crimson Binome]

Exactly my point. Why is 19 the number chosen? If the PC's capabilities are not a factor then why aren't difficult tasks actually more difficult? Why is being caught in a blizzard just hard enough to be challenging to the PC's but not overwhelming?

Difficulty is measured relative to the world as a whole, and the (global) average modifier to any given check is between +0 and +1. Moreover, in case anyone has forgotten, a natural 20 is not a success unless you're talking about attack rolls or saving throws.

If a Hard DC was anything higher than 19, then it wouldn't be hard for most people - it would be impossible.

Which jives well with our observed reality. In the real world, normal people sometimes beat the odds and survive terrible circumstances.

 

[Shasarak]

Exactly my point. Why is 19 the number chosen? If the PC's capabilities are not a factor then why aren't difficult tasks actually more difficult? Why is being caught in a blizzard just hard enough to be challenging to the PC's but not overwhelming?

Explain to me why 19 is hard?

Because rolling a 19 or 20 on a d20 is hard but not impossible and usually requires both an Attribute bonus and Proficiency.

 

[Celtavian]

Honestly, all I care about is talking about games with fellow TTRPG peers that have a passion similar to my own. I want to talk about the impacts of design decisions, resolution mechanics, techniques, play goals and how different systems produce different experiences. I want to talk about these things from a GMing perspective. I might involve myself in a discussion about PC builds, mechanics, and balance now and again, but mostly I want to talk about GM-side stuff.

There is all kinds of analysis on the PC side of things, from maths/balance to fluff/crunch nuance to theme, etc. But for whatever weird reason, there is an enormous amount of resistance to trying to look at GMing in a technical manner. I don't know if it is the "it's more art than engineering" ethos or the "system doesn't matter because rule 0 and GM power" ethos or what, but I find it frustrating as hell. I have yet to come by this sort of resistance to technical analysis in any other passion of mine (of which I have many and participate in vigorous discussion about). The Forge was a just a place where folks who like this sort of technical analysis can go to discuss system imperatives, what they induce during play, and GMing techniques (among other things). So you could use pretty straight-forward terminology like "GM-force" (* technique whereby a GM wrests control of a player's thematically, strategically, or tactically significant decisions from that player) or "fictional positioning" (** the physical and temporal location of stuff in our shared imaginary space and their context) without people freaking the hell out. Both of those things are important component parts of an RPG discussion but people flip their lids and go OMGFORGE WTF when they're used. Like I said prior, I'll use any accepted terminology that people want to use. I'll sub GM Ham Sandwich for "GM-Force" or Kookoocachoo for "fictional positioning" if that makes people feel better (for whatever weird reason...yeah, I know the reasons...I call 1st world TTRPG problems for people's care about what Ron Edwards said once upon a time...I just fought a grueling, life-altering 2 year battle with brain cancer where I lost someone extremely precious...I do not care how people feel about Ron Edwards). So long as I don't have to say something like the mouthful of * and ** every single time I need to invoke a meaningful RPG concept, I'm good. If people want to come up with some good terms, fill me in and I'll use them and gladly.

If I have time this weekend, I think I might take an Exploration sequence and examine the moving parts or handling it in several modern systems (4e, 13th Age, 5e, Dungeon World, maybe Cortex + Heroic Fantasy if I have time) for comparison. Maybe something interesting and insightful will come out of that. Probably not but I'm game for uselessly bashing my head against a wall.

The reason there is not much talk from a GMing viewpoint on general forums is the majority of posters are players. They don't care what the GM does to make things happen as long they're having fun. If a GM starts talking about GM force, the natural rebelliousness of human beings come out, especially such an iconoclastic group like gamers. When some of us DMs tell people what we do to make the game work, they get pissy. I know as a person that DMs a lot, it is a thankless job. The players are doing everything they can to be as powerful as possible including exploiting every possible rule they can get away with. You as the GM are trying to run a game that is challenging and fun. You have to be very concerned with balance, while players don't need to concern themselves with balance at all other than what they perceive as the unfair capabilities of another player overshadowing their character. Players often don't care how much harder it is to run a game when the game designers create imbalances in the game the DM must correct. If you change something, you get resistance. If I didn't enjoy the creative process of adventure design and story-telling, I wouldn't ever DM.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But for whatever weird reason, there is an enormous amount of resistance to trying to look at GMing in a technical manner. I don't know if it is the "it's more art than engineering" ethos or the "system doesn't matter because rule 0 and GM power" ethos or what, but I find it frustrating as hell.

Hey Manbearcat. We've had our share of great, productive conversations, and our share of disagreements. So, with all of that history, I wanted to ask you an honest, civil question:

Why is this so frustrating?

I mean, why argue with people about this kind of thing? Why not just talk to the people who agree with you about it? If others hate the terms, hate your way of running the game, etc... why bother engaging them? What makes it so frustrating?

Like, I totally get why people get frustrated when certain people have certain views. Take politics. People get frustrated when people hold stupid positions on political issues. They argue out of frustration, even though they won't convince other people to change their mind about their stupid views. The frustration exists, in part, because its this other type of person that helps put bad policy into place. And bad policy affects you.

However, games and game theory isn't in the same boat. You can just skip games that don't follow game theory you like (like, say, valuing combat balance). These people that hold other views will not affect your home game. Hell, they almost certainly won't affect the games you like from being made (if you like Dungeon World, these people not liking your views won't stop it from being made).

So, why is it so frustrating, if it doesn't affect you? Why is it when someone vehemently disagrees with you or your terminology, you find it "frustrating as hell"? That's the part I don't get anymore. I used to engage in these debates. I don't anymore. They were useful for finding out what I valued personally, but that's about it.

So some people don't like hearing about Ron Edwards' gaming philosophy. It's cool, dude. Talk to people who do. That's where you'll get productive conversation. People can be pretty cool about letting you have your conversation, if you ask them politely. Nobody engaged in any threadcrapping in my 4e play report thread, and that went on for over a year and had about 35 pages. It was cool.

Some people will work with you on your take on gaming, your use of terminology, etc. Others won't. Just work with the people that are on the same page. You've got pemerton, and to a lesser extent a few other posters (AA, NC, etc). Don't sweat the people on a different page. Don't get frustrated. Don't burn out.

It's cool, man.

 

[tyrlaan]

The reason there is not much talk from a GMing viewpoint on general forums is the majority of posters are players.

I'm really not sold on the accuracy of this. For example, I think all the vocal folks in this thread are GMs and not players. I consider it unlikely that people that are only ever players are diving into DC theory debates (I'm sure some do, but it's likely a very dramatic ratio compared to GMs that do)

They don't care what the GM does to make things happen as long they're having fun. If a GM starts talking about GM force, the natural rebelliousness of human beings come out, especially such an iconoclastic group like gamers. When some of us DMs tell people what we do to make the game work, they get pissy. I know as a person that DMs a lot, it is a thankless job. The players are doing everything they can to be as powerful as possible including exploiting every possible rule they can get away with. You as the GM are trying to run a game that is challenging and fun. You have to be very concerned with balance, while players don't need to concern themselves with balance at all other than what they perceive as the unfair capabilities of another player overshadowing their character. Players often don't care how much harder it is to run a game when the game designers create imbalances in the game the DM must correct. If you change something, you get resistance. If I didn't enjoy the creative process of adventure design and story-telling, I wouldn't ever DM.

I feel like maybe you need to take a break from GMing (assuming you are at the moment). I can't help but read this and feel you've got a lot of pent up resentment for players.

 

[Ohillion]

Short answer: 5e doesn't suck at all! A good DM and a group of players can make any rule set work for their party. Even aside from houseruling, you can play directly to a rule set and determine for yourselves what will work for your group and what won't work.

For our group, we just love having the social time on a Thursday night and a chance to let our hair down and have some fun. If you feel you need to lawyer up every time there's a game session, you just might be taking the game a tad too seriously. After all, it IS still just a game - one of the finest and longest played games of all time mind you. But it is still a game.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm really not sold on the accuracy of this. For example, I think all the vocal folks in this thread are GMs and not players. I consider it unlikely that people that are only ever players are diving into DC theory debates (I'm sure some do, but it's likely a very dramatic ratio compared to GMs that do)

That is this thread. I was speaking of forums in general.

I feel like maybe you need to take a break from GMing (assuming you are at the moment). I can't help but read this and feel you've got a lot of pent up resentment for players.

Stating the truth about players does not require a break any more than stating the truth about people in general would require taking a break from them. People in general are self-centered and unconcerned with the bigger issues that the controllers of an activity are concerned with whether it be a business or a sports organization. The general truth of the self-centered nature of people is as applicable to gaming and specifically DMing as any other activity. I know there are people that don't like to acknowledge unpleasant truths and that is fine. I've dealt with that common problem in discussions like this forever. Even with friends I do not overlook the negative nature of a person. I acknowledge it and adapt.

 

[Imaro]

Heh. It's kinda funny. Imaro's blizzard example uses DC's from medium to very hard. But those DC's are determined by the system which is, in turn, determined by level. Because 5e's skill system is largely flat, it works fine. But, if we read Chapter 8 of the 5e DMG on determining DC's, we see that as soon as we go beyond those stock DC's, we are advised to take level into account.

Isn't it interesting that it's impossible in Imaro's "objective " system, for a party to have no chance of success? After all, impassible blizzards are a very real event. Being caught in the open in a blizzard is a pretty quick way to die.

But in Imaro's "objective " system, any level characters will always have a chance of success.

But, apparently, this doesn't count for designing challenges based on level.

I'm confused... a very hard DC is 25...at 8th level prof is a +3... so unless a character has both training and a high attribute...(+2 or more in Wisdom) then there's a chance you auto fail. Which is exactly the feel I described earlier that I wanted for this campaign. I don't know about you but everyone in my game doesn't have a 14 or higher in Wisdom and Survival Proficiency... So the possibility of a 100% impassable Blizzard does in fact exist for the characters in my game...

EDIT: Also technically any failed roll could be considered an "impassable blizzard"...

 

[Aenghus]

I know as a person that DMs a lot, it is a thankless job. The players are doing everything they can to be as powerful as possible including exploiting every possible rule they can get away with. You as the GM are trying to run a game that is challenging and fun. You have to be very concerned with balance, while players don't need to concern themselves with balance at all other than what they perceive as the unfair capabilities of another player overshadowing their character. Players often don't care how much harder it is to run a game when the game designers create imbalances in the game the DM must correct. If you change something, you get resistance. If I didn't enjoy the creative process of adventure design and story-telling, I wouldn't ever DM.

People play RPGs for a variety of different reasons, and care about each reason in varying proportions. Players may not even be aware of their own tastes, as it takes time and honest introspection to analyse such things.

DMing needs to be its own reward as it does involve more work than the average player. DM burnout is an issue, as creativity may not be infinite, OOC group tensions can rise, the game may drift in a direction undesirable to the DM, rules bugs may proliferate etc. But most players I know of appreciate DMing can involve work, and I suspect players would provide positive feedback to you if they were aware it was useful.

Myself, I cared about mechanics and rules first, so I can understand goal-oriented players trying to use the rules to achieve in-game success. Looking at RPGs as a game foremost, this is logical and makes sense. Using the most powerful options available and exploiting broken rules, similarly. I personally enjoy seeing my players use their brains to try and solve the world.

The downside is dealing with badly written, ambiguous or broken rules, and trying to balance things so the game is fun, when the rules themselves don't do so. (Incidentally, this is one reason why a lot of referees and players like better game balance in games, as it reduces the need for constant rules wrangling, cuts down on arguments and leaves more time for plot and story, the fun stuff).

Rules based player optimisation is based on the premise that the rules are being used to resolve everything and maximising the "important" PC abilities will result in a higher success chance. If this starts irritating the DM sufficiently the premise becomes no longer true, and it may require an OOC discussion about what the game is about. Such discussions may require compromise, or realisation that some of the players primary enjoyment comes from PC min-maxing, and yours doesn't. (this may or may not be the case).

As time as gone on I have grown to care more for plot and story than I did. Partially this is because my current players care more for story and plot and are less goal-oriented and more dramatic, so my game has drifted in that direction. Being a DM most of the time, I have come to accept that a perfectly realised gameworld is impossible and not worth the extreme effort entailed, and focusing on the elements of the world the individual players are interested in has a better return on investment.

Min Maxing players may not be perfect fit players for someone who cares primarily for story and plot, the game working out in particular ways. Rules often don't respect the preferred story line.

 

[Imaro]

I think conversation has progressed well beyond this point so I won't go into much of this. The sources for most of this stuff are primarily DMG2 and RC, but also several WotC articles (Dungeon and freebies).

As to your last sentence, I wouldn't use the word "code" there. I would basically just say that each playstyle requires certain component parts of the resolution mechanics in order for them to synergize with GMing techniques and tone/genre. Subjective DCs are definitely more widely used in "protagonism/thematic/genre logic-centered" play where where the only thing that is ever on-screen is meant to be dramatic (hence the conflict-charged scene being the exclusive locus of play). Objective DCs are useful on "serial (time and spatially) exploration-centered play" whereby the players are meant to transit a pre-built map and experience "a living, breathing world" (the on-screen will feature plenty of benign material along with its conflict-charged material) and aim solely for 1st person, PC habitation at all times.



Honestly, all I care about is talking about games with fellow TTRPG peers that have a passion similar to my own. I want to talk about the impacts of design decisions, resolution mechanics, techniques, play goals and how different systems produce different experiences. I want to talk about these things from a GMing perspective. I might involve myself in a discussion about PC builds, mechanics, and balance now and again, but mostly I want to talk about GM-side stuff.

There is all kinds of analysis on the PC side of things, from maths/balance to fluff/crunch nuance to theme, etc. But for whatever weird reason, there is an enormous amount of resistance to trying to look at GMing in a technical manner. I don't know if it is the "it's more art than engineering" ethos or the "system doesn't matter because rule 0 and GM power" ethos or what, but I find it frustrating as hell. I have yet to come by this sort of resistance to technical analysis in any other passion of mine (of which I have many and participate in vigorous discussion about). The Forge was a just a place where folks who like this sort of technical analysis can go to discuss system imperatives, what they induce during play, and GMing techniques (among other things). So you could use pretty straight-forward terminology like "GM-force" (* technique whereby a GM wrests control of a player's thematically, strategically, or tactically significant decisions from that player) or "fictional positioning" (** the physical and temporal location of stuff in our shared imaginary space and their context) without people freaking the hell out. Both of those things are important component parts of an RPG discussion but people flip their lids and go OMGFORGE WTF when they're used. Like I said prior, I'll use any accepted terminology that people want to use. I'll sub GM Ham Sandwich for "GM-Force" or Kookoocachoo for "fictional positioning" if that makes people feel better (for whatever weird reason...yeah, I know the reasons...I call 1st world TTRPG problems for people's care about what Ron Edwards said once upon a time...I just fought a grueling, life-altering 2 year battle with brain cancer where I lost someone extremely precious...I do not care how people feel about Ron Edwards). So long as I don't have to say something like the mouthful of * and ** every single time I need to invoke a meaningful RPG concept, I'm good. If people want to come up with some good terms, fill me in and I'll use them and gladly.

If I have time this weekend, I think I might take an Exploration sequence and examine the moving parts or handling it in several modern systems (4e, 13th Age, 5e, Dungeon World, maybe Cortex + Heroic Fantasy if I have time) for comparison. Maybe something interesting and insightful will come out of that. Probably not but I'm game for uselessly bashing my head against a wall.

Here's an honest question... Did you really think you were going to find this in a thread titled... "Why Does 5e Suck?"?