D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Sacrosanct]

Aww man, I don't get to be on Sacrosanct's side all that often, and here you go, ruining it...

[emoji6]



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

don't worry about it, because Tony is being hypocritical and doesn't even realize the irony of him making that statement. I never made sweeping generalizations like he's assuming, that would be him, when he said everyone left 4e because they didn't like balance. All I said was that the reason most people left 4e was not because they don't like balance, but for a number of other reasons (which is a statement that can be easily verified and is taken as common knowledge*). I.e., he is saying people left it for one reason, and I said they left it for a lot of reasons. Which do you think is the more sweeping generalization? Especially when he just handwaved all of those other reasons and said they are no different, and the real reason is they don't like balance.

He's the one making one giant generalization about everyone who left 4e, not me; an assumption that isn't accurate and insulting on top if it.


* Since everyone has different tastes, whenever people leave an edition, any edition, it is due to varying reasons, and not a universal hive mind singular reason like he claimed. Does anyone actually argue this, and instead support Tony's position that everyone leaving an edition did so for the same reason?

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I bet many of you are eager to go down this edition comparison road, may I detour?

Please. A detour, a road-block, even a spike-strip would be welcome.

Is there a market for material that makes higher levels more viable? Guidelines, tougher monsters, game balancing systems, whatever.

There never has been before. There have been very-high-level supplements, the Masters & Immortals sets for BECMI, the Epic-Level Handbook for 3.5, but I can't say they were offered to make it 'more viable' or balanced.

If there was, would it be big enough for EN5ider to go after?

I doubt the threshold is terribly high.

Even another thread about how to address the issue, rather than about whether or not it can be acknowledged, wouldn't hurt, and might be a step in that direction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I bet many of you are eager to go down this edition comparison road, may I detour?

Is there a market for material that makes higher levels more viable? Guidelines, tougher monsters, game balancing systems, whatever.
If there was, would it be big enough for EN5ider to go after?

After all, Morrus has access to fine minds that could offer solutions. If he started pumping out some articles about how to make high levels more viable, would it attract more customers who would part with currencies for such game aids?

Such an item was mentioned earlier, and the mention was met with what seemed a good deal of support within the thread. I think that any such guidance is a good idea, and a worthwhile effort, but I can't say for certain if even those who would like to see it would be willing to pay for it, either here on ENWorld or through the DMsGuild.

Many folks will only accept "official" material, which is a big obstacle toward such a project. Maybe another thread with a poll asking if people would pay for such support is in order?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll try to get on tonight and post something clarifying my thoughts on "art vs science" in GMing and game design. I will frame it with respect to 5e (and maybe another modern game system or Moldvay Basic).

What I'm not going to do is get involved in a conversation on here about the relative (de)merits of 4e or the causality/nature of its end.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll try to get on tonight and post something clarifying my thoughts on "art vs science" in GMing and game design.

In that case I'm going to re-trench a little, and just say that DMing 5e is more art than science.

A lot more, like orders of- ... right, already used that one, sorry.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, I'm going to start small and precise (due to both time constraints and to clarify/focus conversation) and we can work our way up/out from there.

I think everyone can easily distinguish the "art" component of design and GMing:

- A piece of artwork or a brief narrative is meant to compel/inspire the GM to engage the PCs with the conflict that the picture/commentary captures.

- A player makes an action declaration and the GM decides whether that is genre-off or genre-on and freaking cool (therefore permissible)!

- Maintaining the game's momentum requires the GM to abstract some mostly irrelevant play time that would bog things down.

- Tailoring your campaign to the PCs created.

Stuff like that.

What about this stuff in 5e? For each, qualify it as "more art" or "more science". Then how about "why?"

* Bounded Accuracy

* Scaling a setting map (specifically for a hexcrawl)

* The Proficiency System

* Adventuring Day-based design rather than Encounter-based design

* Stocking a dungeon

* Deciding a DC

* Evaluating CR and then using the Encounter Budget rules

* Deploying the Social Interaction (DMG 244-246) conflict resolution mechanics, including playing the NPC coherently with integrity

 

[cmad1977]

Alright, I'm going to start small and precise (due to both time constraints and to clarify/focus conversation) and we can work our way up/out from there.

I think everyone can easily distinguish the "art" component of design and GMing:

- A piece of artwork or a brief narrative is meant to compel/inspire the GM to engage the PCs with the conflict that the picture/commentary captures.

- A player makes an action declaration and the GM decides whether that is genre-off or genre-on and freaking cool (therefore permissible)!

- Maintaining the game's momentum requires the GM to abstract some mostly irrelevant play time that would bog things down.

- Tailoring your campaign to the PCs created.

Stuff like that.

What about this stuff in 5e? For each, qualify it as "more art" or "more science". Then how about "why?"

* Bounded Accuracy

* Scaling a setting map (specifically for a hexcrawl)

* The Proficiency System

* Adventuring Day-based design rather than Encounter-based design

* Stocking a dungeon

* Deciding a DC

* Evaluating CR and then using the Encounter Budget rules

* Deploying the Social Interaction (DMG 244-246) conflict resolution mechanics, including playing the NPC coherently with integrity

I'd say at least 3 of those things are more art than science.

Deploying social interaction? Art.
Even as an 'apologist' for the CR system it's still more art than science.
Picking a DC: more art.
Stocking the dungeon: art. I mean it's practically interior design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Helldritch]

Alright, I'm going to start small and precise (due to both time constraints and to clarify/focus conversation) and we can work our way up/out from there.

I think everyone can easily distinguish the "art" component of design and GMing:

- A piece of artwork or a brief narrative is meant to compel/inspire the GM to engage the PCs with the conflict that the picture/commentary captures.

- A player makes an action declaration and the GM decides whether that is genre-off or genre-on and freaking cool (therefore permissible)!

- Maintaining the game's momentum requires the GM to abstract some mostly irrelevant play time that would bog things down.

- Tailoring your campaign to the PCs created.

Stuff like that.

What about this stuff in 5e? For each, qualify it as "more art" or "more science". Then how about "why?"

* Bounded Accuracy

* Scaling a setting map (specifically for a hexcrawl)

* The Proficiency System

* Adventuring Day-based design rather than Encounter-based design

* Stocking a dungeon

* Deciding a DC

* Evaluating CR and then using the Encounter Budget rules

* Deploying the Social Interaction (DMG 244-246) conflict resolution mechanics, including playing the NPC coherently with integrity

I'd almost say that all are both.
The more experience you get as a DM in a system; the more consistent you become. From art, it becomes science.
And for the "more science" parts, the reverse occurs. The more experienced you become, the more flexible the science parts become thus making you more versatile. Even mapping, though highly scientific at first sight can become an art. Why not add a secret door on the spot to introduce a plot hole that was missed earlier? Or simply a new one that could lead to the next adventure?

At some point, art and science become one.

 

[CapnZapp]

Many folks will only accept "official" material, which is a big obstacle toward such a project. Maybe another thread with a poll asking if people would pay for such support is in order?

This.

 

[76512390ag12]

Ok. I have played 5e up to 11th level. Frankly I lost the will to manage my character at 9-10. For me many RPGs have a scaleability issue when I referee or play. 13th Age taps out for me around levels 8-10, classic Runequest at RuneLord plus a bit, and so on.
For me the Maximum Game Fun for 5e seems to be up to 11.
But hey, it's so easy isn't it? So send my 10th level PC down a 15th level hole in the ground!!

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk