D&D 5E Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?

[Don Durito]

There are some people who would like a more complex system with firmer boundaries and see the fact that their ideas aren’t hardwired into the game as a flaw.

I personally like the fact that monsters are basic and can be easily improved. For instance my demons and devils all have one or two abilities or spells that vary by individual. The 3e stat blocks are the inspiration. This keeps fiends varied and interesting.

However me expecting that to be hardwired into the game forces my preferences on people who might like something simpler or who don’t have my preconceived ideas of what Osyluth can and should do.

It’s easier to add than it is to take away!

Simple is fine. But if you want a system to be modular then you have to ensure that space is designed into it for the more complex actions. This is part of the issue. We were promised DnD next would be modular, and it really wasn't. There was little real thought to how the more complex elements could be added into the simple. See the discussion of how flanking rules if used are now overpowered (and people in 4E were already mocking the whole 'conga' line of doom element of flanking).

Part of the issue with 5E in this regard is that while the core rules for resolution and combat are very simple. The whole class system is built on lots of exception based spells, powers and abilities. This means you really need to be aware of interactions from changing rules. For example, one DM wanted to make critis more powerful, but I had to warn him, that this would mean a big buff to my paladin, who was already feeling somewhat OP as we weren't really getting in enough combats per long rest.

I don't want to oversell it. It's not that difficult to play around with an houserule 5e. But it's not B/X or 13th Age or Castles and Crusades either.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One thing I will note - is that good GM's never really have a problem finding players.

So if you are willing to run, you can do pretty much any system you want. The trick is getting a group where 2-3 people rotate being GM and running full campaigns... I'm lucky that way.

But if I move away from my current group - I'm not worried about forming another - I know I'll just have to be exclusive GM for a bit.

You know, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean that like it sounds...? Because if you did, that is pretty sh!tty IMO and makes tons of assumptions.

This is the first group I am in where I don't DM 90+% of the time. As for the others, our DM has experience in other games, but the other two are only familiar with 5E and not in a hurry to try new games. One of those two is thankfully running CoS, so our normal DM gets to play. When he is done, I am taking over, but again it will probably be 5E unless I can convince the other two to try 1E/2E.

So, the problem isn't being the DM, I usually am as I said, it is finding players who I like, have similar schedules, and can play at least somewhat regularly. When I was in college, no problem. Now, where I live, and being older, I am lucky I got the group together that I did.

 

[Jaeger]

don't forget "that's not a problem, it's a feature, you just want the wrong things"

LOL so true!

5e is hugely successful. But it was very much a design-by-committee edition.

System wise it is just the right amount of vanilla bland that most D&D groups are able to get what they want out of it. Because every established group outright ignores or houserules parts of the rules.

And that's perfectly OK.

But people who rock up and try to run the thing entirely RAW?

They may not view it through the same soft-focus lens...


.

 

[Don Durito]

You know, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean that like it sounds...? Because if you did, that is pretty sh!tty IMO and makes tons of assumptions.

This is the first group I am in where I don't DM 90+% of the time. As for the others, our DM has experience in other games, but the other two are only familiar with 5E and not in a hurry to try new games. One of those two is thankfully running CoS, so our normal DM gets to play. When he is done, I am taking over, but again it will probably be 5E unless I can convince the other two to try 1E/2E.

So, the problem isn't being the DM, I usually am as I said, it is finding players who I like, have similar schedules, and can play at least somewhat regularly. When I was in college, no problem. Now, where I live, and being older, I am lucky I got the group together that I did.

Yes. It's really situational.

It's usually the case, that if you're happy to run 5E and aren't picky about players then you can get a game going (and I see no evidence that one has to be a good gm.). Although even this really does depend on there being some sort of local avenue for advertising and recruiting.

If you want to run something else, then it's much more situational. (And it doesn't matter how good a GM you are if you can't get people to sign up to actually come to a session and find out for themselves).

 

[tetrasodium]

LOL so true!

5e is hugely successful. But it was very much a design-by-committee edition.

System wise it is just the right amount of vanilla bland that most D&D groups are able to get what they want out of it. Because every established group outright ignores or houserules parts of the rules.

And that's perfectly OK.

But people who rock up and try to run the thing entirely RAW?

They may not view it through the same soft-focus lens...


.

the problem isn't wanting to run it RAW so much that too many things were overly simplified & as a result instead of some groups saying "yea we don't use the rules for that" you need to rewrite so much of the rules you aren't playing d&d anymore by the time you fill the gaping void

 

[Jaeger]

You know, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean that like it sounds...? Because if you did, that is pretty sh!tty IMO and makes tons of assumptions.

Well yes, some assumptions.

You will have to weed the wheat from the chaff a bit with players - and might have to start with a gateway drug (some version of D&D).

And I readily admit it can be regionally dependent too. Sometimes you can move to a sucky area for RPG interest.

And this assumes that you will be GM 90%+ of the time.

If you want to play your share? Things get trickier...

This is the first group I am in where I don't DM 90+% of the time. As for the others, our DM has experience in other games, but the other two are only familiar with 5E and not in a hurry to try new games. One of those two is thankfully running CoS, so our normal DM gets to play. When he is done, I am taking over, but again it will probably be 5E unless I can convince the other two to try 1E/2E.

Now this is a phenomenon I have never fully understood...

Although I acknowledge it in my previous post: "90%+ of the RPG hobby is 5e. Most of it exclusively so" I have noticed that this is why core and new character classes are gone over with a fine toothed comb - for lots of people D&D is all that they ever play!

It still puzzles me. Especially with players who have no experience with other games.

On the other hand - If you are running the game - you get to decide the system. I am rather Viking hat that way. I ask my group what they might be interested in, and take that into account. But they are also free to vote with their feet!

My reccomendation is do a few one shots - maybe of an RPG a bit D&D adjacent. let them get a feel for a new game with pre-gens etc... They will not have the personal PC investment, and they can see that most other rpg's are actually less complaex than D&D.

.

 

[fearsomepirate]

If you want to play your share? Things get trickier...



Now this is a phenomenon I have never fully understood...

Although I acknowledge it in my previous post: "90%+ of the RPG hobby is 5e. Most of it exclusively so" I have noticed that this is why core and new character classes are gone over with a fine toothed comb - for lots of people D&D is all that they ever play!

Because learning new rules isn't fun. Playing games is fun. If whatever people know is good enough, they'll be disinclined to try something else that might take even longer to learn if it doesn't clearly offer the potential to be more fun.

A huge number of systems are basically "D&D, but ever so slightly more different this time." There are only so many permutations of sneaking up behind bugbear a to shank his kidney just before your friend blasts him with Magic Missile before they all start to blur together. Maybe 13th Age is a better version of D&D. Maybe Pathfinder 2 is. Maybe ACKS is. The problem is they're basically the same thing as far as most people are concerned, and 5e is fine (not perfect, but fine), so why bother?

What we need is something different, something that taps into a cultural moment the way D&D did originally and Vampire did in the 1990s. The difference between D&D and Vampire is that TSR managed to keep the 1970s Sword & Sorcery thing going until it outlasted the original fad, while White Wolf crashed and burned, and the goth/vampire moment passed. It's really too bad that the last time D&D had a lull, the biggest thing in RPGs was just...off-brand D&D.

 

[JeffB]

The DMG has a whole section on modifying monsters and a table of abilities that can be added to any monster or NPC you like.

I went back and looked at that table. I stand by my previous statement. That table is a joke.

 

[Jaeger]

Because learning new rules isn't fun. Playing games is fun. If whatever people know is good enough, they'll be disinclined to try something else that might take even longer to learn if it doesn't clearly offer the potential to be more fun.

I readily conceded that mostly this is true - people have their comfort zones and they like to stay in them. But then they had to venture something new when they first played D&D... so it is an interesting little circle of thought.

First rule of getting someone to play something different than D&D: Don't use a system more complicated than D&D!!!

A huge number of systems are basically "D&D, but ever so slightly more different this time. ...The problem is they're basically the same thing as far as most people are concerned, and 5e is fine (not perfect, but fine), so why bother?

They are actually right - they all are basically the same thing!

Being "good enough" is very powerful. And D&D has rode that wave successfully through most of its editions. It is a big hurdle to get people to go over.

Second rule of getting someone to play something different than D&D: Don't use a d20 based system!

What we need is something different, something that taps into a cultural moment the way D&D did originally and Vampire did in the 1990s. The difference between D&D and Vampire is that TSR managed to keep the 1970s Sword & Sorcery thing going until it outlasted the original fad, while White Wolf crashed and burned, and the goth/vampire moment passed.

umm yeah... Not gonna happen - ever.

D&D is king. Vampire only outperformed D&D when D&D went out of print.

D&D was first and it was good enough. An absolutely killer combination. The rest is history.

Third rule of getting someone to play something different than D&D: Don't do vanilla fantasy!

It's really too bad that the last time D&D had a lull, the biggest thing in RPGs was just...off-brand D&D.

Well, WOTC f'd up with 4e. They tried to move the game in a direction to tap into the MMO market and made a lot of own goals in the process. The end result of which Pazio was in a primo position to make hay while the sun shone with thier 3.x clone. In hindsight; a clear mistake. In the context of the times, it's easy to see why they wanted to go in the direction that they did with 4e.

And in fairness to D&D, not one of their erstwhile competitors had the business savvy to stay around and relevant long enough to matter.

In the erstwhile competitors defense, D&D has been bailed out of bad decisions by big $$$ no less than three times already.


.

 

[Garthanos]

In the erstwhile competitors defense, D&D has been bailed out of bad decisions by big $$$ no less than three times already.

The advantage of being the iconic first is that kind of thing can happen...