D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Lanefan]

Following a writing process?

Let's just start with the core question: why is this fight happening?

Most of the time it's for one of three reasons:

-1- The attackers view the PCs or their mounts etc. as food. (most wandering monsters, particularly outdoors)
-2- The PCs have invaded someone's lair/home and the opponents are defending it. (most opponents in most dungeon crawls)
-3- The attackers are mindless and just doing what they've been programmed to do (constructs and minor undead).

Of the above, 2 is by far the most common.

It also depends whether the players/PCs prefer Kirk-style diplomacy or Picard-style diplomacy. IME most groups are all Kirk, all the time.

 

[Reynard]

When we talk about risk and reward. XP rewards in 5E D&D don't take in to account whether the party has recently taken a short or long rest. In our current system the encounters is equal whether the party is carrying damage into the fight, or is down spells. So to maximize power by the team they are always better off coming in to an encounter at full strength and that is definitely at lesser risk. So if we where going to give experience based off of risk we should award bonus experience dependent on the last time you took a short or long rest and whether you are carrying damage.

It might be interesting to apply a "well rested" XP penalty to encourage players to not rest after every fight. Alternatively DON'T require rests to recover resources and go with a different model but that is a much larger paradigm shift.

I still think there's so potential in the idea that the XP reward is assessed AFTER the fight based on how hard it was -- damage suffered, spells cast, and so on.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem with this approach-- and I will never get tired of saying this-- is that the people who most want a reasonable sense of realism in D&D are the people with the least reasonable grasp of reality outside of it: the people whose sense of realism is based primarily on older forms of D&D with no understanding of the sacrifices older D&D made to reality for the sake of gameplay and genre conventions.

I would argue their realism comes from very basic things: the mind's eye of physics and fantasy books. If Wulfgar the barbarian can do it, then another barbarian can. If Thorin Oakenshield can't do it, then their dwarf can't do it. That doesn't sound like the kind of delusion-esque thinking you imply. The realism comes from the fantasy world played in, and since D&D harbors a very broad sense of the word "fantasy world," there are bound to be different interpretations as to what is correct.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I find that most people who demand realism and shout 'verisimilitude' in your face aren't thinking in terms of genre conventions and are just eyeballing reality.

People who thing plate armor is massively hindering even though someone trained can cartwheel in it.

People wants every HP to be a massive, spurting wound.

People who talk about gender-based stats.

You rarely see someone talking about what Thorin can do, they talk about what bob from accounting can do at worst and a real-world non-elf Olympian at best.

 

[TheSword]

It's a matter of preference, I guess. My preference is to make healing harder, and combat more dangerous.

Let's say we're watching an action movie, and the hero Brett Strongjaw gets shot. He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black, we wonder if this is the end for our hero. But no! The lights come back up after a few seconds, the action resumes, Brett gets up and returns fire! But look out, he gets shot again! He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black...

...and so on. After the first time, this device loses its impact. And after about the third or fourth time, it starts to get boring. Then annoying.

It's a terrible plot device. And it's not made better (or more exciting, or even more interesting) by making the bad guys stop shooting at the hero.

It is only dull because in a film you are a passive spectator.

If you were the cop I assure you, the conceit would be much better appreciated.

Many, many games have a state between ‘functioning normally’ and ‘game-over’ which allows participants to keep playing. It’s fun to keep playing.

Games are not movies.

 

[ArmoredSaint77]

If I could eliminate just one thing, it'd definitely be the "Heat Metal" spell. Too overpowered. Blecch!

 

[Scott Christian]

I find that most people who demand realism and shout 'verisimilitude' in your face aren't thinking in terms of genre conventions and are just eyeballing reality.

People who thing plate armor is massively hindering even though someone trained can cartwheel in it.

People wants every HP to be a massive, spurting wound.

People who talk about gender-based stats.

You rarely see someone talking about what Thorin can do, they talk about what bob from accounting can do at worst and a real-world non-elf Olympian at best.

They are eyeballing reality, from their experience of both fantasy and reality - as does everyone. There is no difference between the players. D&D is broad, so there is bound to be conflict. Look at your examples:

Plate armor: Everyone has seen ren fest guys rolling around in plate. But the rules don't necessarily facilitate this. So you have a one of two options: be a realist or try to make things balanced. In this case (since armor is critical to D&D style gameplay) most opt for balance, and then explain the realism.
HP: Some make it a wound that can magically heal, others make it exhaustion, others make it scratches, etc. It doesn't matter. The realist that thinks, "I hit a goblin for ten points of damage with my magic missile just cracked its skull" is allowed to think "I just hit a bugbear with a magic missile and bruised its chest." Just like a someone else can say "the goblin was crushed by the spell, the bugbear wasn't hit, but strained to dodge and get out of the way making his muscles tired." There is no one way that is more realistic here.
Gender: I haven't seen this argument in over twenty-five years. And even then, most people knew what an Olympic athlete was.

You are correct in that you do not see people talk about what Thorin can do. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether they use that knowledge to create "realism" in their game. That knowledge is already built in. I don't ponder how my car can get me to work faster than if I walk - it was built in long ago once I was old enough to understand speed equals faster. Then I understood it even better once I learned time=distance/speed. Now, I never think of it. I just know. The same is true for a player's realism: it is a built in calculation based on prior knowledge and experience.
In other words: to judge it is wrong.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me? Usually, it's an attempt to get the player to try a different tactic--any at all--other than "keep fighting until I drop." Remember it's not always the DM who is "so hopelessly addicted to just one kind of stakes."

I'm curious, though. What other kinds of stakes would you have the DM provide, that would prevent the issue of PCs dropping too often?

You would need to provide clear alternative ways to win.

Theoretically, the pc's could make the enemy flee, or convince them to switch side, or get them to surrender or whatever. But the rules don't tell them how, and the dm will decide on the fly if it will work, how it will work, and what success will look like. There are so many known unknowns that the strategy of 'talking to them' is massively risky. Whereas killing the enemies is clear, direct, actionable, and has measurable progress points. So of course the players choose that every time.

 

[tetrasodium]

You would need to provide clear alternative ways to win.

Theoretically, the pc's could make the enemy flee, or convince them to switch side, or get them to surrender or whatever. But the rules don't tell them how, and the dm will decide on the fly if it will work, how it will work, and what success will look like. There are so many known unknowns that the strategy of 'talking to them' is massively risky. Whereas killing the enemies is clear, direct, actionable, and has measurable progress points. So of course the players choose that every time.

That's the problem. What you describe is basically deploying Fate's concede mechanics but those only work because of everything else in fate along with how incredibly long lasting & painful consequences from ignoring your stress track can be. Also I'm pretty sure that @CleverNickName was saying that as an example of why the yoyo healing baked into the system an anticlimactic bad thing.

It is only dull because in a film you are a passive spectator.

If you were the cop I assure you, the conceit would be much better appreciated.

Many, many games have a state between ‘functioning normally’ and ‘game-over’ which allows participants to keep playing. It’s fun to keep playing.

Games are not movies.

Declaring that some other aspect of the game that comes later will make up for the problem doesn't make the problem go away. Adding to that is the fact that d&d is not exactly a game people list when looking for a great social pillar focus while 5e does everything it can to make the exploration pillar something players can just ignore or trivially circumvent as often as possible. When the social & exploration pillars are so feeble the combat pillar needs to look like the Parthenon. dismissing damage beyond zero & near zero cost yoyo healing with a virtually removed anemic tactical componentis the opposite of the parthenon.

 

[TheSword]

That's the problem. What you describe is basically deploying Fate's concede mechanics but those only work because of everything else in fate along with how incredibly long lasting & painful consequences from ignoring your stress track can be. Also I'm pretty sure that @CleverNickName was saying that as an example of why the yoyo healing baked into the system an anticlimactic bad thing.

Declaring that some other aspect of the game that comes later will make up for the problem doesn't make the problem go away. Adding to that is the fact that d&d is not exactly a game people list when looking for a great social pillar focus while 5e does everything it can to make the exploration pillar something players can just ignore or trivially circumvent as often as possible. When the social & exploration pillars are so feeble the combat pillar needs to look like the Parthenon. dismissing damage beyond zero & near zero cost yoyo healing with a virtually removed anemic tactical componentis the opposite of the parthenon.

Have you ever considered that the social and exploration pillars are driven less by rules and more by description, choices and roleplaying?

Occasionally I see calls for convoluted rules for social interactions not very often though. In reality social interaction just needs well defined NPCs motivation and character, and the game space to play that out.