D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[Ovinomancer]

That's one way, or if the players obsessively retreat and rest and so on unless prepped (DMs can fight this with clocks etc. but there are limits and ultimately if the players play this way and the DM is having to throw clocks at them to stop them, probably you need a different DM or different players).

This isn't a 5e problem -- it's a game goals mismatch between players. This is a problem if the game is 5e or Monopoly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This isn't a 5e problem -- it's a game goals mismatch between players. This is a problem if the game is 5e or Monopoly.

???

Sure, but it's a specific one that comes up in 5E, and is exacerbated because the design is different to previous editions, where this sort of thing was less antithetical to the design/balance (where design/balance was even present).

 

[Ovinomancer]

???

Sure, but it's a specific one that comes up in 5E, and is exacerbated because the design is different to previous editions, where this sort of thing was less antithetical to the design/balance (where design/balance was even present).

The problem has nothing at all to do with 5e, though. It's a mismatch between player expectations of what play will be, which just happens to occur, in your example, in a game of 5e. If you have players that disagree about what play should be while doing Monopoly, you have have a similar argument -- "Every time I play Monopoly with my friends, they keep making silly trades of properties to try and get one of every color, and it's very frustrating to me!" It's not a 5e specific problem, it's a problem of players not having their play goals aligned.

 

[S'mon]

That's one way, or if the players obsessively retreat and rest and so on unless prepped (DMs can fight this with clocks etc. but there are limits and ultimately if the players play this way and the DM is having to throw clocks at them to stop them, probably you need a different DM or different players).

Ah, I use the 1 week long rest ever since I realised this, so the PCs don't want to LR too much.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just want the designers to firm up the differences between ability checks vs. ability saves.

There are several instances in the rules in which a player "resists" an effect with an ability check rather than a save, and this confuses me.

Grapple, for instance. Why isn't that a Strength or Dexterity save to overcome/resist? Some argue that it's because it's an opposed contest... but if the one resisting the grapple succeeds they don't get the option to reverse the grapple and turn their grappler into their grapple...ee?

Fix that and make it obvious when to make an ability check, when to make an ability saving throw, and specify which cases the PC may NOT use an associated or relevant skill or tool proficiency. More than once I've had a GM tell me to "Roll Strength, but without any skill or tool proficiencies, just straight up Strength" WTF

Presumably so you can add athletics to your check.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The problem has nothing at all to do with 5e, though. It's a mismatch between player expectations of what play will be, which just happens to occur, in your example, in a game of 5e. If you have players that disagree about what play should be while doing Monopoly, you have have a similar argument -- "Every time I play Monopoly with my friends, they keep making silly trades of properties to try and get one of every color, and it's very frustrating to me!" It's not a 5e specific problem, it's a problem of players not having their play goals aligned.

???

I literally explained how it was a 5E problem.

If you want the long version, it's because 1/2/3E, D&D was heavily preparation-based and encouraged preparation, and didn't aim at a specific number of encounters/day to balance classes, instead typically expecting players to pace their groups themselves. Modern players expect some significant class balance - they expected this in 2000 even which is why LFQW and the class tiers became such a meme - unfortunately for reasons unknown (AFAICT) WotC decided to balance classes on the assumption of 6-8 encounters/day which conflicts pretty hard with the old "choose your own pace" approach or even 4E's simple encounter/daily structure.

It's notable that it's not just old players having this issue either. New to RPGs people have it too, and new to RPGs DMs.

 

[Necrozius]

Presumably so you can add athletics to your check.

Yeah I get that... but there are so FEW chances to use Strength saves in this game (plenty to use Athletics). Shrug.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "skillful play" so I'm not going to agree or disagree. I don't really follow your second para, here, in that I'm not sure where you think there's a problem or issue -- what you're saying here does make it clear to me what you think is in opposition.

Skilled play is simply leveraging the system to achieve the player's goals.

What do you include in "system"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

???

I literally explained how it was a 5E problem.

If you want the long version, it's because 1/2/3E, D&D was heavily preparation-based and encouraged preparation, and didn't aim at a specific number of encounters/day to balance classes, instead typically expecting players to pace their groups themselves. Modern players expect some significant class balance - they expected this in 2000 even which is why LFQW and the class tiers became such a meme - unfortunately for reasons unknown (AFAICT) WotC decided to balance classes on the assumption of 6-8 encounters/day which conflicts pretty hard with the old "choose your own pace" approach or even 4E's simple encounter/daily structure.

It's notable that it's not just old players having this issue either. New to RPGs people have it too, and new to RPGs DMs.

No, you gave an example of player goal mismatch in a 5e game. It could easily have been the same kind of problem if the players want all combat and the GM is running a political game in a city with almost no combat. The problem is one you've encountered in 5e, but it's not actually a 5e problem. This is trivially shown in that other people do not have this problem while playing 5e, so it's not endemic to 5e.

What I think you're confusing is that 5e lacks structure to force the GM's desire for how they want the game to run on players dedicated to a different mode of play. This still isn't a 5e problem, because the idea that it's the system's problem when players are disagreeing how to play a game is rather silly. The problem you cite isn't a 5e one, it's a table problem, it's just showing up in 5e for you because your tables have a deeper issue while you happen to be playing 5e.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, you gave an example of player goal mismatch in a 5e game. It could easily have been the same kind of problem if the players want all combat and the GM is running a political game in a city with almost no combat. The problem is one you've encountered in 5e, but it's not actually a 5e problem. This is trivially shown in that other people do not have this problem while playing 5e, so it's not endemic to 5e.

What I think you're confusing is that 5e lacks structure to force the GM's desire for how they want the game to run on players dedicated to a different mode of play. This still isn't a 5e problem, because the idea that it's the system's problem when players are disagreeing how to play a game is rather silly. The problem you cite isn't a 5e one, it's a table problem, it's just showing up in 5e for you because your tables have a deeper issue while you happen to be playing 5e.

I guess denial really isn't just a river in Egypt lol but okay.

I love this totally ridiculous idea that unless a problem is "endemic" to 5E it's "not a 5E problem". Talk about defensive. Plus the number of wildly inaccurate assertions about my table and what I'm thinking and so on are pretty fun.