D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, not to be overly snarky myself, but it seems you felt this was a burn, when it gets at what makes 5E an amazing experience.

Player: "Can I do [X]?"
DM: "You can certainly try. Roll a d20 and add [Y]"

Not a burn so much as how it feels to me. "The GM can decide you get to do something if he feels like it" has never been decent substitute for, you know, mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nah, sounds like work. "Impact" is in the eye of the beholder, and a light spear is more effective for throwing than a boulder.

Obviously someone who's never actually been hit by a boulder.

 

[Parmandur]

Not a burn so much as how it feels to me. "The GM can decide you get to do something if he feels like it" has never been decent substitute for, you know, mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

Well, it is far more flexible than the most robust of mechanics, by definition. Mechanics are a brittle thing, next to the imagination of a DM. All action resolution in 5E is done against just three target numbers, on one d20. Elegance in mechanics, quality over quantity.

 

[Parmandur]

Obviously someone who's never actually been hit by a boulder.

Hard to hit someone with a boulder if you can't move it. Not fit to purpose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"Roleplaying is realized in the presence of death. This means choosing death whenever there is a choice between life and death. There is no other reasoning."

This simple test shows where the player's priorities are — whether they prioritize keeping their character alive and making sure they succeed, or rising stakes and embracing the fact that the player is the main adversary of their character.

The idea that roleplaying only exists when death is near is…the worst TTRPG advice I have ever seen.

Michael Scott, in improv class, comes to mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hard to hit someone with a boulder if you can't move it. Not fit to purpose.

But in this context, people can and do "throw the boulder". The fact some people find it too heavy does not, clearly then, make it unfit to the purpose, just unfit to the user.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, it is far more flexible than the most robust of mechanics, by definition. Mechanics are a brittle thing, next to the imagination of a DM. All action resolution in 5E is done against just three target numbers, on one d20. Elegance in mechanics, quality over quantity.

Flexibility is a virtue. Its not the only virtue. Nor is simplicity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not a burn so much as how it feels to me. "The GM can decide you get to do something if he feels like it" has never been decent substitute for, you know, mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

It’s much better than mechanics for XYZ, for many groups. Like, vastly, overwhelmingly, irreplaceably, better.

The core books just needs to put more of the responsibility and power for improvisation on the player, and make clear that you can try to do the thing unless the rules arbiter feels it makes no sense to have a chance of success, rather than presenting it as “you can do nothing unless the DM gives you permission to try”.

The one makes for good gaming, the other for very bad gaming, even though the rules are technically the same for both.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s much better than mechanics for XYZ, for many groups. Like, vastly, overwhelmingly, irreplaceably, better.

The core books just needs to put more of the responsibility and power for improvisation on the player, and make clear that you can try to do the thing unless the rules arbiter feels it makes no sense to have a chance of success, rather than presenting it as “you can do nothing unless the DM gives you permission to try”.

The one makes for good gaming, the other for very bad gaming, even though the rules are technically the same for both.

Honestly, I don't think it makes any difference; without a halfway detailed framework to at least let the player know where he can expect to be able to do something or not, its still wrestling with jello. At the very minimum there needs to be a halfway extensive set of benchmarking numbers, and I suspect that's going to violate some people's desire to never look anything up.

 

[Don Durito]

In practice as a player I feel that throwing a curveball at the GM in combat they have to adjudicate just adds too much to their cognitive load. With everything else that the GM has to worry about, having me suddenly announce I want overturn the wooden table and use it to push the enemies out of the room is clearly a headache.

It also interferes somewhat with the notion of a mechanical challenge. If the DM has designed the fight to be a challenge, then he is not incentivised to let a stunt be more effective than what would be achievable otherwise (as this would negate the challenge).

As a GM I find that players have enough to worry about that they rarely consider trying stunts.

There is something to the idea that stripping back rules encourages creativity, but you actually have to do that. Again, I'm talking about something like Barbarians of Lemuria here.

It works to some extent in old school games (although not well as advocates claim), in part because they're so deadly, and in part because there's no notion of balanced encounters, and in part because low levels, at least, are so stripped bare of player options. 5e though is none of these things.