D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?

[niklinna]

D&D combat is too long because players take too long to execute their turns so combat needlessly drags. When each player spends 30 seconds on a turn then combat is more fun.

This particular problem is so not unique to D&D, though.

 

[niklinna]

Some of this pushback saying 5E is designed fine (across the board, it is implied or read), because it works for so many people, are painting things with as broad a brush as those who are saying 5E sucks (across the board, it is implied, or read). There are several factors in the game's design and history that make it "work just fine"—or not—for many people:

• 5E's massive growth means that for many people, this is their first & only role-playing game. They have no basis for comparison, it is just how RPGs work, in spite of particular problems with specific parts of the game that could be designed better.
• 5E is D&D, and D&D has a huge amount of brand prestige—and product support—which is a good part of why so many people play it, newcomers, old hands, and grognards alike.
• The more casual the player, the less likely they are to care about design (and vice versa). 5E is built for more casual players. It's much simpler than AD&D, but It does still have a lot of complexity. As with AD&D, though, players both casual & serious will blithely ignore the bits they don't understand, have the DM handle the complex bits, or house-rule them. My high-school group did all three of those.
• D&D also has a long history with prior editions—including the oft-maligned 4E that drove so many to Pathfinder (itself a version of D&D)—so people who have fond memories of playing those editions are motivated to play 5E, even if they don't like parts of it. And the odds are, just because 5E does many things differently from prior editions, there are some parts they won't like (whether they are designed well or poorly). They too can house-rule the parts they don't like, or if they can't stand 5E as a package, they play some other edition, or some other game. (Or complain endlessly on forums about the parts they don't like, in narrow or broad brush strokes. ;-) )

5E definitely has design problems; any design has problems. 5E definitely has design decisions, at many levels, that people do not like in spite of liking the game overall. Some are changeable with house rules. Some are so intertwined with other subsystems or elements that chaging them with house rules would be a huge amount of work (but not impossible).

The survey question was "Is D&D combat fun?". In the end, fun is a subjective opinion, so it doesn't make much sense to argue someone is wrong for not finding something fun, or for explaining why they don't find something fun or what would make it fun for them.

 

[Lanefan]

It may well be that you have fun listening to the GM narrate what happens to your paralyzed character, round after round as you look on unable to act…

You're assuming - wrongly in this case, I think - that the game's entertainment revolves solely around your own character and what it's doing.

From here it sounds like @Jmarso was getting some fine entertainment out of watching the other PCs play out the fight and, by the sound of it, barely win. And as I've been in this position many a time myself, I can state with certainty that your assumption would be wrong in my case.

However I suspect the move away from this was very much to make the game more fun and driven by feedback from players.

You're probably right in this, but IMO that feedback was taken a bit - nay, a lot - too much to heart.

Personally I can think of nothing worse that one unlucky save killing my character and prefer a fight to the bitter end.

Incidentally, for people who say 5e characters can’t die, my players nearly died 2 times in the last session. Once when they foolishly tried to take on an entire tribe of troglodyte brutes because they thought they had a good defensible position. Secondly because they took a head on approach vs a legendary Cerberus. They were two bad rolls away from at least one or two deaths or a TPK.

This brings up a different-but-related issue. In older editions it was very possible for one PC in a combat to die due to bad luck while the rest sailed through relatively unscathed (e.g. pretty much any fight vs a Medusa). From what I can tell, in both 4e and 5e it seems much more the case that the PCs rise and fall as a unit; if one dies chances are good they're all close to death, meaning individual death is less common but TPKs aren't.

5e people with old-school experience: am I right on this, or not?

 

[Malmuria]

made earlier versions of this creature something to be feared, respected, perhaps even avoided until you, too, were truly powerful. A couple hits from an old school vamp and you were either dead or so reduced in levels that the entire adventure just became certain doom. Same thing with petrification effects from a basilisk and so forth. In older editions, a basilisk could turn you straight to stone on a failed save and you were dead until the survivors went way out of their way to find a method of bringing you back.

One thing I like about encounters in earlier editions is everything that happens outside of initiative for the players to set the terms of the encounter. That is, save vs death is not necessarily very interesting when it comes as a surprise (like an unavoidable trap). But if you spend time scouting/researching (ideally, in character and not metagaming) what kind of monster's you'll be facing, equip accordingly, and come up with a semblance of a plan, leveraging all that knowledge and prep in an encounter (or in avoiding an encounter) is fun.

 

[abirdcall]

Some of this pushback saying 5E is designed fine (across the board, it is implied or read), because it works for so many people, are painting things with as broad a brush as those who are saying 5E sucks (across the board, it is implied, or read). There are several factors in the game's design and history that make it "work just fine"—or not—for many people:

• 5E's massive growth means that for many people, this is their first & only role-playing game. They have no basis for comparison, it is just how RPGs work, in spite of particular problems with specific parts of the game that could be designed better.
• 5E is D&D, and D&D has a huge amount of brand prestige—and product support—which is a good part of why so many people play it, newcomers, old hands, and grognards alike.
• The more casual the player, the less likely they are to care about design (and vice versa). 5E is built for more casual players. It's much simpler than AD&D, but It does still have a lot of complexity. As with AD&D, though, players both casual & serious will blithely ignore the bits they don't understand, have the DM handle the complex bits, or house-rule them. My high-school group did all three of those.
• D&D also has a long history with prior editions—including the oft-maligned 4E that drove so many to Pathfinder (itself a version of D&D)—so people who have fond memories of playing those editions are motivated to play 5E, even if they don't like parts of it. And the odds are, just because 5E does many things differently from prior editions, there are some parts they won't like (whether they are designed well or poorly). They too can house-rule the parts they don't like, or if they can't stand 5E as a package, they play some other edition, or some other game. (Or complain endlessly on forums about the parts they don't like, in narrow or broad brush strokes. ;-) )

5E definitely has design problems; any design has problems. 5E definitely has design decisions, at many levels, that people do not like in spite of liking the game overall. Some are changeable with house rules. Some are so intertwined with other subsystems or elements that chaging them with house rules would be a huge amount of work (but not impossible).

The survey question was "Is D&D combat fun?". In the end, fun is a subjective opinion, so it doesn't make much sense to argue someone is wrong for not finding something fun, or for explaining why they don't find something fun or what would make it fun for them.

Before 5e many people thought D&D might be dead.

Pathfinder was the most popular ttrpg.

This is an old argument but just doesn't hold weight. 5e is popular because of word of mouth. People play it and love it and invite more friends.

Saying that people just don't know better is hubristic and insulting. Most people saying such things haven't even played a competitive game to a high level in their lives.

And a game being on the lighter side doesn't make it worse or the players stupider for playing it.

The truth of the matter is that some people are so blinded by their hubris that they cannot fathom that maybe it is them who can't figure out how to play the game properly.

No it must be the game that is broken, the designers who are morons, and the casuals who just don't know any better.

I have played competitive games at a high level (even professionally) and I think 5e is well designed. It isn't that I just don't know any better.

 

[TheSword]

You're assuming - wrongly in this case, I think - that the game's entertainment revolves solely around your own character and what it's doing.

From here it sounds like @Jmarso was getting some fine entertainment out of watching the other PCs play out the fight and, by the sound of it, barely win. And as I've been in this position many a time myself, I can state with certainty that your assumption would be wrong in my case.

I’m saying that not being able to act as a character for multiple rounds isn’t fun for me. @Jmarso may be entertained by other players as a separate fact but that doesn’t make the act of being paralyzed more fun. Presumably his companions don’t stop being entertaining because he also gets to act?

You're probably right in this, but IMO that feedback was taken a bit - nay, a lot - too much to heart.

I like that I get two chances to avoid being petrified, or break an interminable hold person. I think they have the balance about right.

This brings up a different-but-related issue. In older editions it was very possible for one PC in a combat to die due to bad luck while the rest sailed through relatively unscathed (e.g. pretty much any fight vs a Medusa). From what I can tell, in both 4e and 5e it seems much more the case that the PCs rise and fall as a unit; if one dies chances are good they're all close to death, meaning individual death is less common but TPKs aren't.

I actually find the large numbers of actions and multiple options to heal means that characters in 5e can survive with other PCs down. I think there may be a tendency of 5e players not to run away which might have the same effect.

 

[niklinna]

Before 5e many people thought D&D might be dead.

Pathfinder was the most popular ttrpg.

Pathfinder is essentially a version of D&D—one with good brand prestige and product support, too. It was the most popular TTRPG for a while—and before that, D&D was.

This is an old argument but just doesn't hold weight. 5e is popular because of word of mouth. People play it and love it and invite more friends.

That sounds like one of the factors of "brand prestige" to me.

Saying that people just don't know better is hubristic and insulting. Most people saying such things haven't even played a competitive game to a high level in their lives.

I didn't say that people just don't know better, nor did I state—or imply—that ignorance is a bad thing. I said that many people don't know about other games (and so have no basis for comparison, which by definition requires more than one object to compare), and also that some people, whether they know about other games or not, don't care about design. And I didn't mention high-level competitive play at all, because it's not relevant to what I did say.

And a game being on the lighter side doesn't make it worse or the players stupider for playing it.

I didn't say the game is worse, or that players are stupid. I didn't even try to imply either of those statements.

The truth of the matter is that some people are so blinded by their hubris that they cannot fathom that maybe it is them who can't figure out how to play the game properly.

All I can say to this is, "huh?"

No it must be the game that is broken, the designers who are morons, and the casuals who just don't know any better.

My entire post was about how specific parts of the game can have problems, or how some people can find specific parts of the game not fun, even if the game overall can be just fine for many people. Maybe you're talking about other people's responses on this thread, but my post—which you quoted—does not assert any of those things.

I have played competitive games at a high level (even professionally) and I think 5e is well designed. It isn't that I just don't know any better.

Well, you've played more than one game, and you come across as a serious player, who cares about such things, so it stands to reason you would know more and care about the design of games.

But again, even good designs can have problems. Even good designs can have compromises. Even good designs can have aspects that particular people like, and others that particular people don't like. This is more likely the more complex a design is. Not liking some aspect of a design is not the same as condemning the entire design.

 

[el-remmen]

Except for initiative (which in 2E was different), I have run D&D combat basically the same way in 2E, 3E and 5E.

 

[tetrasodium]

You're assuming - wrongly in this case, I think - that the game's entertainment revolves solely around your own character and what it's doing.

From here it sounds like @Jmarso was getting some fine entertainment out of watching the other PCs play out the fight and, by the sound of it, barely win. And as I've been in this position many a time myself, I can state with certainty that your assumption would be wrong in my case.

You're probably right in this, but IMO that feedback was taken a bit - nay, a lot - too much to heart.

This brings up a different-but-related issue. In older editions it was very possible for one PC in a combat to die due to bad luck while the rest sailed through relatively unscathed (e.g. pretty much any fight vs a Medusa). From what I can tell, in both 4e and 5e it seems much more the case that the PCs rise and fall as a unit; if one dies chances are good they're all close to death, meaning individual death is less common but TPKs aren't.

5e people with old-school experience: am I right on this, or not?

I've GM'd over more 5e character deaths than 3.5 ones. IME an actual TPK in 5e is either something (basically) instant like the hidden goblin ambush on a level 1 party in LMOP or an aoe effect (ie fireball/dragon breath) like the demilich/green dragon in LMOP around level 3-5 but everyone fails & is down unable to do anythingas they effectively bleed out with an angry opponent to swat them back down if they get "lucky" with death saves. As levels go up it becomes harder & harder to TPK even deliberately. one off PC deaths however tend to be everyone saying things like "wow I didn't expect that to happen so fast" or eel like the obvious product of a straight up execution even when completely coincidental.

Unlike past editions there is no need for players carry an ace or two in their back pocket so they can really kick things in gear once things begin going sideways let lone watch for things that might be going sideways in order to divert disaster before the course is set. This is a side effect that results from glaringly gamist hacks plastered all over the control/buff/debuff type spell & ability glue that used to form the core for the group to bind their A-game teamwork around. 5e characters don't really work together as a team so much as soloing near each other & even characters like those built around control/buff/debuffare just kind of accepted by the rest of the solo squad who never needs to put much thought or effort into teamwork. They can't really kick things into overdrive & really work together with force multipliers upon force multipliers & even if they honestly try it won't make much difference &

Spoiler: they won't need it

Jmarso's comment about the ghoul/ghast/vampire/etc is probably not simply a matter of having fun " watching the other PCs play out the fight" because that description of the curtain fall skips past the dance that got there. In the past editions where terrifying monsters did level drain & hard/slow to recover ability damage it was critical for everyone to bring their A-game & set aside "well my character would..." type pettiness in order to work together on a level that borders on competence porn. Failing to do that meant one or more players in the party quickly & easily being beat into a state where just trying to run away is going to be difficult & potentially lethal all the way to the point where they are in a tavern paying rookie adventurers to save them from the scary scary rats in the basement.

 

[cbwjm]

I like the save ends abilities of spells and powers, while I don't think I really had a problem with a hold person taking you out until the spell ends as in earlier editions, I find it a lot more fun to roll to save, everyone watching, and then getting success or failure depending on the roll. Players crying no! As you fail your save again and they desperately try to hold the line, or yes! As you break the spell and the tide turns against the enemy. It makes for me, a more fun and dramatic game.