D&D 5E FeeFiFoFum *splat* goes the giants

[TheAlkaizer]

How is a part defeating 2 hill giants relevant to anything?

Why can someone else talk about battles their tables have won but I can't?

It is all without value unless details are provided.

It was relevant as a response to something @Ancalagon wrote. It was not an argument for or against the encounter building rules.

Because your level 4 players did not defeat two ancient dragons. That's an hyperbole.

 

[Stalker0]

And, once more, you are totally mistaken about the designers' intent. Even if they might make the game "better" according to some criteria, if the solution is complex, they will simply not work on it because they don't want to create a complex game full of rules and sub-rules.

You are correct a successful condition of this system would have to be simplicity.... aka simple enough that most DMs would be able to use it well. More complex than the current system, but it toes the line of simple enough that DMs can handle it. A system with 10 knobs and buttons isn't going to work. It would have to be simple and yet count for a lot of conditions.

Phew, sounds like a real challenge, would take a true genius of design to make that happen. But there was a time when the concept of an iphone was an absurd dream.... "the power of a desktop computer, gps, compass, flashlight all in one tiny package yet so simple a kid can operate it.....you are out of your mind". And yet today we live in a world where everyone has one in their pocket.

You keep demanding that I make such a system, and I've laid out the flaw in that reasoning. It is my wish, my hope, my desire that the professionals who dedicate their lives to such design work might give the problem some more serious consideration and find that "impossible" solution that astounds us all. And if 5.5 has the same problem, I will complain about it then too....and then maybe someone will figure it out in 6e, or 7e, or in a brand new system so superior to dnd that it replaces it as the main system....who knows. But you don't stop giving feedback when a design is good, you keep polishing, keep iterating, keep trying to hit perfection. You will never hit it, but its the journey to do so that keeps astounding the world with new, better, and more interesting products.

 

[abirdcall]

It was relevant as a response to something @Ancalagon wrote. It was not an argument for or against the encounter building rules.

Because your level 4 players did not defeat two ancient dragons. That's an hyperbole.

My example isn't an argument so you can't respond to it.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

My example isn't an argument so you can't respond to it.

Alright, good talk.

 

[Lyxen]

You will never hit it, but its the journey to do so that keeps astounding the world with new, better, and more interesting products.

The problem is that you think that such a product would make the game better, but I will counter that it is only your perspective that it would. It would be more complex, and it might please you, but would it be better for the overall community ? I doubt it would, as it would be complex and would require lots of other parts of the system to be more complex, and in the end it would not be the same product.

Yes, some people think that it would be a better product if a Ferrari would go offroad, but in the end, I guarantee that it would no longer be a Ferrari, and I doubt it would be as successful a car for its usual buyers. So I am pretty sure Ferrari will never produce this...

 

[abirdcall]

You are correct a successful condition of this system would have to be simplicity.... aka simple enough that most DMs would be able to use it well. More complex than the current system, but it toes the line of simple enough that DMs can handle it. A system with 10 knobs and buttons isn't going to work. It would have to be simple and yet count for a lot of conditions.

Phew, sounds like a real challenge, would take a true genius of design to make that happen. But there was a time when the concept of an iphone was an absurd dream.... "the power of a desktop computer, gps, compass, flashlight all in one tiny package yet so simple a kid can operate it.....you are out of your mind". And yet today we live in a world where everyone has one in their pocket.

You keep demanding that I make such a system, and I've laid out the flaw in that reasoning. It is my wish, my hope, my desire that the professionals who dedicate their lives to such design work might give the problem some more serious consideration and find that "impossible" solution that astounds us all. And if 5.5 has the same problem, I will complain about it then too....and then maybe someone will figure it out in 6e, or 7e, or in a brand new system so superior to dnd that it replaces it as the main system....who knows. But you don't stop giving feedback when a design is good, you keep polishing, keep iterating, keep trying to hit perfection. You will never hit it, but its the journey to do so that keeps astounding the world with new, better, and more interesting products.

The problem is, with a TTRPG there will always be people who use the game outside of the parameters.

5e knows that will be the case and has embraced it. They have created a system that is wide to enable diverse groups to use the rules.

Balance can be achieved in competitive games because the parameters are defined and narrow. The goal is to win and the players play against each other. If a single strategy or starting position is dominant then it is changed until a balance is achieved.

That simply isn't possible in a TTRPG (or at least one I have any interest in playing).

 

[Stalker0]

...I will counter that it is only your perspective that it would. It would be more complex, and it might please you, but would it be better for the overall community ?

This is the issue of debating the future, neither of us know....because we aren't professional game designers. Would a slightly more complex system that handled a good bit of more encounter design options be preferred by the community....who knows. That's what surveys and playtests are for. You design such a system, you let people try it. Maybe they tell you "nope too much" or they go "holy crap this is perfect!".

So in what form the future takes, no one can really know. But I would at least hope we agree that a good future is an improvement over the past. So I will continue to provide my feedback based on my experiences, in the hopes to see even more improvements in the game for the future.

To do otherwise is to put our hands up and say "there will never be any more improvements to dnd....the game is finished". If you truly believe dnd is without flaw, perfect in every possible way, the best RPG system that human minds can ever create across all time, then you are right that critique is pointless.

But if you do believe there is still room for improvement and growth, then please respect that critique is never pointless, that feedback is a necessary part of that cycle, and just because we can't see a better path, does not stop our desires for one.

 

[abirdcall]

This is the issue of debating the future, neither of us know....because we aren't professional game designers. Would a slightly more complex system that handled a good bit of more encounter design options be preferred by the community....who knows. That's what surveys and playtests are for. You design such a system, you let people try it. Maybe they tell you "nope too much" or they go "holy crap this is perfect!".

So in what form the future takes, no one can really know. But I would at least hope we agree that a good future is an improvement over the past. So I will continue to provide my feedback based on my experiences, in the hopes to see even more improvements in the game for the future.

To do otherwise is to put our hands up and say "there will never be any more improvements to dnd....the game is finished". If you truly believe dnd is without flaw, perfect in every possible way, the best RPG system that human minds can ever create across all time, then you are right that critique is pointless.

But if you do believe there is still room for improvement and growth, then please respect that critique is never pointless, that feedback is a necessary part of that cycle, and just because we can't see a better path, does not stop our desires for one.

It isn't that improvement isn't possible.

It is that I think what you want is not improvement.

Your improvement is someone else' ruination.

 

[Stalker0]

The problem is, with a TTRPG there will always be people who use the game outside of the parameters.

You are correct that there are always groups that play the game so different from the defined norm that the system cannot account for it.

So then the critique of the game resolves around how wide are those parameters, and how sensitive is the system to change.

Let me take a look at my last party for an example:

7th level party: Rogue (thief), Fighter (Champion), Bard (Lore), Artificer (Alchemist), Warlock (Book), Barbarian (magic one, its the UA one that had wild magic effects can't think of the name).

Most of the party had a feat (and none of the big nasty ones like GWM I generally houseruled those out), and generally 1 magic item, +1 magic item for the group as a whole. Most items were uncommon with 1-2 rares. No multi-classing


So is my party insane, nuts....completely outside of the sandbox? I have 6 players (which the system does account for, so this is "standard" for the model). I am using a few feats and a few magic items, so clearly my group is a stronger than the baseline, but is this really the party that the designers looked at and went "no sorry that just destroys our mold, DMs really should not allow groups like this"

Because that's what it feels like when my players routinely face Deadly x2 fights and come out fine. Once in a while, sure there was a special synergy, someone got surprise, my players used a cool trick, etc. Curbstombing a fight unexpectedly is not the side of a broken system. But fight after fight after, when I start using deadly x1 as my "easy", and deadly x2 is my "medium".... something seems wildly off.

Now again, maybe it was just that party. Maybe they were just insanely synergized in a way I had not expected, so maybe that campaign was the odd duck. Except....it happened in another campaign I ran. Completely different party, and yet same things happened. And then.... it happened a 3rd time. When 3 campaigns go by and I found "deadly x1" to be the bare minimum I would even run an encounter....then yeah something really seems off.


Now was the CR system in 3e perfect? Hell no. But it was just as simple as 5e's system if not more so, I ran many campaigns in 3e and 3.5..... and never had this problem. Did I have to make some tweaks to account for a specific party, sure, of course, as any good DM must. But they were tweaks, I didn't toss the core math out the window and basically double the difficulty of every encounter just to get some challenge for my players (and 3e had WAY WAY WAY more options than 5e does). The fact that I am constantly having to do that for 5e tells me that something is off there. That is the table experience that I have generated.

 

[Stalker0]

Your improvement is someone else' ruination.

A quick example. What if each monster had 2 "CR numbers". And you as the DM used the first number if your party had no magic items, and the second if at least half your party had magic weapons. Did I just ruin the game for you?

Like everything in system and design, its a matter of degrees. Of course there is a level of complexity that would ruin the game for you (and for me!), but there are also degrees of complexity that you are willing to accept (the fact that you have chosen dnd as your system as opposed to many other much lighter systems shows there is a level of complexity you accept).

So if X is the level of complexity that the vast majority of players will accept..... where are we currently, are we at X, X -1, X -100, X- 1000....neither you nor I know that answer. But if we are not yet at X, then there is design space to try different iterations to get a better encounter design result, one that will not be the ruinnation of your game.