D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Gammadoodler]

If you don't have the conversation, other methods become a kind of passive-aggression. The players to not learn what the problem is, they merely find frustration when they do what they figure is okay fails, because you haven't told them otherwise.

You don't need to have a separate conversation for each problem. Humans are capable of generalizing - inform them of the overall issue, and they can avoid a wide range of the cases.

I mean, the complaint is covering pretty wide ground. I'm not suggesting that zero conversations should ever take place.

I'm saying that there can be limited instances where talking it out would be more disruptive to the game than other methods of solving the problem. And no one's automatically a "bad guy" if they choose those methods.

At the end if the day, whatever method is employed, as long as you aren't violating trust at the table, I don't see a problem.

I don't think "not all problems should only be solved through conversation" should be that controversial an opinion.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure, but phasing them out almost instantly, and speeding up the process to get to that point, effectively removes that experience. There was a time, not that long ago in the current edition, when WotC at least paid lip service to being for all players, included those who appreciated resource management and delayed gratification.

D&D has always been a game about choice. If players were tired of being snuck up on while they rested, they could choose to play Elves. Tired of blundering around in the dark and fiddling with torches? They could choose to play Dwarves. Tired of low level threats like starvation, poison, and disease? Well maybe they could choose to play Warforged.

And you can get these kinds of protections from class as well. Paladins and Monks could be immune to disease. Druids could be immune to poison. And that's before even getting into spells- alarm, endure heat/cold, goodberry, leomund's tiny hut, water breathing, mount, heroes' feast, word of recall, etc. etc., if there's a problem, you can eventually find a solution, before even bringing magic items into the equation.

And those items existed- rings of sustenance, rings of warmth, boots of the north, bags that can conjure pocket change daily, the sky's the limit. Subject to the whims of dice, DM's, and adventure writers, of course.

Players have always been able to find ways to opt out of things about the game they don't care for. Or they can choose to opt into things that they do.

And the game has been written that way for a very long time. If you feel that there are too many magic options that are allowing people to trivialize some aspect of the game that you like, it's not like they came out of nowhere. Or that, even existing forces players to use them.

They employ these options either because they want to, or they've never known another way.

I've talked to my groups in the past about whether or not they'd like to try a more gritty play style, where tracking resources and dealing with survival challenges are more important. But it's a hard sell, because what they want to play is a fantasy game, not a real life simulator.

Even my friends who play Dark Souls and similar games, known for extreme difficulty, are happy as clams when they discover exploits that trivialize challenges. For them, playing D&D is about having power over the world, something that we often don't have in real life.

A few years back, in fact, one of my friends wanted to run a sandbox game where wilderness exploration and gathering resources to build a settlement would be a key factor (this was Pathfinder 1e). I'm sure nobody will be shocked to find everyone had ranks in Survival and other useful skills, which quickly trivialized the proceedings.

In a discussion with my friend, he griped about it. "I mean, you told them what the game would be like, you should have expected them to make appropriate character choices."

"Yeah, but I didn't expect them to be good at it. It takes all the fun out of it."

It seems sometimes that what we want is for our players to be bad at something so we can watch them fail. But players tend to enjoy being able to overcome obstacles the DM places in front of them, and unfortunately, D&D is designed in a way that, typically, once you've gained the ability to overcome an obstacle, it's never threatening again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D has always been a game about choice. If players were tired of being snuck up on while they rested, they could choose to play Elves. Tired of blundering around in the dark and fiddling with torches? They could choose to play Dwarves. Tired of low level threats like starvation, poison, and disease? Well maybe they could choose to play Warforged.

And you can get these kinds of protections from class as well. Paladins and Monks could be immune to disease. Druids could be immune to poison. And that's before even getting into spells- alarm, endure heat/cold, goodberry, leomund's tiny hut, water breathing, mount, heroes' feast, word of recall, etc. etc., if there's a problem, you can eventually find a solution, before even bringing magic items into the equation.

And those items existed- rings of sustenance, rings of warmth, boots of the north, bags that can conjure pocket change daily, the sky's the limit. Subject to the whims of dice, DM's, and adventure writers, of course.

Players have always been able to find ways to opt out of things about the game they don't care for. Or they can choose to opt into things that they do.

And the game has been written that way for a very long time. If you feel that there are too many magic options that are allowing people to trivialize some aspect of the game that you like, it's not like they came out of nowhere. Or that, even existing forces players to use them.

They employ these options either because they want to, or they've never known another way.

I've talked to my groups in the past about whether or not they'd like to try a more gritty play style, where tracking resources and dealing with survival challenges are more important. But it's a hard sell, because what they want to play is a fantasy game, not a real life simulator.

Even my friends who play Dark Souls and similar games, known for extreme difficulty, are happy as clams when they discover exploits that trivialize challenges. For them, playing D&D is about having power over the world, something that we often don't have in real life.

A few years back, in fact, one of my friends wanted to run a sandbox game where wilderness exploration and gathering resources to build a settlement would be a key factor (this was Pathfinder 1e). I'm sure nobody will be shocked to find everyone had ranks in Survival and other useful skills, which quickly trivialized the proceedings.

In a discussion with my friend, he griped about it. "I mean, you told them what the game would be like, you should have expected them to make appropriate character choices."

"Yeah, but I didn't expect them to be good at it. It takes all the fun out of it."

It seems sometimes that what we want is for our players to be bad at something so we can watch them fail. But players tend to enjoy being able to overcome obstacles the DM places in front of them, and unfortunately, D&D is designed in a way that, typically, once you've gained the ability to overcome an obstacle, it's never threatening again.

What I want, and what I suspect your friend wanted, is  struggle. The feeling that you had to earn your victories outside of character generation. You could get that AD&D. WotC edition have moved farther and farther away from that, to, imo, the game's detriment.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't mean this personal, nor do I want this to derail the thread but I see this so often...

Why would anyone (except in the case of a toxic person and that is a different issue) need to 'police' a friend? Why not just all talk about it as a table, decide how you want to handle it (both with monsters and pcs) and then just go forward the way the group feels is most fun? No policing just talking, like adult friends? (and this isn't the only thing, I see it with skill checks, and metagaming, and abusing spells... like there is a whole subset of DMs that think they have to 'police' players)

I think it is clear from the context of my comment that I believe a DM policing players’ tactical use of AoO to be both difficult and unfun.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A few years back, in fact, one of my friends wanted to run a sandbox game where wilderness exploration and gathering resources to build a settlement would be a key factor (this was Pathfinder 1e). I'm sure nobody will be shocked to find everyone had ranks in Survival and other useful skills, which quickly trivialized the proceedings.

In a discussion with my friend, he griped about it. "I mean, you told them what the game would be like, you should have expected them to make appropriate character choices."

"Yeah, but I didn't expect them to be good at it. It takes all the fun out of it."

It seems sometimes that what we want is for our players to be bad at something so we can watch them fail. But players tend to enjoy being able to overcome obstacles the DM places in front of them, and unfortunately, D&D is designed in a way that, typically, once you've gained the ability to overcome an obstacle, it's never threatening again.

The issue, of course, is that some problems should be a struggle even for the competent--in fact you need the competent for it to be practical at all. So on one hand, the GM should expect that the people setting off to do it aren't going to have much trouble with the routine tasks, and the players should accept that there are going to be tasks with some frequency that are a struggle. But that requires the GM to think it through and everyone to have an honest conversation about expectations.

(Personally, no edition of D&D is what I'd use for that sort of game; even back in the OD&D days there were too many spells to end-run parts of that process, and avoiding letting people access those is going to feel kind of perverse. I'd either use a system with a lower magic level or where magic just didn't do some things.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Don't we have starter sets and YouTube for that? Experienced DMs want books too.

To me, this is exactly backwards. The Core books (MM, PHB and DMG) should be aimed at those entering the hobby. Those that have experience or are committed can seek out specialized resources.

Those beginner DMs are precisely those that will have the hardest time distinguishing between good advice and bad advice on Youtube.

 

[Undrave]

What I want, and what I suspect your friend wanted, is  struggle. The feeling that you had to earn your victories outside of character generation. You could get that AD&D. WotC edition have moved farther and farther away from that, to, imo, the game's detriment.

Ya know what this reminds me of? My relationship with Pokémon…

I love the franchise, always have fun with the games, but I no longer play it optimally. In single player, Pokémon games have two battle mode: Shift and Set. Shift, the default, allows you to know what Pokémon the opponent will send next and gives you a chance to switch, allowing you to field the perfect counter every time. Set, on the other hand, means that if you need to switch you need to do it manually, granting the opponent a free shot.

Furthermore, in single player, you can always open your bag to drop a Revive or a Full Restore to keep your ‘mons Fighting, usually while you sacrifice a less useful Pokémon.

And the most efficient way to go through the single player is to one shot everything with super effective moves from high offense Pokémon that are fast enough to go first.

I’ve played SO much Pokémon that I no longer find the easy way fun. I put my battlemode to set, I never use items to heal in battle, and I go out of my way to use lesser Pokémon, I prefer to set up using status moves on bulky Pokémon than just send glass canons (or at least my team isn’t JUST glass canons). I sometimes impose even further challenges on myself, like using only a certain type of Pokémon.

Maybe people want less magic because it gets boring to just obviate challenges with magic all the time.

 

[James Gasik]

I think the question is, what non-magical ways are there to overcome challenges? The game offers you skill checks and beating things up with weapons.

EDIT: forgot vaguely defined background Features.

 

[Cadence]

I think the question is, what non-magical ways are there to overcome challenges? The game offers you skill checks and beating things up with weapons.

EDIT: forgot vaguely defined background Features.

It feels like overcoming a lot of the challenges involves a lot of creative thinking and brainstorming ideas to try?

 

[FrozenNorth]

It feels like overcoming a lot of the challenges involves a lot of creative thinking and brainstorming ideas to try?

I think the issue is when magic is the only way to overcome specific challenges.

One terrible example of this is the Mummy’s rotting touch. Sure, your character may have spent resources to become skilled in Medicine, they may also have Expertise and a relevant background feature, and have spent money on a healer’s kit and vials of antidote. However, you are SoL since Mummy Rot is only curable by magical means.

But why?