D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Lanefan]

Sigh.

One more time.

This has been an issue since SECOND Edition. As in the time when we all rolled stats. FFS I already SOLVED the problem for my game.

As have I, and by the same means, but I don't see it as an actual solution. It's more an act of convenience to keep the game going.

I solved the problem by listening to my players and cooperating with them instead of trying yer again to force my preferences on them.

I want to run a naval based campaign because pirates and mobility and having a crew and all the things that go with that. Sacrificing ship to ship combat is relatively minor when I know no one at the table wants to do it.

I also want to run that type of campaign but without ship-to-ship combat it becomes kinda pointless.

Biggest problem in DND? Dms who think they have the right to ram their preferences down player’s throats.

Or players so inflexible on their character concepts that they can't do something sub-optimal or outside the rails for a while?

 

[Hussar]

The solution to “I want to play my concept” is not “ok well you can’t actually have a concept. Your concept will be randomly created and you will have largely zero input”.

No thanks.

And, again, all I’ve removed is the ranged ship combat. Which in DnD is entirely dominated by casters anyway.

I just start at the most exciting point- boarding. Y’know, that point in pretty much every pirate genre story?

It’s called compromise. It makes better games. I much prefer happy, excited players to crushing their interest and teaching them never to be creative by just killing off their characters for doing fantastic cinematic things.

Ymmv and all that. But this is very much a hill I will die in.

 

[pemerton]

I much prefer happy, excited players to crushing their interest and teaching them never to be creative by just killing off their characters for doing fantastic cinematic things.

You freaky weirdo!

 

[Scott Christian]

That's just it - in the big thread on pillars of play recently, there were certainly some for whom even the concept of downtime was almost anathaema.

"Get to the action" isn't always the good advice some seem to think it is.

Yeah, I don't get it. I literally just ran a 9-week campaign. Nine sessions. That's it. I still fit in two downtimes, a "winter" and "summer" downtime to show they weren't adventuring straight through. This way, one year passed in game terms. They had different options (or they could come up with their own) on what they wanted to do. I made charts. And for many, it cost them gold. For others, they might have earned some. An example was:

Stronghold Repair
Any adventurer that wants to use Ignacious’s properties, the observatory and inverted tower, and convert them to a home and base camp, they are more than welcome to do so. Here, the adventurer(s) will choose to spend their time reconstructing, refurbishing, and cleaning Ignacious’s properties. While doing so, the adventurers will learn the history of Ignacious, and create a cozy compound for their future use.

Use the following table to help determine what boon the adventurer(s) might receive during this working time. Roll an insight check (Insight DC 10). The number of consecutive successes determines the results. If the PC fails, they stop the checks.

Stronghold Repair
0 successes	The work is hard, and for every project you attempt, three more spring to the surface. But after several months, you did find something interesting – the sketches of Ignacious’s love, Risswyn when flipped through, actually form a moving picture. It is her blowing a kiss. Most importantly, you have made the inverted tower livable and the observatory safe.
1 success	The work is hard, and for every project you attempt, two more spring to the surface. But after several months you have converted both tower and observatory into livable quarters. The shepherds that come out every now and then supply you with small goods, food, and water in exchange for a night’s stay in one of the properties.
2 successes	The work is hard but rewarding. In two months’ time you manage to make the properties livable. You also make two surprising discoveries; there is a small well at the bottom of the inverted tower that can supply you with clean water. Also, you find a recipe of Ignacious’s homemade dwarven brew. After making it, by accident you came across a remarkable effect – it cures poison. (The shepherd that was bit by the rattlesnake was forever grateful.)
3+ successes	The work is hard and rewarding. You make both places livable, and also find something of interest behind one of the walls while working – a battleaxe. Risswyn’s name is on it (Ignacious’s first love), and it harbors veins of copper, silver, and gold. (For more details, see Risswyn’s Battleaxe.)

I mean the two character's that chose this also spent about every copper they had to make these refurbishments. They enjoyed figuring it all out on their downtime. It seems such a natural way for the DM to build history, a connection to the setting, and help flesh out the PC. (PS - Ignacious was a wizard from 500 years prior whose properties have deteriorated. For levels one through three, they explored these properties.)

 

[Minigiant]

What the difference between having sub-systems in the game or having 3pp systems that do the same thing?

3PP because they need to make money create subsystems tied to their worlds (Ghostfire, Darrington), too complex to simple drop in, or rewrite so much of the game they don't integrate with technology or other homebrew.

 

[Lanefan]

The solution to “I want to play my concept” is not “ok well you can’t actually have a concept. Your concept will be randomly created and you will have largely zero input”.

The solution to "I want to pay my concept" is to simply move away from the idea of pre-conceived characters, both as player and DM.

No thanks.

And, again, all I’ve removed is the ranged ship combat. Which in DnD is entirely dominated by casters anyway.

There's ways around the caster-domination aspect; because otherwise you're right: casters take all the joy out of it.

I just start at the most exciting point- boarding. Y’know, that point in pretty much every pirate genre story?

The piratical things I've watched lately are Pirates of the Caribbean (all of 'em) and Black Sails, and both of those include various scenes of ship-v-ship chasing and-or combat.

I much prefer happy, excited players to crushing their interest and teaching them never to be creative by just killing off their characters for doing fantastic cinematic things.

I'm fine with the idea of their trying fantastic cinematic things but I also want to ground the game in some realism; and the two ideas often fight each other. Thus, they're more than welcome to try something gonzo (and I love it when they do!), and while they might have a small chance of success I'm by no means going to guarantee that they will succeed; and if it seems necessary I'll point out some of the more obvious risks a la the catapulting Dwarf upthread.

And I've had players that would try that Dwarf maneuver every time if the opportunity arose!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What the difference between having sub-systems in the game or having 3pp systems that do the same thing?

None that I care about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The solution to “I want to play my concept” is not “ok well you can’t actually have a concept. Your concept will be randomly created and you will have largely zero input”.

No thanks.

And, again, all I’ve removed is the ranged ship combat. Which in DnD is entirely dominated by casters anyway.

I just start at the most exciting point- boarding. Y’know, that point in pretty much every pirate genre story?

It’s called compromise. It makes better games. I much prefer happy, excited players to crushing their interest and teaching them never to be creative by just killing off their characters for doing fantastic cinematic things.

Ymmv and all that. But this is very much a hill I will die in.

It sounds like you're happy to compromise your preferences any time they conflict with the players. I just don't see that as the unalloyed good you seem to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3PP because they need to make money create subsystems tied to their worlds (Ghostfire, Darrington), too complex to simple drop in, or rewrite so much of the game they don't integrate with technology or other homebrew.

Oh please. That is so far from the truism you make it out to be.

 

[Hussar]

3PP because they need to make money create subsystems tied to their worlds (Ghostfire, Darrington), too complex to simple drop in, or rewrite so much of the game they don't integrate with technology or other homebrew.

But that’s not true.

Dms guild has dozens of examples that are not tied to setting.

Step away from kickstarter maybe?