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

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't know why it seems like it's too much to ask that the game have a decent, non-complicated equipment list. It doesn't even have to be particularly more expansive than the current one - it just needs to have actual, interesting uses for the things that are offered.

 

[Oofta]

And that's the divide here: some want the game to provide details for their fluff as well as their crunch.

I want equipment lists and pricing, and castle-house-ship-cart-inn costs both to build or to buy, and weather tables coupled with DM-side rules for how weather can affect travel and-or adventuring, and much more; such that a) the players are gently encouraged to have their PCs interact with the setting outside of just adventuring and b) when they do the groundwork is there for me-as-DM to handle it.

Which might bring up another true issue: 5e doesn't do nearly enough to support or encourage downtime and-or activities therein.

When has D&D ever provided that level of detail? I know we had a supplement or ten in the 2E days, but your asking for something that has only rarely had support and never in the core books. If you're playing an older edition the PDFs are still out there, in 5E (and 3.x) there's stuff based on the OGL available. I have Matt Colville's Stronghold Builder's Guide on a shelf somewhere myself.

I just think people are asking D&D to be something it's really never been.

 

[James Gasik]

Diving into my old books, I've found that scant descriptions for items has apparently been the norm throughout D&D's history. Even my 3.5 PHB will have things like "tent: two people can occupy this tent" or "winter blanket: this blanket keeps you warm".

I understand that people would like to have more details; Pathfinder 1e, for example, does things like this, where you have entries telling you that your folding chair can support 250 pounds, or that a winter blanket is only big enough for one person. How long does it take to pitch a tent, and the full benefits of the compass:

"An ordinary compass that points to the magnetic north pole grants you a +2 circumstance bonus on Survival checks made to avoid becoming lost. You can also use it to grant the same bonus on Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks made to navigate underground."

But at the end of the day, each DM has a decision to make for their games. Do they want rules to govern hardships and travel challenges or do they want to handwave them?

Or do they fall somewhere in the middle, and are happy not rolling dice at all as long as the player characters have appropriate gear listed on their sheets?

It occurs to me that if you want to handwave, you don't need these items of equipment in the PHB at all.

If you're the kind of DM that wants a piece of equipment to be vital, it's on you to add it to the game. If you want a piece of equipment to have rules, it's again, on you to add those.

Some might balk at that, but this is the "rulings not rules" edition. I keep being told all the time that not having detailed rules for everything is a feature, not a bug. So we get a stripped down equipment list and a bunch of tools (and skills, for that matter) with no mechanical function or clear indication for why they might/should be used, because WotC assumes only a percentage of DM's will care about these things, and those that do, can simply house rule in what they want.

It's been my main issue with 5e this whole time; a decent chunk of the game is "hey, DM, make it up!". Now I'm able to do that. I've created my own settings and even once had a friend make me a pdf of a setting guide that looked like a real rulebook.

But when I give a game company ~40 bucks for a book, I don't really want to be told "hey, make it up". I could already do that, with the only cost being my time and effort! I thought I was paying professional game designers to do that for me...

 

[Micah Sweet]

When has D&D ever provided that level of detail? I know we had a supplement or ten in the 2E days, but your asking for something that has only rarely had support and never in the core books. If you're playing an older edition the PDFs are still out there, in 5E (and 3.x) there's stuff based on the OGL available. I have Matt Colville's Stronghold Builder's Guide on a shelf somewhere myself.

I just think people are asking D&D to be something it's really never been.

Since you yourself said that D&D has produced supplements with this kind of detail, it seems that what you're saying is that D&D is just the core books.

 

[pemerton]

Hard to create a plausible imaginary world if you're exclusively focused on things that "impact play". That philosophy also tends to increasingly restrict what can impact play.

I know, from experience, that both these things are false.

An equipment list isn't a procedure of play. The Matt Colville video that was linked to upthread explains the procedure of play that the classic D&D equipment list supports - it is, roughly:

(1) Prior to actual play starting - in the prep phase - players add stuff to their PC equipment lists;

(2) During actual play, the GM describes/narrates (whatever verb one prefers can be inserted here) complicated situations to the players. These situations are architectural or similar sorts of challenges to the players - pits, chasms, locked doors, weird pillars, wonky slopes, etc;

(3) The players describe how their PCs deal with those challenges, and as part of that describe how the equipment on their PC equipment lists helps. with this;

(4) The GM makes a decision about how this pans out, doing their best to be true to everyone's shared imagination of the situation and everyone's shared knowledge of how shovels, poles, wire, string etc behave when used as improvised tools.​

In other words, the reason for the classic D&D equipment list is because it impacts pay when play follows the above procedure.

You can have plausible imaginary worlds while using different procedures of play. I'll offer up my 4e D&D play as an example. In that play, the PC equipment lists that players create for their PCs don't figure in play as prominently as they do in classic D&D dungeoncrawling play. On the other hand, different things do impact play that do not impact play in that classic play (for instance, PCs' loyalties and their hopes for the future of the cosmos).

 

[pemerton]

Sure, I'm not suggesting that these things shouldn't exist. There just isn't a need to have them in the phb except as examples in a "this list is not exhaustive.." bit of flavor text maybe with a "other objects you may encounter can be used as a weapon in a pinch. Use ?d? for damage rolls with such improvised weapons"

What if a player declares that they steal one of the beer steins, shove it in their backpack, and then later on declare - as the GM is describing the heavy secret door slamming shut behind the PCs - that they pull it out and shove it between door and wall to stop the door fully closing?

How can we possibly adjudicate that without half-a-page of stats for the full range of beer steins, including their physical tolerances to being crushed by the pressure of counter-weighted heavy stone doors?

 

[Oofta]

Since you yourself said that D&D has produced supplements with this kind of detail, it seems that what you're saying is that D&D is just the core books.

The only supplements I remember were during the 2E era when they pushed out a ton of material. But even then? It wasn't particularly useful. I pulled out my old Wilderness Survival Guide and ... yeesh. Not really much there. Definitely nothing on things like shovels or other miscellaneous equipment.

Oh, and stop trying to put words in my mouth just because what I said could be misinterpreted. Thanks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honestly?

Better than the Dm just deciding it shatters because they want that damn door closed.

If we're going to us Rulings Not Rules to continue D&D's history of fostering toxic DM behavior, well time to take something back for the people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know, from experience, that both these things are false.

An equipment list isn't a procedure of play. The Matt Colville video that was linked to upthread explains the procedure of play that the classic D&D equipment list supports - it is, roughly:

(1) Prior to actual play starting - in the prep phase - players add stuff to their PC equipment lists;​

​

(2) During actual play, the GM describes/narrates (whatever verb one prefers can be inserted here) complicated situations to the players. These situations are architectural or similar sorts of challenges to the players - pits, chasms, locked doors, weird pillars, wonky slopes, etc;​

​

(3) The players describe how their PCs deal with those challenges, and as part of that describe how the equipment on their PC equipment lists helps. with this;​

​

(4) The GM makes a decision about how this pans out, doing their best to be true to everyone's shared imagination of the situation and everyone's shared knowledge of how shovels, poles, wire, string etc behave when used as improvised tools.​

In other words, the reason for the classic D&D equipment list is because it impacts pay when play follows the above procedure.

You can have plausible imaginary worlds while using different procedures of play. I'll offer up my 4e D&D play as an example. In that play, the PC equipment lists that players create for their PCs don't figure in play as prominently as they do in classic D&D dungeoncrawling play. On the other hand, different things do impact play that do not impact play in that classic play (for instance, PCs' loyalties and their hopes for the future of the cosmos).

Not everyone wants to do D&D the 4e way.

 

[James Gasik]

Since you yourself said that D&D has produced supplements with this kind of detail, it seems that what you're saying is that D&D is just the core books.

More specifically, D&D is just the books you have access to at the moment- and the minds of those playing and running the game.

Let's say I want to (hypothetically) complain about there not being adequate rules for using, say, artisan's tools in the PHB. The last thing I want is to be told "oh, well, those rules exist in Bargle's Guide to Powergaming, so you're complaining about nothing".

After all, now I'm having to purchase DLC to properly utilize something found in the core product! Isn't that keen? It's like finding a lootbox and being told for the low, low price of 39.99 I can open it and receive my reward!

Now for me, I like having the option to buy more books, if their contents are interesting to me, and I sorely miss the days of infinite sourcebooks to waste my money on. But wanting necessary components of the game to work without having to purchase add-ons isn't exactly an unfair position either.