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

[mamba]

If only there were RPG designs that had solved these problems!

I do not even have a problem with 5e's solution, I was just wondering what solution they were looking for

 

[mamba]

The bolded is irrelevant here as the DM IMO should be making the vast majority of these type of rolls in secret anyway.

Perception or Insight sure, but History or Arcana, etc.?

 

[Parmandur]

I haven't used exp in ages (I'm never going back from milestone advancement), so can't comment on that, but I can tell you that my group hated gold for exp back in our AD&D days. It makes no sense - why would killing a troll who has a full treasure chest grant you 5x the experience of killing a broke troll? And it skewed story design, so that you had to make sure there were piles of treasure even when it made no sense in the plot, or you were screwing your players.

I've never done it, but not makes more sense as a narrative measure of progress than simply killing stuff: old pulp fantasy stories are rags to riches (sometimes back to rags, back to riches) stories, and money as XP incentivizes that style of play. XP through combat kills, however, incentivizes murder hobo stories...

I prefer DCC style XP per "Encounter" (broadly defined) irregardless of outcome: advancement occurs by playing, not by doing any particular thing, either collecting loot or mass murdering.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If only there were RPG designs that had solved these problems!

For some of us, the cost to solve them was too high.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes in exactly the way I mean - just not in the way you mean. Stories are what happened and a good game encourages interesting stories to grow out of it. And pre-Dragonlance did through artificial environments that were designed for interest not for realism (the ear seeker makes no sense in any environment and e.g. lurkers above, lurkers below, and gelatinous cubes are jump-scare monsters) and the characters have expected character arcs from "part of a mob-handed team with hirelings" from levels 1-4 to the hirelings becoming chaff and the party going in as a team without hirelings to "by this axe I rule" and the PCs getting defined lands or guilds or churches at level 10-ishn and retire from most orthodox adventuring to become movers and shakers.

This is as much hard coded story as most good modern narrative games have. The fundamental rule is "play to see what happens". And what makes something a storygame as opposed to a trad RPG was defined when the term was created as irrevocable changes and bounded play with an intended endgame rather than being open ended. The first storygame was My Life With Master which told the story of a group of minions who are cruelly treated by a master (played by the GM) until one rebels and tries to kill the master - when either they win and the master dies or they lose and they die. This is about the same level of hard coding of oD&D. A couple of outline story beats for character development (as oD&D had) with some worldbuilding that was different for almost every game (as oD&D had). It just had a much shorter story arc.

What you mean by narrative I suspect is the hard coded adventure paths and metaplot that took over starting with Dragonlance (and an absurd amount of GM force) where the PCs are guided from plot point to plot point and where the story is written in advance. Modern narrative games are a reaction against that. Play to see what happens, and stories are about character growth and change with the PCs able to affect things in ways where the outcomes are unforseen. Stories are about change and character growth - and a clear marker of that is that someone ends the story in a different place from where they started (generally in more consequential ways than having gained a couple of spells and half a dozen hit points).

I'm also talking about narrative mechanics and play focused on PC dramatic needs. There are more than two kinds of game you know.

 

[Lanefan]

Perception or Insight sure, but History or Arcana, etc.?

I was thinking of perception, insight, bluff, etc. when I wrote that.

 

[Hussar]

I've never done it, but not makes more sense as a narrative measure of progress than simply killing stuff: old pulp fantasy stories are rags to riches (sometimes back to rags, back to riches) stories, and money as XP incentivizes that style of play. XP through combat kills, however, incentivizes murder hobo stories...

I prefer DCC style XP per "Encounter" (broadly defined) irregardless of outcome: advancement occurs by playing, not by doing any particular thing, either collecting loot or mass murdering.

The problem though is that while "rages to riches" is part of a lot of pulp stories, the power curve that comes with that isn't. Conan or Elric or any of the pulp heroes are never just regular guys who grow through adventure. They are all established warriors, greatest warriors, fantastic warriors, before the story even starts. Conan doesn't become a better swordsman over the course of the stories. He doesn't start out killing giant rats and then end with killing dragons. He's killing demons from day one.

And it's those two streams which have always been in conflict in D&D. On one hand, we want that whole "farm boy to superhero" schtick, but, on the other hand, we want there to be a reason why this character keeps adventuring. Conan keeps adventuring because he's chronically in need of money. By fairly early levels, our D&D heroes generally could retire quite comfortably and suddenly money isn't much of a reason to continue to adventure. Which has led to a much stronger push towards plot and storyline. Our heroes keep adventuring because the threat is still out there.

Which slams upside the "RPG's must NOT have narrative" crowd. And the circle just keeps going around and around.

 

[Lanefan]

This is as much hard coded story as most good modern narrative games have. The fundamental rule is "play to see what happens". And what makes something a storygame as opposed to a trad RPG was defined when the term was created as irrevocable changes and bounded play with an intended endgame rather than being open ended.

Maybe that's why the modern storygame idea doesn't resonate with me: I want and expect any RPG I play or run to be open-ended, able to last as long as people want to play it and the GM wants to run it.

 

[Cadence]

The problem though is that while "rages to riches" is part of a lot of pulp stories, the power curve that comes with that isn't. Conan or Elric or any of the pulp heroes are never just regular guys who grow through adventure. They are all established warriors, greatest warriors, fantastic warriors, before the story even starts. Conan doesn't become a better swordsman over the course of the stories. He doesn't start out killing giant rats and then end with killing dragons. He's killing demons from day one.

Don't some of the Conan stories go back a ways though to before he's prime Conan - the series jumps around chronologically. (Granted he's always well above average).

Reminded me to look up page 10 of Dragon 36.

 

[Lanefan]

And it's those two streams which have always been in conflict in D&D. On one hand, we want that whole "farm boy to superhero" schtick, but, on the other hand, we want there to be a reason why this character keeps adventuring. Conan keeps adventuring because he's chronically in need of money. By fairly early levels, our D&D heroes generally could retire quite comfortably and suddenly money isn't much of a reason to continue to adventure.

It isn't*, but in that early acquiring of money they've made enough noise to attract the attention of powerful people or creatures that they now have to deal with, and-or have unearthed or stumbled into bigger things they feel a need to follow up on.

* - for some. There's others who simply can never be rich enough no matter what.

Which has led to a much stronger push towards plot and storyline. Our heroes keep adventuring because the threat is still out there.

But is that threat part of a pre-planned storyline or did it organically arise through the run of play and-or the player-side chasing of red herrings? I've seen - and run - both.