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

[pemerton]

For Conan, it would be off stage, before his life gets chronicled in the stories.

The original point, made by @Hussar (I think), is that the D&D character arc doesn't match the pulp heroes.

Positing some imaginary "pre-chronicled" life for Conan, that isn't part of the pulp stories, confirms the point; it doesn't refute it!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No daily powers?

Hot Dog!

Honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But I really do mean just...slightly, slightly fewer choices right out the gate, but still being a Competent Adventurer What Knows What Needs Doing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But I really do mean just...slightly, slightly fewer choices right out the gate, but still being a Competent Adventurer What Knows What Needs Doing.

No, not sarcastic.

I want daily abilities dead. I want their friends dead. I want their pets dead. I want anyone that sold them perogy dead.

Daily attrition and the five minute work day had their time. Now is when they fade into the darkness, never to be remembered or mourned.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I want daily abilities dead. I want their friends dead. I want their pets dead. I want anyone that sold them perogy dead.

you want their PETS dead? dude, leave the blink dog alone!

 

[Vaalingrade]

you want their PETS dead? dude, leave the blink dog alone!

A message must be sent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Er...that's not exactly true now, is it? Making it so the rewards are semi-random, rather than completely unpredictable OR completely predictable, actually motivates people just as well, and sometimes more, because they'll hold out for a benefit if they think it's coming. Wikipedia: Intermittent Reinforcement Schedules.


Whereas for me, I would also do 30 levels. But you start at level 1.

All the "you are not an adventurer yet" would be handled by distinct "zero level"/"novice level" rules, which could be theoretically extended, if not totally indefinitely, then to a pretty extreme degree. That way, folks who really really really love the "zero" end of Zero to Hero can stick with it for a really long time, while others can move past it if they wish, and still others (read: most folks) can skip it entirely, as is done in a lot of fantasy fiction.


Conversely, if all people cared about was these major goals, you wouldn't have levels at all, you'd be like Conan. Clearly, we want something in-between. Some folks find the early-level grind, where you're sharply limited in what you can even attempt, to be AWESOME and challenging and invigorating, and get bored when the attempting part isn't what is a challenge. Some folks find the late-game plateau, where you can be pretty confident your attempts will work, but need to put those things together in the right ways to reach a greater goal, to be AWESOME and challenging and invigorating, and get bored when the attempting part is a total slog.

Hence, the best way to approach this is to write rules which fully support both things. Zero-level or "Novice" rules that allow those who want to spool out the "learn how to even attempt to do things" phase. 1st-level rules that make quite competent, but not yet diverse or truly "powerful" characters yet. And high-end/"epic" rules that truly transcend limits and put the focus on things like collateral damage, narrative/personal achievements, and other non-measurable sources of meaning.

Instead, we're left with a sprawling mess that forces newbie players who haven't a clue into exactly the same risky, dangerous, lethal levels that are meant to appeal to long-time fans. Exactly the things that should be hooking people on the game require extremely careful, kid-gloves handling to not drive them away. (And, before anyone asks: yes, I have absolutely played in games that drove brand-new players away from 5e permanently.)

Since when has WotC ever fully supported more than one thing simultaneously?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which part do you feel is "not in the rules"?

The part where there's a penalty for failing an Insight check beyond not receiving insight.

 

[Hussar]

Hah! When I was around 4 I was taken to a park with a duck pond. That pond also had a number of geese, one of which was a mean cuss who would bite of people got too close. Anyway, not knowing any better I had wandered close to it and it came towards me, at which time also not knowing any better I grabbed it by the neck coincidentally at a spot where it couldn't bite me and promptly dragged it by the neck back to my dad to ask if I could keep it. When I was told no I let it go and it ran away. That sucker never came near me ever again.

Gonna call shenanigans on this. If four year old you grabbed a goose by the neck, said goose would have beaten the living tar out of you.

Geese is brute.

Here’s probably the biggest issue with DnD. And it’s related to the Pulp discussion earlier.

People not really understanding tropes and themes yet still insisting that their made up definitions are the right ones.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The part where there's a penalty for failing an Insight check beyond not receiving insight.

How so? Given that the DMG (pg 237) says to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure", the DM is free to determine whatever consequence that might be. Sometimes that means the NPC is simply inscrutable, as per your "not receiving insight". Sometimes there could perhaps be a bigger consequence for failure per my "the NPC is going to find your observation unnerving and clam up."

 

[Micah Sweet]

How so? Given that the DMG (pg 237) says to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure", the DM is free to determine whatever consequence that might be. Sometimes that means the NPC is simply inscrutable, as per your "not receiving insight". Sometimes there could perhaps be a bigger consequence for failure per my "the NPC is going to find your observation unnerving and clam up."

There's no reason that that particular consequence would be obvious before the attempt was made, but I have had many players who would scream bloody murder if it happened when they failed a check.