D&D 5E Justin Alexander's review of Shattered Obelisk is pretty scathing

[nevin]

In 5E, with bounded accuracy, that is largely the case. But bounded accuracy is a relatively new idea.

Another principle is that the environment should scale with the player. A "locked door" is expected to be a "more well locked door" at 10'th level than at 5'th level.

This was more pronounced in prior editions. Although tangentially applicable (ACs vs DCs), I find it to be especially prevalent in the escalation of ACs in 1E (and largely continued until 5E), where natural armor is added to monster AC's to match players to-hit abilities. This is visible in the progression of the G-D module series, which grants players ever escalating bonuses (via drow equipment) while also escalating the ACs of creatures which don't wear armor (magical beasts, demons and devils, dragons, and so forth) to match the players bigger numbers.

My sense is that bounded accuracy evolved as an idea is a way to oppose this sort of arbitrary level based bonus escalation.

TomB

probably but it does create a sense of being on a treadmill where the difficulty stays the same whether you are fighting stirges or Dragons. I think in the end that's what will kill bounded Accuracy. It just isn't fun...

 

[Retreater]

Honestly Matt Mercer seems to be a bigger problem when it comes to finding new players for old stuff. Too many newbies who only want to do what the "internet Star" told them to do.

Maybe for some. My ex-girlfriend (current wife)'s group was all brought in through Critical Role.
My players are more caught up in the D&D movie, the logos, the hoodies, the "brand name" recognition.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, it's not. "left or right" might just as well be "roll on the random encounter table".

Five options (ahead, left, right, back, or stay put) is clearly more than three; and three options with unknown outcomes (left, right, ahead) is more than one. More options = more choices, even if those choices are being made in an information vacuum.

If you have a long main corridor with rooms off, the party have an actual tactical choice: check out the rooms, with the possibility of additional loot, but also depilating resources, or press on to the end focusing on the primary objective.

Assuming, of course, that the primary objective is at the end rather than in a side room.

 

[Retreater]

probably but it does create a sense of being on a treadmill where the difficulty stays the same whether you are fighting stirges or Dragons. I think in the end that's what will kill bounded Accuracy. It just isn't fun...

I think the concept of flat-math is actually why the game breaks down for me.

Q) Why can't we get to high levels?
A) Because flattened math means that higher CR is higher HP.

Q) Why can't we get magic items?
A) It will "upset" flat math.

Q) Why are low-levels so deadly but higher levels so easy?
A) Because the only meaningful metric of power is HP.

Q) Why can't we balance encounters?
A) Because level is essentially meaningless.

Q) Why can't we have a rich, tactical experience?
A) Because flat-math means that tactics can't impact the game.

It's probably the part of the game that hurts 5E the most, but people love it because "you can still use goblins at 13th level" (which is, of course, ridiculous).

 

[nevin]

same thing really.

 

[Clint_L]

Honestly Matt Mercer seems to be a bigger problem when it comes to finding new players for old stuff. Too many newbies who only want to do what the "internet Star" told them to do.

I don't believe that the so-called "Mercer effect," in that negative sense that is sometimes alluded to, is real. There are apocryphal stories, like "Karen" stories, but I don't think very many folks are actually dumb enough to see a bunch of professionals doing something and then become disillusioned because they and their friends aren't instantly as good at it. I think someone invented the "Mercer effect" as another reason to complain about why Critical Role hurts their feelings.

Imagine if someone watched an NBA game, asked if they could join your pickup game, and then stormed off the court because the quality of play wasn't nearly as good.

We don't talk about the "LeBron James effect" or the "Marie Currie" effect. People are generally way too smart for such foolishness. And the few that aren't...well, they weren't going to be players you would want in your game, anyway, because they'd just be complaining about something else soon enough.

Edit: the real reason it's hard to find new players for old stuff is because it's old stuff. Newer is always perceived as better, whether it's music, or fashion, or D&D. That sucks for those of us who are old, but that's just how humans are. I can tell you that I work with teenagers, and I think they're generally pretty great, but as soon as one saw you put the words "internet Star" in scare quotes they've already felt disrespected and moved on. Implying that folks are stupid sheep who only want to do what a celebrity tells them is probably not a great recruiting pitch.

 

[Lanefan]

It very rarely makes a meaningful difference if you encounter encounters in the order A, B, C, D, or C, B, D, A.

Oh, it very much can and IME often does; because if there's something at A that would make it easier to deal with B, C, or D and you don't hit A first, the rest will be a lot tougher.

Or, if the end goal is at D but you happen to beeline straight to it and bypass A, B, and C (where a different route would have taken you through some or all of those) then completing your mission becomes considerably easier and quicker.

How often do junctions have signposts saying "this way to the loot, that way to certain death"? Sure, you could add information to make it a meaningful decision, but in practice the approximate number of dungeons that have this is zero.

Obviously. Answering these questions is what exploration is for.

Meaningful choices are things like "why are we in this dungeon?" "what do we hope to achieve?" "who are our potential allies?". It's very rare for "what path shall we take?" to matter in the slightest.

"Why are we in this dungeon?" and "What do we hope to achieve?" are, I would hope, questions that were answered before the party even left town. If you're already deep in the dungeon when these questions arise, it's a little late...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have never had to create a "rules addendum" - some 20 page house-rule document to print out and pass out like a syllabus to my players.
There are better designed games out there that don't require that I take a Death Save rule from Reddit, a different interpretation of Counterspell from the D&D Twitter account, an opinion of Gritty Rest mechanics from an EN World thread, etc.
So, if the game is salvageable by running Level Up as written, then that's great. I can pass those books, PDFs, online tools, etc. to my players and encourage them to learn that game. But when something is intensively house-ruled, held together with Duct tape and a prayer, I'd rather look at another system.
There are games with more creativity, artistic vision, and care put into them than D&D 5E.

Great! What games do you play instead of 5e then? And what's your motivation for complaining about WotC? Mine is mostly nostalgia-tinged spite.

 

[nevin]

I think the concept of flat-math is actually why the game breaks down for me.

Q) Why can't we get to high levels?
A) Because flattened math means that higher CR is higher HP.

Q) Why can't we get magic items?
A) It will "upset" flat math.

Q) Why are low-levels so deadly but higher levels so easy?
A) Because the only meaningful metric of power is HP.

Q) Why can't we balance encounters?
A) Because level is essentially meaningless.

Q) Why can't we have a rich, tactical experience?
A) Because flat-math means that tactics can't impact the game.

It's probably the part of the game that hurts 5E the most, but people love it because "you can still use goblins at 13th level" (which is, of course, ridiculous).

It's all the same argument. If we make everything the same it's easier and easier is better for Devs and player's right?

Q) Why can't we get to high levels?
A) Uhhhhh your there.....
Q) But everything keeps squishing me is my gear bad?
A) nope suck it up buttercup..


Q) Why can't we get magic items?
A) You can have em all. but they don't work.
Q) They dont' work? Why.
A) Because stuff is stupid. Look at the real world no one wants stuff to make things better. (closes curtain. pulls glass out of dishwasher)

Q) Why are all the levels the same
A) your imagination is the problem. Nothing is supposed to be easy.

Q) You say it's all balanced but the crabs hurt me as bad as the dragon did.
A) Everything being the same is balanced.
Q)but if everything's the same then aren't we all irrelevant and samey cogs in the machine?
A)shut UP!

flat math, Bounded accuracy, lack of magic items. all mean more samey and less fun.

 

[nevin]

Oh, it very much can and IME often does; because if there's something at A that would make it easier to deal with B, C, or D and you don't hit A first, the rest will be a lot tougher.

Or, if the end goal is at D but you happen to beeline straight to it and bypass A, B, and C (where a different route would have taken you through some or all of those) then completing your mission becomes considerably easier and quicker.

Obviously. Answering these questions is what exploration is for.

"Why are we in this dungeon?" and "What do we hope to achieve?" are, I would hope, questions that were answered before the party even left town. If you're already deep in the dungeon when these questions arise, it's a little late...

but those are the most fun moments some times....