D&D General 5.5 and making the game easier for players and harder for DMs

[Cap'n Kobold]

At some point people have to start accepting that the happy go lucky, jolly walking stereotypes, unoptimized characters, play that is found in the WOTC headquarters is not the same as what found on the outside of it.

There is a reason why they act like there is no problem.

Because of The ecosystem that they run the game in doesn't have a DM problem.

I think that it is likely that the "happy go lucky, jolly walking stereotypes, unoptimized characters, play that is found in the WOTC headquarters" is very similar to what is found on the outside of it. The optimisation community, whilst being heavily overrepresented on forums like this one, isn't representative of the 5e D&D community as a whole.
The system seems to be designed for the more widespread style of play, and new players, presumably with the intent that as players start to learn more of the system, or decide to start optimising as they get more experienced, the DM of the group will also have been learning alongside them, and so will have a better idea of compensating for that.

I have done improv, yes. I also run RPGs. Most gamers are not improvisers in that they’re out to win at all costs. They don’t care how boring the game is as long as they win. To most gamers, winning is the only thing that matters.

Citation needed. You're going to need to provide some pretty extraordinary evidence to back up the claim there.
Most of the people that I play D&D with are "gamers". I can assure you that this attitude is vanishingly rare amongst them.

Yes, it’s the referee’s job to make things challenging. That’s what I’m saying. Trouble is, that tends to result in the players getting mad, yelling, and ragequitting. Because they don’t want challenge, they want to steamroll win everything all the time.

This is a social dysfunction in the group, and not related to the mechanical system. None of the horror stories that I've heard out of the various posters who detail their experiences with players getting angry, demanding, shouting or ragequitting have anything to do with 5e, other than that is the game that they are currently playing. Those people would still have the same problems whatever system was being run.

 

[tetrasodium]

Seems so. The only point I was ever trying to make is that while I understand the concerns, I don't think it will be all that bad in practice. There's a few more things to track, I think that's fair to say - but it's nowhere near as many things to track as 3.5 or 4e had (and that is a Good Thing!)

I would characterize myself as a DM who would be sensitive to (IE I would not like) a lot of things to track, or a lot of fiddly bits in my D&D, and I have not had that problem. I don't profess to mean that no one could ever have any problems, or that anyone who is concerned about it is wrong, but I would suggest that they try it before getting too worked up about it. Maybe they'll find that it's not that bad.

"not all bad in practice" is an incredibly low bar that needs a shovel to go any lower. My typical group has 4-6 players and alnost always I can expect more than half of them to be playing a class that gets multiple attacks, that is not a small number of inflicted status effects, were I still using paper I expect that the erasures alone would eat through the paper & require a new sheet after a very short number of combats.

Your defense of very real problems in things wotc is actively shining a spotlight at is very much misplaced after optimistic hope after nine UAs and a decade of a fairly laser like & exclusive focus on how much candy to give. Wotc is not even hinting details about dm "pain points" they took steps to address, nor have they announced a video about anything of the sort in the next several videos or even hinted that they had one planned. That gives a very slim & very frail skeletal system to hang any sort of hopes.

In fact the only dm "pain point" they have even acknowledged as recognizing with specifics is those caused by not having monsters at multiple CRs so they can create encounters that can just swap a monster up or down to meet the encounter target of a group's power level. It shouldn't be any surprise that gleefully turning the screws with excitement like we saw in the archfey warlock video combined with a complete failure to even acknowledge the mere existence of problems causes skeptical discomfort.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that it is likely that the "happy go lucky, jolly walking stereotypes, unoptimized characters, play that is found in the WOTC headquarters" is very similar to what is found on the outside of it. The optimisation community, whilst being heavily overrepresented on forums like this one, isn't representative of the 5e D&D community as a whole.
The system seems to be designed for the more widespread style of play, and new players, presumably with the intent that as players start to learn more of the system, or decide to start optimising as they get more experienced, the DM of the group will also have been learning alongside them, and so will have a better idea of compensating for that.

I ran AL twice a week at a FLGS for years in a high population density area with heavy tourism & seasonal residents... that it=group you are referring to is a vanishingly small segment of players. A great many of those newbies could not be newer strains of newbies. It is basic human nature to have a desire to be good at things you do and wotc has so far set the bar so low in 5e that it takes real effort to be as unoptimized as the game seems so concerned about.

The size of that subgroup is almost certainly a case of failing to filter salt like boredom fueled christmas tree PCs built in ddb just complete enough for them to quickly get through chargen hoops needed to see some higher level ability & abandoned unfinished PCs/NPCs leading to a massive oversampling on Wotc's DB crunching.

 

[Malmuria]

Yep, entirely new and never before seen since the Eladrin were published two years ago with the exact same effect. Or the spell Thunder Step. Or the Wildfire Druid's Teleport. Or... huh, been a lot of "teleport then make a bunch of saves" effects in the game. What did DMs do for the past two years when Summer Eladrin Wildfire Druid's with Thunderstep on their list were in there party?

Not everyone plays with all the optional rules, not everyone plays with optimizers, and not everyone plays enough 5e to see every possible combination. I've never seen an eladrin nor a wildfire druid at the table. Probably the most common experience is people picking up 1 book--the PHB--and playing with those rules, so the level of complexity in the base game matters.

I mean. It’s a warlock ability. Warlocks were already causing creatures to have to make saving throws and the DM to have to track that kind of thing. If that was the kind of thing that was going to be a deal breaker for someone, I would imagine the deal has already long since been broken for them anyway.

Well correct, because my response to the increase in complexity in 5e over the years has been to stop running 5e. I (begrudgingly) play in 5e games because other people in my group like it, but if I run something it's going to be something more rules lite. In other words, wotc made the game hard enough for a subset of DMs that some people simply refuse to run it anymore. I'll buy that some people of course like the increase in complexity, but its inarguable that it is and increase in complexity and that does turn some people off the game entirely.

 

[SteveC]

Without seeing what the DMG has to say about running sessions and what monsters look like, we don't really know the whole score. We do know that player power seems to be going up for some classes and that complexity seems also to be going up.

As someone who plays PF2 in person occasionally and has run 4E extensively, there are methods to deal with status effects for creatures. You can definitely tell DMs about it. And I'd expect monsters to get a boost similar to that of players.

At the end of the day, despite not being particularly excited about 5.5E, I don't think it's going to be worse to run or have worse balance. But I still do think the move to VTT play could mean I'm all wet, and it will be exactly that in person.

 

[Quickleaf]

I sort of want to call shenanigans on this, as I think players more want the illusion of difficulty than actual difficulty. But if actual players in a campaign want it to be more difficult, isn't that just the DM's job? I mean I did a quick google of "how to make 5E more difficult" and there were many suggestions.

Anytime I see threads about DM houserules, they tend to be about making the game harder. "Long rests take a month, short rests a week. And adventures have to be completed in hours." I've seen that one a bit, and that will make the game more challenging.

I am sure there are some players who legitimately do want more challenge (people do like to play combat as war in campaigns) but I really suspect that a couple of sessions of "we're going to use Hackmaster crit tables!" might show that to be more in theory than reality.

Yeah, I can only report my experience and the small circle of gaming that I’ve experienced.

To get back to your original criticism: “ well players aren’t complaining about it so it’s not a problem.”

I think we have a fundamentally different outlook on that. Which is fine, your outlook is the dominant one fueling Hasbro’s current iteration.

I disagree, but I would not call shenanigans on your argument. I don’t think it’s being made in authentically.

I can only hope that I would be returned the same courtesy.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Trying to get people off pen & paper and onto their digital assets, perhaps.

Make the DM’s go digital, and they make the players go digital. Complexity overtaxing DM attention for the win!

Minus that it’s less complex than the last several D&D editions with that stuff.

 

[Quickleaf]

It never ceases to amaze me how much disdain DMs have for their players. Comparing them to toddlers? I'd walk out of your game on principle.

Rather than jumping to the response you did, I wish you'd made more effort to understand what I was saying. If that's the conclusion you've settled on – that I hold disdain for players – I can't stop you from believing that or believing what you will about how I host games. But I would like to offer a deeper dive if you care to listen.

I will compare anyone to a toddler. You, myself, a priest, a politician, a company, a culture. There's nothing disdainful about it. Sometimes we all want things that are not in our best interest. Like lab animals, we want to keep hitting the "Reward Now" button. We develop skills to restrain that impulse, but it's still there. Sometimes I don't regulate that part of myself as well as I'd like and I overindulge, maybe too much junk fiction or bad movies. This can happen to individual and groups. It doesn't mean they aren't any less worth being listened to, valued, regarded seriously for their positions. All it means is there's this part of them that struggles to be regulated.

Similarly, a parent, or a mentor, or a leader of an organization, or even game designers can help to restrain those "Reward Now" impulses in favor of a longer-term view, or they can take the easier road of being liked for giving that reward out again and again.

In game design you can reach a point of too much power being given out – I believe we can all agree that this happened during 3rd edition and during 2nd edition Skills & Powers, and at other points during the game. Most players love that power – I love that power – that's part of the D&D power fantasy. But when the game designers feed that too much, when they diminish other aspects of the game in order to prioritize more and more escalating power, it starts to create problems for the game. The GM might be the first one to notice that, but the players will soon afterward.

No one has done anything wrong. No one should be viewed with disdain.

But there can be an overall sense of dissatisfaction with the game. Why? Well, one thing that I've seen happen is that perfectly natural "Reward Now" impulse gets overindulged. Yes, some players might say "hmm, I'm not going to take Option X because it would interfere with Narrative reason Y", while many others players might say "oh, I am totally taking Option X, and Y and Z too!"

Neither is wrong. Neither is right.

Because that sort of self-regulation? That's not the players job. The whole appeal behind fantasy gaming is to have fun, and that often means not having to worry about that kind of self-regulation that life demands enough of us. And still some players might enjoy applying that self-regulation, which is also fine, but again that's not their job.

I would argue that is the job of the game.

The point is that there are design decisions that can be made to help mitigate that perfectly natural tendency.

There's a great bit of research from Czech-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi – if I'm remembering right – that talks about the optimum amount of success for people to feel most engaged is about 70%. Too low and it's easy to become discouraged. Too high and there's a sort of listlessness or feeling there's no point.
Another way to say this: The 70% is for encouragement, the 30% is for learning and growth.

Say I'm the player. And you're the game designer. To design a game that hits that sweet spot, you cannot consistently encourage my perfectly natural toddler-like "Reward Now" button. In the short term? Oh man, I'm loooooving you. But in the long term? It's ultimately going to backfire.

OK, I've explained my bit. Judge me as you will.

 

[SteveC]

Yeah, I can only report my experience and the small circle of gaming that I’ve experienced.

To get back to your original criticism: “ well players aren’t complaining about it so it’s not a problem.”

I think we have a fundamentally different outlook on that. Which is fine, your outlook is the dominant one fueling Hasbro’s current iteration.

I disagree, but I would not call shenanigans on your argument. I don’t think it’s being made in authentically.

I can only hope that I would be returned the same courtesy.

I just wanted to comment on this because it sounds like you think I'm intending to be a jerk or nasty to you and that's 100% not the case.

From what I have seen, players aren't complaining about 5E's difficulty being easy mode. I'm sure there are some who are doing that, but it's a very small number. When we discuss 5E difficulty, the time I see players complain is when the DM pulls out house rules to make the game harder. Now there are people who want a real sense of "combat is war" and "anything I do could kill my character." And they typically don't play 5E because that's not what the game is about. The OSR has built an entire ecosystem around that style of play. And for players who want to split the difference, there is always Shadowdark.

From the perspective of the DM, I can really see the issue where 5.5E is going to be more challenging to run in person. I just also know that there are ways to make that work out, coming from years of playing 4E and having to deal with status effects on multiple characters almost every single battle. I hope the DMG will be helpful in that regard. But until you get those tricks down, it's going to be more difficult.

From the perspective of the DM not being able to challenge players, I can only report from actual games I'm playing in and games I've run. I play in two 5E games. In both cases, the DMs would probably agree with you that us players sometimes get away with too much. But they'd also say that they have had us on the ropes in key battles multiple times. It's all a question of balancing things better, which is a skill you learn for each party you run.

For me, the campaign I ran was Strahd, and I had the party running ragged each and every day. I made sure to give them some actual wins to make them realize they were doing something positive but they lost so much over the course of the game. They still tell stories about it years later.

So I'm not trying to minimize anything you're saying. I'm not dismissing it (I try not to dismiss anyone on Enworld) I just will say that we're going to have to see how the new edition shakes out to understand if it's more or less difficult.

And as to players being upset, I think that's an issue to resolve with discussion between everyone involved.

Apologies for any upset caused.

 

[Remathilis]

I will compare anyone to a toddler. You, myself, a priest, a politician, a company, a culture. There's nothing disdainful about it. Sometimes we all want things that are not in our best interest. Like lab animals, we want to keep hitting the "Reward Now" button. We develop skills to restrain that impulse, but it's still there. Sometimes I don't regulate that part of myself as well as I'd like and I overindulge, maybe too much junk fiction or bad movies. This can happen to individual and groups. It doesn't mean they aren't any less worth being listened to, valued, regarded seriously for their positions. All it means is there's this part of them that struggles to be regulated.

Similarly, a parent, or a mentor, or a leader of an organization, or even game designers can help to restrain those "Reward Now" impulses in favor of a longer-term view, or they can take the easier road of being liked for giving that reward out again and again.

In game design you can reach a point of too much power being given out – I believe we can all agree that this happened during 3rd edition and during 2nd edition Skills & Powers, and at other points during the game. Most players love that power – I love that power – that's part of the D&D power fantasy. But when the game designers feed that too much, when they diminish other aspects of the game in order to prioritize more and more escalating power, it starts to create problems for the game. The GM might be the first one to notice that, but the players will soon afterward.

No one has done anything wrong. No one should be viewed with disdain.

But there can be an overall sense of dissatisfaction with the game. Why? Well, one thing that I've seen happen is that perfectly natural "Reward Now" impulse gets overindulged. Yes, some players might say "hmm, I'm not going to take Option X because it would interfere with Narrative reason Y", while many others players might say "oh, I am totally taking Option X, and Y and Z too!"

Neither is wrong. Neither is right.

Because that sort of self-regulation? That's not the players job. The whole appeal behind fantasy gaming is to have fun, and that often means not having to worry about that kind of self-regulation that life demands enough of us. And still some players might enjoy applying that self-regulation, which is also fine, but again that's not their job.

I would argue that is the job of the game.

The point is that there are design decisions that can be made to help mitigate that perfectly natural tendency.

There's a great bit of research from Czech-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi – if I'm remembering right – that talks about the optimum amount of success for people to feel most engaged is about 70%. Too low and it's easy to become discouraged. Too high and there's a sort of listlessness or feeling there's no point.
Another way to say this: The 70% is for encouragement, the 30% is for learning and growth.

Say I'm the player. And you're the game designer. To design a game that hits that sweet spot, you cannot consistently encourage my perfectly natural toddler-like "Reward Now" button. In the short term? Oh man, I'm loooooving you. But in the long term? It's ultimately going to backfire.

First off, I disdain the idea of infantizing people as having zero impulse control. Lots of people every day understand the concept of restraint and control. When I buy a tub of ice cream I don't eat the whole thing in one frenzy of chocolate fudgy goodness. I know how to portion control. I don't need a wise leader telling me "That's enough" and only hand me a single scoop. Lots of people know how to budget their paycheck, drive the speed limit, and bite their tongue in public. Adults do it all the time. Yes, some people DO have problems with self-restraint, control or addiction. These are considered disorders to be treated professionally. But the vast majority of people can, when addressed in a rational manner, understand the reasons for limitation and restraint.

As an experiment, I once ran a one-shot game years ago in 3.5 where the ability score generation method was "give yourself what you think your character would have; I trust you." No dice, no points. Pure honor system. Did anyone give themselves all 18's? They could have, but no one did. They opted for a high score in their primary, a decently high in a secondary, and a smattering of medium or so in everything else. Later, I looked at the ability scores players gave themselves and reverse engineered Point Buy cost. The average was 38 points, slightly higher than normal point buy. Nobody took advantage of the 'I win" button. Everyone created characters you could have rolled if your dice were great but not exceptional.

Why? By your hypothesis, the players should have given themselves all maxed scores barring a strong rule to create limited (PB) or randomized (dice) scores. Did they yield to some sort of unwritten social pressure? (Not wanting to appear too greedy or munchkin)? Did they do that because they felt bad about "cheating" and opted to tone down their choices? Or maybe, they felt they wanted to be good at their primary function but have some weakness or areas not well defined. Maybe they felt their character should not be super smart, strong, or charismatic.

Then again, it was a sample size of six players I already knew and played with. Maybe 100 players would have yielded far higher ability scores, even the proverbial all 18s.

So I don't accept your hypothesis that players if given a chance will act like toddlers only interested in their own pleasure. Most players and not pure id. Some people will, but some people will cheat at dice rolls, lie to the DM, and engage all manner of bad sportmanship. That's just life.