D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[mamba]

What I would say, then, is that skilled play is not actually harmed in newer editions--it is simply something that the GM cannot achieve with minimal effort. If the GM wishes to provide a challenge, they themselves will be challenged, which is something I personally value.

I am not sure about the latter one, if you make the DM's life hard, there is less incentive to be a DM. On top of that I am not interested in playing superheroes either, so from my perspective they make the DM's life harder to accomplish something I do not want in the first place.

In your experience, has making it harder for DMs to challenge the players led to better games (at the table) or to ones they were more of a walk in the park for the players?

 

[Minigiant]

I beg to disagree. At levels 1-4 I will admit that OS PCs are far weaker than their modern counterparts, but come about 5th level OS players usually have enough power to start muscling though any reasonable challenges. Magic items, better gear, and third level spells usually start evening the playing field. By 9th, most players rarely fear anything but instant-death traps (which don't care if your level 1 or 20). Clever play at that level mostly consists of "what magic thing do we have that short circuits this encounter?"

My argument is those aren't meaningful challenges.

That's the difference.

In modern play you are giving the power but via resources therefore you're able to deal with the obstacle but it is costly. Oliver when you don't have those resources or are saving them the challenge is difficult because you're not spending resources.

An old school play, what is considered a challenge is never weak enough that you can power through them .

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not sure about the latter one, if you make the DM's life hard, there is less incentive to be a DM.

I am continually told that the utter failure of the 5e DMG to actually guide GMs at GMing has not caused even the tiniest bit of problem. I very much agree that if you make the GM's life hard people won't want to GM. But people keep telling me that the books making the GM's life harder isn't a problem ever for anyone, so....

 

[payn]

I am continually told that the utter failure of the 5e DMG to actually guide GMs at GMing has not caused even the tiniest bit of problem. I very much agree that if you make the GM's life hard people won't want to GM. But people keep telling me that the books making the GM's life harder isn't a problem ever for anyone, so....

I think there is a bit of over-exaggeration by both it doesn't matter to anyone and that it impacts everyone. I'd like to see folks discuss more about what is helpful and what is needed other than wholesale writing off the DMG.

 

[Remathilis]

My argument is those aren't meaningful challenges.

That's the difference.

In modern play you are giving the power but via resources therefore you're able to deal with the obstacle but it is costly. Oliver when you don't have those resources or are saving them the challenge is difficult because you're not spending resources.

An old school play, what is considered a challenge is never weak enough that you can power through them .

Bullocks. I've seen 5e players expend every resource and lose and I've seen AD&D fighters solo dragons. The only time I see OS players too weak to muscle though is if the DM is gimping them or you are playing Basic Red Box RAW.

Again, I won't argue modern PCs aren't more powerful, but I don't think they are overly more powerful relative to the challenges they face. Once you get past 5th level, OS play isn't that much different than modern save for instantkill abilities.

 

[mamba]

I am continually told that the utter failure of the 5e DMG to actually guide GMs at GMing has not caused even the tiniest bit of problem. I very much agree that if you make the GM's life hard people won't want to GM. But people keep telling me that the books making the GM's life harder isn't a problem ever for anyone, so....

some people may tell you that, but you do not need to believe them, and going by the 2024 DMG neither does WotC

 

[Reynard]

some people may tell you that, but you do not need to believe them, and going by the 2024 DMG neither does WotC

The 2024 DMG is a really good introductory DMG, but it isn't a very good general reference DMG and a pretty bad "veteran" DMG.

 

[mamba]

The 2024 DMG is a really good introductory DMG, but it isn't a very good general reference DMG and a pretty bad "veteran" DMG.

all true, but that WotC made it an introductory one shows that making things easier for (new) GMs is important.

Add the ToV and A5e DMGs and you cover a wide scope

 

[Micah Sweet]

all true, but that WotC made it an introductory one shows that making things easier for (new) GMs is important.

Add the ToV and A5e DMGs and you cover a wide scope

It shows that WotC feels making a book that helps new GMs is more important than making a book experienced GMs might want to give them money for.

Buy the TotV and/or A5e DMGs, and skip 5.5.