D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[payn]

While agree with you, some people seem to still want / like that style of play so I am willing to find a way to accommodate that style of play. Personally, we never played that way back when we played AD&D in the 80s. We just handwaved any resources - you just had what you needed. So I guess we were ahead of our time!

I think 5E can deliver it, but probably not to the satisfaction of a fan of old school resource attrition. That is the thing about 5E, it doesnt cater specifically to anyone, but can allow anyone to work within it. The more you want the system to lean in particular, the more unsatisfied you will be.

 

[kermit4karate]

The resting discussions really need to consider the game portion along with the story portion. Is the game supposed to be a simulation? Then, pushing as far as you can go and risking a rest in a dangerous place has its own risks. Thats a rather old school approach. Then, there is the story or narrative approach where does this make dramatic sense? Having dungeons with final fantasy save spots doesnt feel very dramatic even if it fits the game portion of the RPG.

Ideally, you have a dial so folks can populate a dungeon with untold numbers of encounters, but you can also dial it down to 1-3 set piece encounters that make more narrative sense and cut the game fat so to speak. 5E is designed to do both, just doesnt do one or the other particularly well. Thats kinda the story of 5E though, "we thought of everybody, but nobody in particular."

I kind of agree? I agree with the broad strokes, but unlike scripted drama, RPG players face both randomness (die rolls) and the consequences of their choices. They also have to test theories DMs put in place that may be, or rather often are, flawed.

I don't think DMs can or should always try to plan too much out, all the encounters, etc. I think they have to adjust on the fly unless they're OK with TPKs all the time. Like, sometimes, regardless of what the story called for, the DM can cheat to allow the players to complete a long rest without an encounter because if they don't? They'll be toast in a few minutes.

 

[payn]

You could still do that style of play in 3.x, though. It wasn't as baked in as TSR era D&D, but a lot of the 5E design elements that disrupt that style of play were implemented yet.

I love 3E and it certainly gave a head nod in the direction of old school play. The problem was there was always a "life hack" as the kids says that let you out of it. Wands keep the HPs filled, scrolls keep the spells slinging, returning weapons and ammo never deplete, etc...

 

[Reynard]

I love 3E and it certainly gave a head nod in the direction of old school play. The problem was there was always a "life hack" as the kids says that let you out of it. Wands keep the HPs filled, scrolls keep the spells slinging, returning weapons and ammo never deplete, etc...

All that stuff was in AD&D too.

 

[The Soloist]

Joke: D&D is the Tiamat of RPGs. Not sure why people want to add another head to a creature that hasn't been able to agree with itself for the last 50 years.

 

[Faolyn]

But it is just a suggestion. You can, and I have, run much less than that. We typically have about 2-3 encounters per day and I have definitely challenged my party with a single encounter in an adventure day.

I mean, yeah, it's a suggestion, and I usually do run far fewer than that because my table doesn't care all that much for combat. But as I said elsewhere, I've run into a large number of people who not only took that suggestion as a rule but thought that I was failing at D&D for not adhering to it.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think DMs can or should always try to plan too much out, all the encounters, etc. I think they have to adjust on the fly unless they're OK with TPKs all the time. Like, sometimes, regardless of what the story called for, the DM can cheat to allow the players to complete a long rest without an encounter because if they don't? They'll be toast in a few minutes.

I mean, I certainly don't plan out a bunch of stuff in advance, I'm an improv guy.

But what's the point of having any sort of resource system, of a system to game, if it doesn't trigger loss conditions? I've played in games like that, and all it does is encourage players to go all-out every fight because they're aware the DM won't really let them lose.

D&D doesn't have to be challenge-based; it can lean in to a more Daggerheart direction and focus on presenting strong character archetypes in a story-focused game. But I do wish a hypothetical 6e wouldn't engage in illusionism about how much its classic attrition model actually matters.

 

[kermit4karate]

I mean, I certainly don't plan out a bunch of stuff in advance, I'm an improv guy.

But what's the point of having any sort of resource system, of a system to game, if it doesn't trigger loss conditions? I've played in games like that, and all it does is encourage players to go all-out every fight because they're aware the DM won't really let them lose.

D&D doesn't have to be challenge-based; it can lean in to a more Daggerheart direction and focus on presenting strong character archetypes in a story-focused game. But I do wish a hypothetical 6e wouldn't engage in illusionism about how much its classic attrition model actually matters.

Understood. It's a bit baffling. I think the "fixes" are really right there in front of them, but likely for perceived business reasons, they're stuck in a loop many businesses find themselves in, where they think they have to continue churning out new products to maintain sales.

Like restaurants that keep adding things to the menu because the marketing of those new dishes drives more foot traffic.

It's a common, albeit flawed, business model, and usually, eventually leads to a brand revamp where the restaurant drops all but half a dozen of their most popular things from the menu.

IMO, as made evident by games like Shadowdark and other effectively lite D&D clones, people today want simpler, quicker gameplay. More people actually want fewer rules, not more. The market is telling us this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am running 5.5 now and honsetly it works better using big set pieces, overtuning difficulty and letting the PCs nova or near nova. Those times we have done some crawling, the resource management of abilities was just tedious rather than interesting.

A big part of why I don't care for 5.5: it moved even farther away from resource management than 5.0 did. Big set pieces and GMing primarily to facilitate PCs showing off their cool superpowers is not what I want out of D&D, or a D&D-like game.

 

[payn]

Understood. It's a bit baffling. I think the "fixes" are really right there in front of them, but likely for perceived business reasons, they're stuck in a loop many businesses find themselves in, where they think they have to continue churning out new products to maintain sales.

Like restaurants that keep adding things to the menu because the marketing of those new dishes drives more foot traffic.

It's a common, albeit flawed, business model, and usually, eventually leads to a brand revamp where the restaurant drops all but half a dozen of their most popular things from the menu.

IMO, as made evident by games like Shadowdark and other effectively lite D&D clones, people today want simpler, quicker gameplay. More people actually want fewer rules, not more. The market is telling us this.

/looks at PF2... Is it?