D&D 5E Are DMs getting lazy?

[Manchu]

LOL who are you arguing with? First 4E monster design out of nowhere and now Keep on the Shadowfell, equally out of nowhere. It seems like you're assuming I'm here to rag on 4E. Nope. I enjoyed the hours of complex tactical choice that characterizes a 4E combat encounter. In addition to RPGs, I also love miniatures games (especially skirmish-level) and board games (especially dungeon crawls) ... and 4E is a RPG that seriously scratches those itches. But in order to do so, it involves some pretty heavy mechanics that simply are not present in 5E.

So what kind of value did I get out of 4E modules? Scenarios ("encounters" in D&D-speak). What value do I get out of 5E modules? TBH very little so far but it comes down to setting (including NPCs) and major plot points.

 

[Neonchameleon]

LOL who are you arguing with? First 4E monster design out of nowhere and now Keep on the Shadowfell, equally out of nowhere. It seems like you're assuming I'm here to rag on 4E. Nope. I enjoyed the hours of complex tactical choice that characterizes a 4E combat encounter. In addition to RPGs, I also love miniatures games (especially skirmish-level) and board games (especially dungeon crawls) ... and 4E is a RPG that seriously scratches those itches. But in order to do so, it involves some pretty heavy mechanics that simply are not present in 5E.

The thing is you're tilting 4e in one specific direction and saying that 5e doesn't do that. It doesn't. It also doesn't go as easily into the fast moving free wheeling action movie approach as 4e does when you run improvised (as opposed to locked in) skill challenges and capstone combats. And this is IMO the most fun way to play 4e. It's at least as fast to create a random situation in free-wheeling 4e as it is in 5e. (Where 5e has the advantage is if you want logistics; leaving the mule out of 4e is a design decision to direct away from a type of play 4e isn't very good at).

And to say the balance mechanics aren't present in 5e is a misrepresentation. The mechanics are there - but more complex and less useful.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you insist on playing 5E like 4E ... then yes, it is simpler to use 4E. Sure, no argument there. But again, that's totally missing the point. 5E is not 4E. It is not about, or at least does not have to be about, grid-bound tactical movement combos. And if that's what a group is looking for, again, 4E is a much better choice. However you look at it, that kind of play is more complicated than default 5E. Trying to play a game as complicated as 4E using a different ruleset, especially 5E, will necessarily make it even more complicated.

You're really focusing too much on how 5e is not some kind of 'tactics-based video game' when noone was talking about anything of the sort. My groups still use a lot of tactics and we usually still use a grid though it's more to aid in visualization now.

 

[Manchu]

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]: I have no idea what freewheeling 4E is or could be ... 4E in my experience is anything but freewheeling. It is very locked to the grid and combat takes up a lot of time, irrespective of whether your campaigns frequently or rarely feature combat encounters.
[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]: You sort of answer your own criticism by explaining the grid is "more to aid visualization now." (I totally agree by the way.)

 

[Sunseeker]

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]: You sort of answer your own criticism by explaining the grid is "more to aid visualization now." (I totally agree by the way.)

The lack of a grid does not imply the lack of tactics though. Of course I may be imparting a very broad view on tactics, since my party isn't simply bum-rushing the enemy, casters aren't standing in melee, fighters aren't trying to heal people and we're not attacking with chickens for swords.

I never felt a grid was necessary in 4th provided that players could do basic math (1sq=5ft), I do agree a grid was the default assumption, but provided your players aren't idiots (which helps no matter what), it's not a big deal. I personally like the grid regardless of edition.

 

[Manchu]

Using mat + minis was indeed the default assumption of 4E ... just like using the board is the default assumption of Monopoly. I guess people could just memorize where all the properties are in Monopoly. If they can't, does that make them idiots? In all seriousness, relative position in 4E is not a matter of rough estimates. Not using a mat + minis in 4E is playing on nightmare mode.

Moving on to the word "tactics." There is a difference between "tactics," by which we mean a method of tackling a threat in combat, and "Tactics," which is a word you staple onto the end of a video game title to indicate it is played by moving around combat units on a grid, e.g., Final Fantasy Tactics.

The latter meaning, which applies to the combat systems of 3E and 4E (IMO 4E just does it better), necessarily entails more complicated encounter design for reasons stated above. To wit, "A 4E encounter is perforce a miniatures skirmish scenario. You need to know not only what monsters are present but also how their abilities synergize. That in turn means relative starting location is important, as between the monsters themselves as well as between the monsters and the PCs. Then there's terrain. If you want a really memorable set-piece, terrain should also be interactive or at least dynamic. All of this entails a lot discrete design decision points. Considering and "solving for" each of them creates value, even if the conclusion turns out to be generic. 5E, at least in its default form, doesn't assume any of this stuff."

Which brings us back to my initial point about published modules: Why would anybody want them and complain about not enough of them being published? Well, for 4E DMs, they represent a lot of the work (and it is work) of encounter design being already done so the DM can instead focus on preparing to actually run the encounters. There's lots and lost of "value added" there IMO. With 5E, this is far less important. The published adventures just don't have the same value because the nature of the game itself is less complicated. But what you do get is setting info and a plot arc (also available in 4E modules).

 

[Sunseeker]

Using mat + minis was indeed the default assumption of 4E ... just like using the board is the default assumption of Monopoly. I guess people could just memorize where all the properties are in Monopoly. If they can't, does that make them idiots? In all seriousness, relative position in 4E is not a matter of rough estimates. Not using a mat + minis in 4E is playing on nightmare mode.

I agree that a mat and minis is the default assumption, while I personally enjoy this style of play, even if you are correct, the same is true for 3rd. Spells did not have a range of "melee", "close" and "far". They had a fixed, measured in feet, distance. I can't speak for earlier editions but my impression from others is that there has never been a time when range was ever a guestimate. It is either in range, or it isn't.

As for increasing the difficulty by not using a grid, this is only the case if your players don't describe what they do. If Bob says he moves from melee to the maximum distance of his bow, how far away is he? The maximum distance of his bow. You don't really need the numbers to know where people are and all it takes is adding a +/-5ft grey area into it to basically assume you're in melee, you're within firing range, or not.

Moving on to the word "tactics." There is a difference between "tactics," by which we mean a method of tackling a threat in combat, and "Tactics," which is a word you staple onto the end of a video game title to indicate it is played by moving around combat units on a grid, e.g., Final Fantasy Tactics.

Then state as such at the start. I have little patience for movable goalposts.

The latter meaning, which applies to the combat systems of 3E and 4E (IMO 4E just does it better), necessarily entails more complicated encounter design for reasons stated above. To wit, "A 4E encounter is perforce a miniatures skirmish scenario. You need to know not only what monsters are present but also how their abilities synergize. That in turn means relative starting location is important, as between the monsters themselves as well as between the monsters and the PCs. Then there's terrain. If you want a really memorable set-piece, terrain should also be interactive or at least dynamic. All of this entails a lot discrete design decision points. Considering and "solving for" each of them creates value, even if the conclusion turns out to be generic. 5E, at least in its default form, doesn't assume any of this stuff."

The fact that it may or may not be the default assumption in 5th, which I don't believe has been established as the case as yet, does not mean the use of such things doesn't exist.

Which brings us back to my initial point about published modules: Why would anybody want them and complain about not enough of them being published? Well, for 4E DMs, they represent a lot of the work (and it is work) of encounter design being already done so the DM can instead focus on preparing to actually run the encounters. There's lots and lost of "value added" there IMO. With 5E, this is far less important. The published adventures just don't have the same value because the nature of the game itself is less complicated. But what you do get is setting info and a plot arc (also available in 4E modules).

As a long-time 4e DM, I've never run a published module. I've always made all my own games and I have NEVER simply grabbed monsters out of the book and thrown them at my players for more reasons than I care to recount.

 

[Manchu]

I'm not moving goal posts, you're just catching up. My original phrase was "the conceits of Tactics-style video games." Don't blame me for having to reiterate a point for your benefit.

Your point about 3E is kind of hard to follow. What you've posted (as opposed to what you may or may not have intended to post) is that mat + minis is the default assumption for both 3E and 4E. I agree. Not using mat + minis for the combat in these games makes them unnecessarily more complicated because everyone will need to keep remembering where everything else is as opposed to having it all "recorded" in front of us.

It is conclusively established that mat + mini play is not the default assumption of 5E. Not sure if that was what you meant to question but if so, I don't see how it is a question at all. I have this nagging suspicion we are talking past one another. I mean, I never insinuated that a 4E DM would simply grab monsters out of the MM. Quite the reverse.

 

[SirAntoine]

Um, what?

Is this controversial?

 

[Eric V]

It should take something like 100 good fights to advance in level, and we haven't seen that.

Why?