D&D 5E (2014) Combat as war, sport, or ??

[Vaalingrade]

See my poll about what's fun. The second most picked option is challenge.

Buuuut, how much of that is sample bias from asking on Enworld and how much of it is process error since half that thread is arguing what the options mean?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That bold bit shows why the rules fail at this backported "style" labeling. Characters are so powerful & insulated from needs or risk that they simply don't have any pressure to make or stick to that agreement even if they make it. That was not always the case in past editions. Not only does 5e lack in rules or power levels that encourage the sort of group/party mentality that bold bit covers, 5e even lacks tools the GM could employ to pressure it if a player decides to treat the group as sidekick followers or players start exclusively solo'ing near each other.

This and as far as I can tell the rest of the post also is about the players acting in bad faith with regard to the kind of play the table has agreed to engage in. I have never found this to be a problem and I do not believe that any rules from the publishers will help in those circumstances.

That's not a thing that wotc could not take steps to provide some level of GM tools, wotc simply choses not to. Take the discussion on "challenge" going back to 334/334, there are tools present in past editions that are difficult for a GM to use for purposes of adjusting the challenge dial simply because there is nothing they can point at to override a default.

Spoiler: a few examples

• Death at zero/neg10
• A shift from Opportunity attacks to attacks of opportunity
• Return of iterative attack penalties/multi attack penalty
• cleaning up AOE rules
• pre-3.x style -1/+1 at ~6 & 15
• body slots on an official sheet
• Any form of skills revamp to mitigate these problems
• etc

is a mere optional entry in a book like XgE/Tashas/setting/ one of the three spelljammer books/etc or even a UA footnote is all it would take to begin supporting a GM with things to point at when they feel a need to adjust something to apply that pressure. Without a thing written for 5e that a GM can point at pulling mechanics from old editions & other games sans support from wotc runs smack into "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it". Those attempts crash into that well known idiom because players desire powerful characters & these tools become more important the greater their need in correcting a problem leaving the players feel empowered in dragging their feet & feigning confusion or frustration over any system difference just to resist the unsupported nerf.

Again, you seem to believe that players are incapable of any kind of self-restraint. That is unfortunate and I am pretty sure I would not DM and probably not play under such circumstances. I also fail to see how the publisher's rules will prevail over people that gone back on their word as to the kind of game they have agreed to play.

 

[tetrasodium]

This and as far as I can tell the rest of the post also is about the players acting in bad faith with regard to the kind of play the table has agreed to engage in. I have never found this to be a problem and I do not believe that any rules from the publishers will help in those circumstances.

Again, you seem to believe that players are incapable of any kind of self-restraint. That is unfortunate and I am pretty sure I would not DM and probably not play under such circumstances. I also fail to see how the publisher's rules will prevail over people that gone back on their word as to the kind of game they have agreed to play.

"The kind of play the table has agreed to engage in"... Sure, can you point me to the page & section in the PHB that sets that stage for the GM to accomplish that? How about rules or literally anything a GM might need in order to get that done?DMG37-41 has a couple paragraphs each on Heroic Fantasy, Sword & sorcery, Epic Fantasy, Mythic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Intrigue, Mystery, Swashbuckling, War, & Wuxia. Not rules or changes for them... just quick descriptions noting that they exist. There is a table with "some rules" for starting equipment in a few types of campaigns in the middle of that (astute readers might notice that these three are not any of the ten described in the section... They are not indeed).

• Low Magic Campaign 1st-4th: "Normal Starting Equipment"
• Standard Magic Campaign 1st-4th: "Normal Starting Equipment"
• High magic Campaign 1st-4th: "Normal Starting Equipment"

That is not a mistake, all three recommend the same starting equipment but devoted page space to this table

• Low Magic Campaign 5th-10th: "500gp plus 1d10x25gp, normal Starting Equipment"
• Standard Magic Campaign 5th-10th: "500gp plus 1d10x25gp, normal Starting Equipment"
• High magic Campaign 5th-10th: "500gp plus 1d10x25gp, one uncommon magic item, normal Starting Equipment"

Why on earth is this in the DMG? Who the heck is this made for? lolbroke staff of the python is cool but vicious weapon verbotten. It does not improve at the higher ranges

 

[overgeeked]

If you don't mind me asking, but if you are that bitter about D&D players not wanting a challenge and wanting easy mode everything, why are you still playing?

I’m not bitter about players wanting easy mode. It would be like being bitter that the wind blows. It bothers me that WotC has gone all in on player-based design leaving referees high and dry in fixing the game and/or making it playable.

I personally find it hard to imagine that I would still be playing a game that gave me a misanthropic view of my fellow players.

Misanthropic? Cute. No. I stopped playing 5E and went back to older editions. Problem solved. Older-edition players (specifically TSR-era players) don’t have that same level of baggage and expectation. They know and accept there being challenge in D&D. The repeated refrain of it being easier to make the game easier. Yeah, that’s true. Play AD&D and give everyone max HP at 1st and watch the table cheer. Play 5E and suggest rolling HP at 1st and watch the table launch into how that’s not fair and how the book says whatever.

Your experience has been noted, but you will undoubtedly find people here with comparable amounts of 5e experience who will vehemently disagree with your assessment.

Of course. Shifting baseline and all that.

I suspect that's because the meaning and nature of "challenges" vary across and within games of D&D, much as it does with other games, sports, and activities.

Yes, and if you’re all but guaranteed to win, there’s no challenge.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Play AD&D and give everyone max HP at 1st and watch the table cheer. Play 5E and suggest rolling HP at 1st and watch the table launch into how that’s not fair and how the book says whatever.

Wait.

Play one edition and do something that's viewed in a positive way and they cheer.

Play another edition and do something that's viewed in a negative way and watch them be upset.

What was this supposed to prove? The Positive action breeds positive response and vis versa? Because that's all it proved.

 

[payn]

Wait.

Play one edition and do something that's viewed in a positive way and they cheer.

Play another edition and do something that's viewed in a negative way and watch them be upset.

What was this supposed to prove? The Positive action breeds positive response and vis versa? Because that's all it proved.

I had to read that post twice to make sure I didn't miss something.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sigh. I’m tired of your bad faith nonsense. Tschüss.

Mod Note:

The proper way to disengage from someone does NOT include a Parthian shot. If you have a problem with a particular poster to the po8nt where you resort to such, perhaps you should put them on your ignore list.*





* without, might I add, biting your thumb at them by announcing it in thread.

 

[tetrasodium]

In 2e character creation step 6 is

Spoiler: this

Roll the appropriate hit die for your character. If the character is multi-classed, roll all applicable hit dice and average the results.
Warrior 1d10
Priest 1d8
Rogue 1d6
Mage 1d4

You do add/subtract hp for high & low constitution but it's +1/+2 at 15 & 15 and -1/-2 at 6 & 3 so will often be +0 with such a wide breakeven on that. With those rules it's just as likely to roll a 1 or 2 as average or max on the single hit die you are rolling. a GM allowing players to take the max on that hit die is choosing to avoid some problems & give everyone a leg up at the start to be excited about without really making anyone all that much more powerful.

When the rules are strict the GM can grant boons that feel awesome & say things like "hey guys, I need you to listen up, your character needs to fit into this narrative box within the world" or whatever. If a particular player is ignoring their efforts to describe it they can just deny or reduce that boon.

In 5e level 1hp are max for the hit die plus con mod with +1/-1 at 12 & 8 giving a very small span breakeven so it's often going to be max or max+1 if not better, If the GM requires everyone to roll that level 1 hit die they are almost certain to wind up with less hit points than the "default". Doing it at later levels results in a push for "can I take the average if I roll less" might sound ok at first but the result is to raise the average considerably because now there's a 50/50 chance that they will do better than average & zero chance of walking away with less than the average.

When the rules are structured in a way that leaves the GM with no option other than to nerf the default & take away power they are already fighting an uphill battle before they can even describe the narrative box. Worse "I'm nerfing you so I can give some of it back with conditions" is a thing that rarely goes over well. 5e says the simplicity is to empower GMs to make changes but rarely leaves room for any change but a nerf unless you are going for one punch man levels of PC power.

 

[pemerton]

I see nothing wrong with a sandbox style game, but concepts like too easy or hard make even less sense in that environment. As you say, it is what it is. If a high level party opts to raid kobold warrens more suited to a low level party, that's their choice. Arguably, it shouldn't matter what the encounter building guidelines look like (easy or hard) in this style of campaign because they're most likely going to be ignored anyway.

Gygax's DMG seems intended primarily to support "sandbox" RPGing. But it has quite detailed rules for building "balanced" dungeon levels, dungeon encounters, etc.

What seems to be the key to Gygax's approach is that the players (i) have the opportunity to gain knowledge about the GM's set-up without having to fully engage with it (eg by scouting, scrying, collecting rumours, etc; this depends on the GM playing their set-up with at least a reasonable degree of stasis), and then (ii) get to chance which bit of the set-up to fully engage with.

So when designing a set-up for players of low-level PCs, the GM should incudes parts of the set-up that make good targets for those characters, and make it reasonably possible for the players to learn about those parts of the set-up.

This doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with "combat as war" or "combat as sport", as it's largely about how scenes are framed rather than how conflicts are resolved. However, there may be a procedural connection in the following way: just as "combat as war" involves the players leveraging bits of fiction external to the PC build as such (I'm paraphrasing @UngainlyTitan here), so Gygaxian play involves the players leveraging bits of fiction external to the PC to help direct the framing of scenes.

It seems likely that some players like to play RPGs which combine both modes of players leveraging the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

It's my experience with almost 40 years of running and playing D&D. It's also my experience with nearly a decade of 5E. In my experience, 5E players don't want challenge. They want easy wins and pats on the back. Never mind they're almost guaranteed to win by default.

Maybe they're not setting out to play a wargame? Maybe they're involved in the RPG hobby for some other reason?