D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Ristamar]

I disagree. I think a DM should design challenges that allow for the player to make choices that increase or decrease the difficulty based on their choices. That is part of what makes a challenge satisfying because it gives those choices meaning. At the same time, difficulty is also part of what makes a challenge satisfying. If the players have found some scheme to reduce difficulty to unsatisfying levels, however, they have a hand in their own dissatisfaction. The DM can then set up encounters to counter these tactics specifically, but this often results in something of an arms race. A better solution, in my view, is for the players to be cognizant of the goals of play and to make choices accordingly. Sometimes that means making the most optimal choice. Sometimes it does not.

Again, I think self-policing as it relates to making suboptimal choices flies in the face of human nature, and that's assuming all the players and the DM can come to a consensus in defining what is reasonable and what is broken. Furthermore, the DM is walking a thin line if he is expecting or encouraging players to consistently moderate the difficulty of any given challenge. Complacency quickly sets in if the players believe everything will work out for the good of the story. There's no tension if the threat of failure is largely removed, and for a lot of D&D players, no tension equals no fun.

 

[kerbarian]

Am I remembering the total number of votes wrong or did quite a few votes disappear at some point?

I just noticed this, too. I decided to change my vote (adding +1 Str/Dex as a decent choice in addition to once per turn only). There were 143 voters, and then after I unvoted and revoted the total was down to 130. None of the votes that disappeared were ones that said "use the feats as-is" -- that number was 84 both before and after my revote (though its percentage jumped from 59% to 65% as the total voters decreased). I remember that percentage being below 50% a day or two ago.

I wonder if there's some bug with the voting system where unvoting removes more than just your own votes.

 

[iserith]

Again, I think self-policing as it relates to making suboptimal choices flies in the face of human nature

If we were talking about a board game or some kind of competitive game, then I'd agree with you. That's not what D&D is though. The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery and its "win" conditions are as follows: (1) everyone having a good time and (2) creating an exciting, memorable story. Further, players are encouraged by the Inspiration game mechanic to sometimes make sub-optimal choices related to traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws.

Furthermore, the DM is walking a thin line if he is expecting or encouraging players to consistently moderate the difficulty of any given challenge.

A well-designed challenge will allow for player choices to change the difficulty. The drive to reduce the difficulty to an unsatisfying level should in my view be balanced against achieving the "win" conditions I mentioned above.

Complacency quickly sets in if the players believe everything will work out for the good of the story. There's no tension if the threat of failure is largely removed, and for a lot of D&D players, no tension equals no fun.

The characters winning isn't always what's best for the story. I'm not advocating removing the threat of failure or the tension it brings to the game.

 

[Ristamar]

The characters winning isn't always what's best for the story. I'm not advocating removing the threat of failure or the tension it brings to the game.

I probably should have been clear about my definition of failure. I wasn't referring to the players simply not achieving a goal and subsequently moving on with the story. The failure I was referring to means the story comes to an abrupt end because of character death(s) or because the PCs fail to stop a catastrophic event.

If we were talking about a board game or some kind of competitive game, then I'd agree with you. That's not what D&D is though.

I believe this is the crux of our disagreement. I feel safe in saying that many people do treat D&D as a competitive game. Players versus the DM's challenges. Failure means the PCs die, the world ends, or some other horrible fate.

Personally, I don't make an effort to intentionally kill the players with said challenges, but I expect to push them to their limits while not pulling any punches or fudging dice rolls. Character permadeath or a TPK is always potentially on the table.

 

[iserith]

I probably should have been clear about my definition of failure. I wasn't referring to the players simply not achieving a goal and subsequently moving on with the story. The failure I was referring to means the story comes to an abrupt end because of character death(s) or because the PCs fail to stop a catastrophic event.

In either case, the story can continue with new characters, raised characters, or the same characters in the aftermath of the catastrophic event. Whether or not the story was an exciting, memorable one and whether everyone had a good time creating it is what matters, according to the goals of play. That's how you "win."

I believe this is the crux of our disagreement. I feel safe in saying that many people do treat D&D as a competitive game. Players versus the DM's challenges. Failure means the PCs die, the world ends, or some other horrible fate.

Those failures can happen and you can still achieve the goals of play. I've seen it where players purposefully sacrifice their characters because that's what would be best given the way the story is heading.

Personally, I don't make an effort to intentionally kill the players with said challenges, but I expect to push them to their limits while not pulling any punches or fudging dice rolls. Character permadeath or a TPK is always potentially on the table.

I don't fudge dice, but I do make choices that I feel are fun for everyone and will help create an exciting, memorable story. And so do my players. Sometimes that means they don't make the most optimal choice.

 

[DaveDash]

If we were talking about a board game or some kind of competitive game, then I'd agree with you. That's not what D&D is though. The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery and its "win" conditions are as follows: (1) everyone having a good time and (2) creating an exciting, memorable story. Further, players are encouraged by the Inspiration game mechanic to sometimes make sub-optimal choices related to traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws.



A well-designed challenge will allow for player choices to change the difficulty. The drive to reduce the difficulty to an unsatisfying level should in my view be balanced against achieving the "win" conditions I mentioned above.



The characters winning isn't always what's best for the story. I'm not advocating removing the threat of failure or the tension it brings to the game.

1. D&D combat in many cases *IS* a board game. It's a mini game within the roleplay game that many people treat as a tactical wargame, or an extension of a CRPG with "better" AI. D&D combat traces its roots back to a tactical war game. There is no denying this. You can play it where you do fancy opposed checks and creative things in combat, but that is not universal - many people play it like a RAW board game - we certainly do. I don't get any satisfaction when creativity wins combat - such as doing things outside the rules - to me all that stuff is cheesy. The combats I remember are those ran RAW where the dice rolls/odds and tactics create interesting outcomes, not player creativity.
2. Some players *are* competing against each other, many players *are* competing against the DM in combat. In combat, sometimes the DM is even competing with the players within a bounded consistent set of rules. Dismissing this is ignoring underlining human psychology. I get great satisfaction out of designing challenging encounters within the bounds given to me by the designers - the rules - anything else to me cheapens the experience.

 

[iserith]

1. D&D combat in many cases *IS* a board game. It's a mini game within the roleplay game that many people treat as a tactical wargame, or an extension of a CRPG with "better" AI. D&D combat traces its roots back to a tactical war game. There is no denying this. You can play it where you do fancy opposed checks and creative things in combat, but that is not universal - many people play it like a RAW board game - we certainly do.

I think D&D 5e is different from its predecessors in this regard and therefore less compatible with the way you choose to play. This article sums up a lot of my views, though I don't agree with some of the things it says.

2. Some players *are* competing against each other, many players *are* competing against the DM in combat. In combat, sometimes the DM is even competing with the players without a bounded consistent set of rules. Dismissing this is ignoring underlining human psychology.

And it's no wonder that those players and DMs are finding issues with game play.

 

[DaveDash]

And it's no wonder that those players and DMs are finding issues with game play.

Those players and DMs are finding great things in 5e except for two consistent sets of feats.

Riddle me this - Why bother with a playtest? Why bother with balance at all ? 5e is very well balanced across all levels without being so boring to ruin all point of difference like 4e. Why do you think this is?

If your line of thinking were true - that there are never design issues and they're all player issues - why bother with balance *at all*? Heck just throw things in there that are cool! Let Fighters cast Meteor Swarm out their eyeballs at will! Seems like it would create a great and memorable story!

 

[Minigiant]

There is nothing wrong with players competing with each other or the DM.

But you can't complain about unfair advantage if you willing took the weaker option which is described as weaker.

A bard player can't complain about a greaxe fight leaving him in the dust in damage.
A cleric of war can't say the rogue has too easy a good at sneaking.
A wizard cannot complain about the druid's access to healing and her unavailability to it.
A group cannot complain to a DM about the ease of a game after they tailored the party to buff and protect the damage fighter and destroy all level appropriate foes.

The players should imfom the DM of what they want.
The DM should also pick up on it as well.

If you go 10 levels of cheesing down opponents and no one is having fun, there is no one to blue but... yourselves.

 

[iserith]

Those players and DMs are finding great things in 5e except for two consistent sets of feats.

Riddle me this - Why bother with a playtest? Why bother with balance at all ? 5e is very well balanced across all levels without being so boring to ruin all point of difference like 4e. Why do you think this is?

If your line of thinking were true - that there are never design issues and they're all player issues - why bother with balance *at all*? Heck just throw things in there that are cool! Let Fighters cast Meteor Swarm out their eyeballs at will! Seems like it would create a great and memorable story!

Balance is important to the extent that it helps everyone playing share the spotlight more or less equally. This doesn't mean that everyone needs to do the same damage in a combat as there are two other pillars in the game. So it's okay if some classes do more damage than others because those other classes can have their time in the spotlight in other scenes - provided the opportunity for those scenes are provided by the DM and engaged by the players.