D&D 5E Does/Should D&D Have the Player's Game Experience as a goal?

[AnotherGuy]

I'd be curious to hear what those asking for a more explicitly stated game experience from 5e believe that experience to be? And to be fully transparent I find it interesting that those who dislike 5e or don't play it much are often vocal about what it can't do but I don't often see them stating what it does well... on the other hand those who play it extensively seem to state that it can do many things at a satisfactory (not the best) level for their needs...

I can only speak for myself and then only as a DM, although I know at least 2 of my players feels this way...
D&D doesn't bring to the table what I enjoy from fantasy in the various forms of media.

There are definitely quick fixes for the endless cantrips, bloated hit points, super-healing, perfect magic casting, limited conditions, alignment issues, no risk/cost for magic, standard proficiency increase in all things across the board, bounded accuracy breakdown, high magic, broken feats, pointless odd numbered ability scores, dexterity superiority over strength, no tactics in weapons, monster manual = new PHB, d20 being swingy allowing proficient to surpass those proficient, the debate about material components for spells, bulk carrying, broken classes, spells granting auto successes, realism taking a backseat, world building with magic, weapon proficiency being a joke...etc

What it does exceptionally well - you can create a PC super quick and it is an easy engine to modify.

 

[Imaro]

I can only speak for myself and then only as a DM, although I know at least 2 of my players feels this way...
D&D doesn't bring to the table what I enjoy from fantasy in the various forms of media.

There are definitely quick fixes for the endless cantrips, bloated hit points, super-healing, perfect magic casting, limited conditions, alignment issues, no risk/cost for magic, standard proficiency increase in all things across the board, bounded accuracy breakdown, high magic, broken feats, pointless odd numbered ability scores, dexterity superiority over strength, no tactics in weapons, monster manual = new PHB, d20 being swingy allowing proficient to surpass those proficient, the debate about material components for spells, bulk carrying, broken classes, spells granting auto successes, realism taking a backseat, world building with magic, weapon proficiency being a joke...etc

What it does exceptionally well - you can create a PC super quick and it is an easy engine to modify.

What exactly do you enjoy about fantasy media and what game allows you to enjoy it?

 

[Imaro]

It's less good at delivering experiences that deviate from that, requiring a lot of special rules for a given campaign, and sometimes even those aren't enough (as witnessed in many threads here over the years).

Again I don't think many if anyone argues 5e is THE BEST at doing other types of fantasy but it seems like a weird discussion if I claim I am doing gothic dark fantasy with D&D to the satisfaction of me and my group and posters rush in to tell me I'm not or it's not good enough.

 

[Oofta]

I thought I made it pretty clear: 5E is great at low-lethality heroic fantasy where the heroes grow over time to become truly titanic heroes. With the low real risk of permanent death, players can reasonably expect to play a single character over the span of a campaign, allowing them to invest in their growth, both mechanically and as people.

It's less good at delivering experiences that deviate from that, requiring a lot of special rules for a given campaign, and sometimes even those aren't enough (as witnessed in many threads here over the years).

By default D&D isn't particularly deadly, but I've killed off PCs at every level. Double tap, carry them off, swallow, there are a lot of options. I don't run a deadly campaign because I, and my players, wouldn't find that as fun. It's not as accidentally deadly as old editions.

 

[Oofta]

Again I don't think many if anyone argues 5e is THE BEST at doing other types of fantasy but it seems like a weird discussion if I claim I am doing gothic dark fantasy with D&D to the satisfaction of me and my group and posters rush in to tell me I'm not or it's not good enough.

Yeah, this idea that other games can somehow instill a sense of horror in players when they are never personally in danger more than D&D can is odd to me. Most of it is just description and scene setting but if I want my players to think their PC is going to be permanently disfigured or driven insane in D&D as an example, there's nothing stopping it. It's easy enough to borrow ideas from other media and games.

I usually end this with saying that other games can do it better, but ... I don't know. I think the attitude of the players, the expectation of what is coming has as much to do with it as anything. If I watch a movie expecting it to be terrifying my response to anything that happens is going to be different if I go into it with an analytical or unserious attitude. We're talking games here after all.

Just because default D&D doesn't do some things doesn't mean they can't be done with a handful of optional rules from the book or homebrew. Even just application of existing rules, using things like hallow or private sanctum to stop teleport or prevent other abilities can be an asset, have creatures that use hit-and-run tactics, set up the environment to limit PC options.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed out of hand because "of course other games are better". Which, if other games fit your expectations fantastic! I simply get tired of being told that things I've done in the past can't be done.

 

[Imaro]

By default D&D isn't particularly deadly, but I've killed off PCs at every level. Double tap, carry them off, swallow, there are a lot of options. I don't run a deadly campaign because I, and my players, wouldn't find that as fun. It's not as accidentally deadly as old editions.

Emphasis mine... I agree. What I've found with 5e is that they have put character death firmly in the DM's hands and he has to pull the trigger if he wants it to factor heavily in his campaign. When a PC goes down it is scarily easy to kill them but it has to be a deliberate effort as opposed to hoping the death saves will do it so you can avoid fault.

 

[Oofta]

Emphasis mine... I agree. What I've found with 5e is that they have put character death firmly in the DM's hands and he has to pull the trigger if he wants it to factor heavily in his campaign. When a PC goes down it is scarily easy to kill them but it has to be a deliberate effort as opposed to hoping the death saves will do it so you can avoid fault.

The other aspect that people will talk about is that it's too easy to bring people back. It's always been easy to bring people back, spells like revivify are just a shortcut. Instead of Bob sitting the game out for a few hours until the party can get back to town, now the cleric can get Bob back in the game quickly. It's also simple to ban the spell, just say that the diamonds aren't available, or the body isn't accessible because the frost worm (variant of a purple worm) ate the PC and has since tunneled off which is how I almost took out 2 19th level PCs a while back.

I get that some people prefer other games. Cool, hope you find a game you like. What I don't understand why people feel compelled to go onto a D&D forum only to tell people how terrible the game is and that they don't play any more.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yeah, this idea that other games can somehow instill a sense of horror in players when they are never personally in danger more than D&D can is odd to me. Most of it is just description and scene setting but if I want my players to think their PC is going to be permanently disfigured or driven insane in D&D as an example, there's nothing stopping it. It's easy enough to borrow ideas from other media and games.

I usually end this with saying that other games can do it better, but ... I don't know. I think the attitude of the players, the expectation of what is coming has as much to do with it as anything. If I watch a movie expecting it to be terrifying my response to anything that happens is going to be different if I go into it with an analytical or unserious attitude. We're talking games here after all.

Just because default D&D doesn't do some things doesn't mean they can't be done with a handful of optional rules from the book or homebrew. Even just application of existing rules, using things like hallow or private sanctum to stop teleport or prevent other abilities can be an asset, have creatures that use hit-and-run tactics, set up the environment to limit PC options.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed out of hand because "of course other games are better". Which, if other games fit your expectations fantastic! I simply get tired of being told that things I've done in the past can't be done.

Admittedly, one piece of input reading this thread I want to give, is that 5e's failures of execution aren't failures of structure or taxonomy.

So for instance, 5e might have trouble making player characters feel like they're in danger, not because it needs to be a narrower system, but because the encounter building rules can't build 'actually difficult' encounters for reasonably optimized PCs, which was either a decision or a mistake the designers made somewhere along the way.

When a GM hacks 5e and makes these things work, they're demonstrating that a version of 5e that had those rules in the book, or that had been designed a bit differently up front would have been able to handle that fine without becoming a more focused game. This can apply to all sorts of things, 5e isn't good for crafting and downtime? Well it sure would have been if they'd set it up to be, 5e isn't good at intrigue and politics? Well, it sure would be if we had a good subsystem for tracking it pre-installed.

 

[Imaro]

Admittedly, one piece of input reading this thread I want to give, is that 5e's failures of execution aren't failures of structure or taxonomy.

So for instance, 5e might have trouble making player characters feel like they're in danger, not because it needs to be a narrower system, but because the encounter building rules can't build 'actually difficult' encounters for reasonably optimized PCs, which was either a decision or a mistake the designers made somewhere along the way.

When a GM hacks 5e and makes these things work, they're demonstrating that a version of 5e that had those rules in the book, or that had been designed a bit differently up front would have been able to handle that fine without becoming a more focused game. This can apply to all sorts of things, 5e isn't good for crafting and downtime? Well it sure would have been if they'd set it up to be, 5e isn't good at intrigue and politics? Well, it sure would be if we had a good subsystem for tracking it pre-installed.

And what we are saying is that 5e can make players feel like they are in danger with no rules changes if you play the monsters to kill characters... it's a DM choice. Or that using Tasha's rules for crafting and downtime are quite sufficient for a segment of the audience who may want those rules for say one or two players who are interested but aren't trying to play Craft and Downtime the rpg. For intrigue and politics the social rules in the DMG (which the ones claiming social interaction in 5e is a single roll apparently have never seen) along with ideals, flaws and bonds are surprisingly robust when applied without being overly complex... which I think is 5e's strengths. It gives you enough without forcing the game to focus on a particular thing or making it too complex.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

And what we are saying is that 5e can make players feel like they are in danger with no rules changes if you play the monsters to kill characters... it's a DM choice. Or that using Tasha's rules for crafting and downtime are quite sufficient for a segment of the audience who may want those rules for say one or two players who are interested but aren't trying to play Craft and Downtime the rpg. For intrigue and politics the social rules in the DMG (which the ones claiming social interaction in 5e is a single roll apparently have never seen) along with ideals, flaws and bonds are surprisingly robust when applied without being overly complex... which I think is 5e's strengths. It gives you enough without forcing the game to focus on a particular thing or making it too complex.

Sure, getting there was always a pretty big cognitive load, but it is objectively true that it can be made to happen.