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

[Oofta]

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.

I've had near TPKs at every level and, no, I don't use any house rules to make things more difficult. I don't have to hack the game to change the difficulty, the DM has infinite dragons. The only optional rule I use is the alternate rest rules, but that's as much for pacing as anything. Not that I need infinite dragons, 3 frost worms (CR 17) against a 19th level party almost did a couple PCs in because I took advantage of their abilities.

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.

As far as a subsystem for intrigue and politics I guess I never wanted one because when you do that it just becomes a mini game. It feels less immersive to me and too predictable if I have "influence points" if it's player facing. If it's not player facing all I have to do as a DM is think about the individuals or organizations involved and how they'd likely react. If I felt I needed such a system, 3PP is right there to fill in the gaps.

It's fine if you want a system that gamifies aspects that D&D doesn't, it doesn't mean I feel like I'm missing anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

This is exactly the opposite of my experience. As a player (I would never run 5e), I have found it exceedingly deadly in the first three levels, and quite deadly at 4-6. As in, no party I've played in has not lost at least one character, at a time that surprised the DM. (Well, other than the one that we never actually got to a combat in. But I don't think that counts.)

5e is, in my experience, very surprisingly deadly, but rarely reliably so. It kills off people quite randomly, but then when you try to make stuff dangerous but not super deadly, it just doesn't deliver.

Now, I admit, I didn't play 2e except through video games. But compared to WotC editions? No, 5e is quite able to catch DMs by surprise with deaths or TPKs. It caught the designers by surprise with a TPK at least once, in something that was definitely not supposed to produce a TPK.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I've had near TPKs at every level and, no, I don't use any house rules to make things more difficult. I don't have to hack the game to change the difficulty, the DM has infinite dragons. The only optional rule I use is the alternate rest rules, but that's as much for pacing as anything. Not that I need infinite dragons, 3 frost worms (CR 17) against a 19th level party almost did a couple PCs in because I took advantage of their abilities.



As far as a subsystem for intrigue and politics I guess I never wanted one because when you do that it just becomes a mini game. It feels less immersive to me and too predictable if I have "influence points" if it's player facing. If it's not player facing all I have to do as a DM is think about the individuals or organizations involved and how they'd likely react. If I felt I needed such a system, 3PP is right there to fill in the gaps.

It's fine if you want a system that gamifies aspects that D&D doesn't, it doesn't mean I feel like I'm missing anything.

Was never my experience, my PCs were annihilating creatures 10 CR above their level to the extent that we were tripling HP pools, we must have very different tables.

But none of that was really my point, my point was 5e failing to do something isn't actually a commentary on whether or not it should have narrower goals.

 

[Imaro]

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

I don't really understand this... I'm not creating these rules just applying them as I would with any other game... what is the big cognitive load?

 

[Oofta]

Was never my experience, my PCs were annihilating creatures 10 CR above their level to the extent that we were tripling HP pools, we must have very different tables.

But none of that was really my point, my point was 5e failing to do something isn't actually a commentary on whether or not it should have narrower goals.

Well, then I disagree it should have narrower goals. I like the flexibility to have different experiences from one session to the next.

As far as threats, I would put some blame on the DM. But I can't say much without details.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I don't really understand this... I'm not creating these rules just applying them as I would with any other game... what is the big cognitive load?

Its cool that its working for you! We must have very different tables, mine doesn't have the same apathy for crafting and downtime that you expressed in your earlier post, and my players push the encounters much harder than Oofta's seem to based on their description of near-TPKs, and we weren't super comfortable foregoing magic items to the extent that the system seems to want us to, which contributed to the balance issues. Overall, we found the system to be overly brittle, with others insisting our expectations needed to be checked.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, then I disagree it should have narrower goals. I like the flexibility to have different experiences from one session to the next.

As far as threats, I would put some blame on the DM. But I can't say much without details.

I agree with your point of view on narrower goals, the only distinction between us is that I don't think 5e executes well on its breadth as well as other systems I've played (including say, previous editions of the same game) I was chiming in to back up the idea that the game's breadth isn't the problem.

 

[Imaro]

Its cool that its working for you! We must have very different tables, mine doesn't have the same apathy for crafting and downtime that you expressed in your earlier post, and my players push the encounters much harder than Oofta's seem to based on their description of near-TPKs, and we weren't super comfortable foregoing magic items to the extent that the system seems to want us to, which contributed to the balance issues. Overall, we found the system to be overly brittle, with others insisting our expectations needed to be checked.

It's not apathy... it's recognizing it's not the main focus of the game, we want simple, relatively quick guidelines that are functional with rules that can be broadly applied. I'd be curious to hear a game whose crafting system you and your players enjoy. Also what game's combat do you enjoy?

As for your expectations... well they are your expectations so I think you have ever4y right to them... but when we get to talking about whether something does a thing "well" enough that's when expectations come into it. If you're expecting a crunchy detailed system... well no that's not 5e, however I'd argue that's preference not whether something is done well or not.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Again I don't think many if anyone argues 5e is THE BEST at doing other types of fantasy

You've missed a number of posts and threads, then.

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.

I don't think anyone's saying that.

But no one should be getting upset when it's pointed out that Call of Cthulhu is better at playing out a Lovecraftian adventure than 5E, even if "well, I had a Deep One in my 5E game, and it went fine," which OK, sure.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

By default D&D isn't particularly deadly, but I've killed off PCs at every level.

OK.