D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[Tony Vargas]

I think it goes beyond simplifying combat: I believe a single, invariant, non-stacking bonus encourages players to focus on the most interesting narrations they can come up with, rather than the ones that will confer the best statistical advantage.

I haven't noticed that - not in 4e, when Combat Advantage was a single, invariant (+2), non-stacking bonus, not in 5e with Advantage (not that either were entirely non-stacking, if you get a bonus from Bless, for instance, it 'stacks') - but then I haven't exactly been looking for it. IMX, players who are inclined to come up with interesting narrations do so regardless of system benefits or lack thereof. Those who are inclined to chase bonuses might try to come up with an 'interesting narration' if it'll earn them some additional bonus, of course, but often they just come up with an annoying narration (JMHO, but it's also why I'm not wildly enthusiastic about indy 'rewarding RP' mechanics).

Actually - and this just strengthens your point, in a way - Advantage isn't exactly invariant, the benefit it gives is on a sort of sliding scale, the closer your chances of success are to 50/50 the greater the impact, so if you do have some other bonuses, the advantage of Advantage is less advantageous. So if you are starting near 50/50 it minimizes the benefits of bonus-hunting (OTOH, if your chances are bad to start, scraping together some bonuses makes Advantage that much better). That's one thing I do like about Adv/Dis is that the extremes are self-limiting.

Once you've got Advantage you can't improve your odds any more, so there's no incentive to do things in a rote, cookie-cutter way that stacks the best bonuses. It frees up your narrative space.

By the same token, once you find a consistent way of getting advantage, you can do things in that rote, cookie-cutter, advantage-getting way, rather than exploring further narrative space that might have gotten you more or stacking bonuses in some hypothetical system.

That, I have seen (both with 4e CA & 5e Adv/Dis), though even then it's not as chilling as all that. Players will still end up getting CA on someone already granting CA or having Advantage three different ways, perhaps because it's bundled with something else, or there's just no reason not to, or one player's set-up overlapped with another's condition-infliction or buff.

 

[Imaculata]

You chopped off the rest of his post, where he goes on to claim that although you could swap the mechanics out the impact on roleplaying is different.

Why?

And I agree with his conclusion: because Advantage/Disadvantage is both fixed and non-stacking, I think it encourages colorful narrative rather than debate about realism and relative value, or attempts to find more modifiers to add. ("Wait...shouldn't I get +3 for swinging from the chandelier AND +1 for surprising him?")

So, because it is fixed and non-stacking, it encourage colorful narrative... because according to you if it WAS stacking, it would encourage debate about realism and relative value..., or attempts to find more modifiers to add?

It doesn't do this in my experience. Why would a stacking bonus not encourage colorful narrative? Why would the mechanical side of the game, interfere with the narrative side? Can you not provide a colorful narrative as context, AND also provide a +3 bonus at the same time?

Also, as previously noted, mechanically the result *is* different from stacking modifiers, in several ways: non-linearity, greater chance to crit, eliminates (or at least avoids) impossible/automatic successes, etc.

Okay, so the effect provides a broader bonus. The 3rd edition bonuses are merely a hard bonus to succeed, and the advantage/disadvantage system does even more... but is the end result different?

I think it goes beyond simplifying combat: I believe a single, invariant, non-stacking bonus encourages players to focus on the most interesting narrations they can come up with, rather than the ones that will confer the best statistical advantage.

I'm starting to understand where you're going wrong with your conclusion. You think that players change their narration to get the best statistical advantage. That is not how the game works. If my players want to achieve something, they'll take precautions, and do their best to succeed at the challenge. But they do not know what gives them a bonus, and what does not.

If for example my players want to climb down a steep rock face, then I will narrate to inform them if it is a dangerous climb or not. I'll convey important details that will obviously affect the DC, but they do not know what the DC is. If the climb seems easy enough, they'll just tie a rope and climb down. But if the climb seems hard, they might put some extra effort in, and hammer some pitons into the wall to secure themselves. And yet, they do not know what bonus this will give them. They are not after a bonus. Their goal is success, not statistics. And that goal has not changed between any of the editions of D&D.

Additionally, often my players provide a narration AFTER they have either succeeded or failed. Their narration provides context to the outcome, rather than what comes before the check. For example, a player might say that he jumps onto an enemy with his sword, -but he doesn't know if he has succeeded yet. It isn't until the check has been resolved, that I either tell him how he failed, or I give him the opportunity to narrate how he succeeds. The numbers are irrelevant, its all about the outcome.

 

[dave2008]

I'm starting to understand where you're going wrong with your conclusion. You think that players change their narration to get the best statistical advantage. That is not how the game works. If my players want to achieve something, they'll take precautions, and do their best to succeed at the challenge. But they do not know what gives them a bonus, and what does not.

If for example my players want to climb down a steep rock face, then I will narrate to inform them if it is a dangerous climb or not. I'll convey important details that will obviously affect the DC, but they do not know what the DC is. If the climb seems easy enough, they'll just tie a rope and climb down. But if the climb seems hard, they might put some extra effort in, and hammer some pitons into the wall to secure themselves. And yet, they do not know what bonus this will give them. They are not after a bonus. Their goal is success, not statistics. And that goal has not changed between any of the editions of D&D.

Additionally, often my players provide a narration AFTER they have either succeeded or failed. Their narration provides context to the outcome, rather than what comes before the check. For example, a player might say that he jumps onto an enemy with his sword, -but he doesn't know if he has succeeded yet. It isn't until the check has been resolved, that I either tell him how he failed, or I give him the opportunity to narrate how he succeeds. The numbers are irrelevant, its all about the outcome.

Just because his conclusion is different doesn't make it wrong. It may not be correct for you and your group, but it is equally valid. It is not a right or wrong issue. We all play the game differently, thus we will reach different conclusions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm starting to understand where you're going wrong with your conclusion.

The funny thing here is that I thought this sentence was going somewhere else. E.g., "I'm starting to understand your argument." Or something of that nature.

Anyway, I'm just coming from a place where I've seen too many players/rules lawyers arguing that they should get a +4 instead of a +2 because clearly this is a case of X not Y, and I like that a non-stacking bonus mitigates (doesn't prevent) that.

 

[Imaculata]

Anyway, I'm just coming from a place where I've seen too many players/rules lawyers arguing that they should get a +4 instead of a +2 because clearly this is a case of X not Y, and I like that a non-stacking bonus mitigates (doesn't prevent) that.

The only one who should decide if you get a bonus or penalty, is the DM.

Now, a player might ask a DM if he has taken *insert random favorable circumstance* into account. But why should this interfere with the narrative?

In my opinion, if you allow mechanics to dominate the game instead of storytelling, it is your own fault. It doesn't really matter if you're playing 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or heck even 4th edition, or 5th edition.

Just because his conclusion is different doesn't make it wrong. It may not be correct for you and your group, but it is equally valid. It is not a right or wrong issue. We all play the game differently, thus we will reach different conclusions.

And yet I totally disagree with that. If you dislike it when mechanics get in the way of telling a story, and yet allow mechanics to dominate the game, then obviously you are doing something wrong.

In a role playing game it doesn't really matter to the storytelling what the rules are. I could be playing a game of Dread (which is played entirely with a tower of Jenga blocks) and have the exact same narrative experience as a game of Call of Cthulhu. I could have just as much narrative fun in a game of 4th edition, as in a game of 5th edition. The rules do not make the narrative. And if you allow the rules to get in the way of the narrative, its not the fault of the rules. The fault is entirely your own.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The only one who should decide if you get a bonus or penalty, is the DM.

Now, a player might ask a DM if he has taken *insert random favorable circumstance* into account. But why should this interfere with the narrative?

In my opinion, if you allow mechanics to dominate the game instead of storytelling, it is your own fault. It doesn't really matter if you're playing 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or heck even 4th edition, or 5th edition.



And yet I totally disagree with that. If you dislike it when mechanics get in the way of telling a story, and yet allow mechanics to dominate the game, then obviously you are doing something wrong.

In a role playing game it doesn't really matter to the storytelling what the rules are. I could be playing a game of Dread (which is played entirely with a tower of Jenga blocks) and have the exact same narrative experience as a game of Call of Cthulhu. I could have just as much narrative fun in a game of 4th edition, as in a game of 5th edition. The rules do not make the narrative. And if you allow the rules to get in the way of the narrative, its not the fault of the rules. The fault is entirely your own.

Ahhh....now I see.

We are saying, "Such-and-such mechanics give players an incentive to behave a certain way."

And your rebuttal is, "Then you are bad DMs."

Got it. Thanks. Useful conversation.

EDIT:
"This car has understeer."
"Well then you are a bad driver because good drivers can compensate for that."
"..."

 

[5Shilling]

It didn't feel different enough. It felt like a watered down version of an edition I'm familiar with. With most of the flaws and illogical things still there.

To me it feels like having an edition A, with lots of stuff in it that works fine, and with tons of books... and then having edition B, which is almost an identical simplified version of A, but with less stuff, and far less books to choose from. I don't see the merit of picking B over A.
The number crunching of 3.5 never got in the way of role playing for me and my group, and most if not all of my players really enjoy it. And we have so many books to choose from, not to mention all the third party books, and all the Pathfinder books that are all 100% compatible.

If I was to seriously consider a new edition, it would need to be radically different. It would need to at least fix all those illogical things about D&D's combat simulation that have existed since the very beginning.

What one person sees as 'watered down' others may see as 'streamlined'. In fact I'm tempted to say that 3.5 has been watered down with far too many bad-choice options, single-case rules and so on and so forth. If I look at it this way, then 5E is the more 'pure'. Of course any 5E player can easily convert almost all those 3E books to their system, and vice versa.

Everyone could be correct at the same time. Everyone looks at these things through a different lens.

5E was deliberately designed to be 'the best parts of previous editions' so it is unsurprising that you find it similar to 3.5. If it's not for you then that is fine and good - but I love it, as do many others and that's not something you are going to argue anyone out of. I'm going to do you the courtesy of not attempting the same and say that yes, 3.5 is the best edition for you.

As to the original intent of the thread - I was a little disappointed with LMoP at first read, but I have grown fond of it after running it. It is not perfect, but it has charm. You're right in that it could use a bit more guidance for a new DM along the lines of what the area looks like - all I could really find with a quick flick-through was on page 4 "Amid a wilderness of jagged, snow-capped peaks, alpine forests..." For that reason I'd recommend a first time DM pick up the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide along with the Starter Set. (It could use more non-combat encounters, but that's something I find in 90% of official adventures. On the other hand any combat encounter can be a non-combat encounter if the PCs and DM want it to be).

 

[dave2008]

And yet I totally disagree with that. If you dislike it when mechanics get in the way of telling a story, and yet allow mechanics to dominate the game, then obviously you are doing something wrong.

In a role playing game it doesn't really matter to the storytelling what the rules are. I could be playing a game of Dread (which is played entirely with a tower of Jenga blocks) and have the exact same narrative experience as a game of Call of Cthulhu. I could have just as much narrative fun in a game of 4th edition, as in a game of 5th edition. The rules do not make the narrative. And if you allow the rules to get in the way of the narrative, its not the fault of the rules. The fault is entirely your own.

You can't understand that some people play the game differently and/or have different dynamics at their table and thus have different perspectives on the rules? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In my opinion, if you allow mechanics to dominate the game instead of storytelling, it is your own fault. It doesn't really matter if you're playing 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or heck even 4th edition, or 5th edition.

The degree of challenge you'd likely (not certainly, but likely, based on the way people talked about and, IMPX, played those different editions) face in each case might be different, though. In 1e, the DM's word was law, and each DM more like as not had his own collection of variants that he used and kept a lot behind the screen - rules lawyering did happen, as experienced players tried to leverage their hard-won 'skill,' but it was rules lawyering with the DM very much sitting at the Judge's bench, with the final say. In 3e, combat and most skills had spelled-out modifiers that players would likely be very much aware of. The DM had the desultory admission of Rule 0 and the generic +2 modifier to fall back on, and not a whole lot else. There was this zeal at the time, this conceit that there was a definite RAW that you could get at by close parsing of the sacred core texts, that anything else was apocryphal RAI or a blasphemous 'house rule.' In 5e, the DM is back to having the final say, but, also, up-front, especially when it comes to checks, the first, definitive say of what happens - the DM calls for a roll, or not, as he sees fit.

In a role playing game it doesn't really matter to the storytelling what the rules are. I could be playing a game of Dread (which is played entirely with a tower of Jenga blocks) and have the exact same narrative experience as a game of Call of Cthulhu. I could have just as much narrative fun in a game of 4th edition, as in a game of 5th edition. The rules do not make the narrative. And if you allow the rules to get in the way of the narrative, its not the fault of the rules. The fault is entirely your own.

Sure, you could look at it that way. It doesn't mean that there's no differences among rules. But none outright force or prevent RP or Storytelling or whatever. Some might give the player vs the DM more of a springboard to spark RP or move a story along, but they should never be an outright impediment.

5E was deliberately designed to be 'the best parts of previous editions' so it is unsurprising that you find it similar to 3.5.

Heh, cute how you implied "3.5 Is Best Edition," there. (Or maybe you meant to imply that's what Imaculata was getting at?)
5e was also designed to evoke the feel of the classic game, so it's unsurprising that many of us find it similar to AD&D, as well.

 

[Imaculata]

Ahhh....now I see.

We are saying, "Such-and-such mechanics give players an incentive to behave a certain way."

And your rebuttal is, "Then you are bad DMs."

Or bad players.

"This car has understeer."
"Well then you are a bad driver because good drivers can compensate for that."
"..."

Not exactly the same thing. The rules in D&D are mostly there to resolve areas of uncertainty, where DM bias is not welcome. For things like combat and skill checks, it helps to have established rules, but you don't really need them. As a game like Dread shows, you can resolve any and all combat encounters simply through narration and pulling a Jenga block. Rules do not get in the way of telling a story, unless YOU let them.

So this isn't a case of a wonky car. It doesn't matter how complex or simple the rules are, when it comes to telling a good story. You could tell a great story with no rules what so ever, or a great story with very deep and complex rules.

Discussions and disagreements about DM adjudication are separate from storytelling.

You can't understand that some people play the game differently and/or have different dynamics at their table and thus have different perspectives on the rules? I find that hard to believe.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying, is that rules are (and should be) irrelevant when it comes to the narrative.

What one person sees as 'watered down' others may see as 'streamlined'.

Of course, I absolutely agree. My opinion that it 'feels' watered down, comes purely from my experience playing a system that has deeper and more complex rules. If you strip that away, then yes it becomes more simple and streamlined... but you also lose some stuff in the process.

In fact I'm tempted to say that 3.5 has been watered down with far too many bad-choice options, single-case rules and so on and so forth. If I look at it this way, then 5E is the more 'pure'. Of course any 5E player can easily convert almost all those 3E books to their system, and vice versa.

I went back to playing a bit of 2nd edition again about a year ago, and I immediately noticed what a bother it was to not have clear grapple rules. It didn't get in the way of telling a good story, but mechanically it felt like something was missing. In fact, some rules seemed outright nonsensical. But we still had a very exciting campaign, regardless of rules.

5E was deliberately designed to be 'the best parts of previous editions' so it is unsurprising that you find it similar to 3.5. If it's not for you then that is fine and good - but I love it, as do many others and that's not something you are going to argue anyone out of. I'm going to do you the courtesy of not attempting the same and say that yes, 3.5 is the best edition for you.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not saying I hate 5th edition. I had a lot of fun with it. But there's a difference between having fun, and having so much fun that I want to switch to that edition now. I did not get that from 5th edition. When I switched from 2nd to 3rd edition, that was a big deal. It felt totally different, and far more logical. I was hoping for a bigger difference in 5th edition. I suppose for many players the similarities make it easy to get into. I felt the same way. But I wasn't looking for a similar set of rules. I was hoping for something objectively better.

(It could use more non-combat encounters, but that's something I find in 90% of official adventures. On the other hand any combat encounter can be a non-combat encounter if the PCs and DM want it to be).

I think it would be a great help to new DM's to have more examples of none-combat encounters in these sorts of modules. I think it is bad to get new DM's into the mindset that every encounter must be some random combat encounter. That gets tiresome quick, and doesn't make for very compelling storytelling.