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

[Tony Vargas]

Discussions and disagreements about DM adjudication are separate from storytelling.

Seems to me that DM adjudication could be used as a powerful tool to aid storytelling.
(I can also see the philosophical point of wanting such adjudication to be impartial, of course.)

 

[Imaculata]

Seems to me that DM adjudication could be used as a powerful tool to aid storytelling.
(I can also see the philosophical point of wanting such adjudication to be impartial, of course.)

What I mean is, whether you have very detailed rules that make the DM adjudication more narrow, or very open rules that leave DM adjudication very open as well, none of that should affect the actual storytelling. Because when a DM says you can or cannot do something, that always overrides the rules.

If I say I want to jump on the back of the dragon, it doesn't matter if there ARE rules for that (although that makes it easier to agree on how to adjudicate the action), or if there are NO rules for that (in which case the DM just makes up a check). What matters is the story. And I don't see how or why any rules on this matter would get in the way of telling a story.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think part of the divide here is that nobody is saying storytelling is impossible, or even hard, just that streamlined mechanics can help de-emphasize the dice-rolling part of the game.

Sure, with a great DM and great players you can use any system (or no system) and tell a great story. But in the real world no DM is perfect, in fact some of us could be much, much better, and players come in every imaginable flavor.

Going back to my car analogy (which I think is apropos): sure, you can work around understeer. But all things being equal wouldn't you rather not have to?

So I'll turn the question around and ask you: what exactly does a more complex system of bonuses, in which there are a variety of bonuses that can stack, get you that's actually better than the Advantage/Disadvantage system?

 

[dave2008]

I was hoping for something objectively better.

Probably subjectively better right? What is better (and the degree to which it is better) is pretty subjective and dependent on game style and preferences.

 

[dave2008]

... 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.

....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.

It seems, by emphasizing storytelling, you are shifting the goal posts a bit. The original issue was about whether or not significant changes where made (to warrant the change from 3.5e to 5e). Not whether or not they had a significant effect on storytelling.

It is an odd shift in discussion as you are now saying rules don't matter to story telling, and if that is the case - why would that be different in 5e?

Heck, some people play D&D with little to no storytelling (or what I would call storytelling).

Finally, to be clear I don't disagree with your premise (that is not different enough to change) I feel the same way about the 4e-5e transition. We have made the transition, but it is not really different enough for me. After the sacred cow slaughter of 4e I was ready for more cows to go down in 5e (but I knew that wasn't going to happen). That being said I really like 5e, pretty just as much as 4e and a lot more than 1e.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the issue might be that you are comparing 3e and 5e as if they are trying to be/do the same game/thing, when in fact they aren't.

They both are placed on a similar d20 chassis with similar lore, but they diverge (if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation at all).

3.5e is a game that has a strong element of crunchy numbers and zillions of options. That's a 3.5e feature.

5e is a game that intentionally simplifies crunchy options, numbers and choices, with a shift to on the spot, no rules (nor precedent) DM adjudication. That is a 5e feature.

They are doing two very different specific things, and presenting those as features of the system. Since those two things are at least partly mutually exclusive, it only stands to reason that you are more likely to prefer the game that has the feature you like more.

What would be incorrect would be to say that one of them is a better or worse version of the other, because they aren't trying to do the same things.

 

[Imaculata]

So I'll turn the question around and ask you: what exactly does a more complex system of bonuses, in which there are a variety of bonuses that can stack, get you that's actually better than the Advantage/Disadvantage system?

I am not of the opinion that it is better, nor am I of the opinion that it is worse.

Probably subjectively better right? What is better (and the degree to which it is better) is pretty subjective and dependent on game style and preferences.

Of course it is subjective per person. But what I meant that it was an objective step forward. As in, an improvement that everyone can agree on.

Take the reverse armor class system for example, from 2nd edition. I think everyone can agree that there is no need for it to be in reverse, right? So when we switched from 2nd to 3rd, pretty much everyone in my group agreed that this was a clear improvement. Just like getting rid of the thac0 system felt like a clear improvement. Sure, you could still consider it a subjective opinion. But there's something objectively more logical about the later systems.

It seems, by emphasizing storytelling, you are shifting the goal posts a bit. The original issue was about whether or not significant changes where made (to warrant the change from 3.5e to 5e). Not whether or not they had a significant effect on storytelling.

I am not the one who shifted those goal posts. My original point was that the advantage/disadvantage system did not feel any different from 3rd edition's bonus system. Someone else then remarked that the stacking bonuses of 3rd edition got in the way of the narrative, which I strongly disagree with. I think if you're going to discuss a topic, you shouldn't let the arguments of the other party slide. Discussions evolve.

It is an odd shift in discussion as you are now saying rules don't matter to story telling, and if that is the case - why would that be different in 5e?

It is not an odd shift. If you've been following the discussion, it is a natural progression of the argument. And no, it wouldn't be different in 5th edition either. I never made such a claim.

Heck, some people play D&D with little to no storytelling (or what I would call storytelling).

Some people play it as a none stop combat simulator. But, that was not what I was addressing. (although I do have a strong dislike for the combat driven focus of many of these sorts of campaign modules.)

I think the issue might be that you are comparing 3e and 5e as if they are trying to be/do the same game/thing, when in fact they aren't.

They both are placed on a similar d20 chassis with similar lore, but they diverge (if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation at all).

3.5e is a game that has a strong element of crunchy numbers and zillions of options. That's a 3.5e feature.

5e is a game that intentionally simplifies crunchy options, numbers and choices, with a shift to on the spot, no rules (nor precedent) DM adjudication. That is a 5e feature.

They are doing two very different specific things, and presenting those as features of the system.

I disagree with that last sentence. I don't think they are doing two very different specific things. Yes, the focus of 5th edition seems to be simplicity and accessibility. But when you look at the actual rules, I don't notice a big difference. It feels too much the same. I don't criticize 5th edition for not having all the number crunching of 3rd edition. I criticize it for being too similar to 3rd edition, and not fixing the flaws in D&D that have been there since day 1. If you're going to release an edition that feels almost identical to previous editions, but with less in it, then that is not an improvement in my opinion. I still would recommend it for new players, simply for the fact that it is easier to get into. But for a seasoned player, I really wish they would have taken it further. It really feels like they were afraid to stray too far from previous editions, and that's a missed opportunity in my book.

And no doubt someone will bring up 4th edition. I know that didn't work out too well. But the last thing I would criticize 4th edition for, is for trying something new. At least they tried.

 

[S'mon]

One of the first questions that puzzled our DM, was one that I asked at the start of the campaign: "What sort of climate are we in? And what do our surroundings look like?"

Upon reading the module myself, it seems they completely neglect to make any mention of that.

Yes, that is a classic WoTC fail, and one reason I rarely buy their adventures. They rarely pay any attention to the question "Where are we? What is this environment like?"

The other big fails are (1) Messy, hard to use presentation - seems to have started with 4e and
continued and (2) Certainly in LMoP, complete failure to detail the personalities of the major NPCs, notably the inhabitants of Phandalin who the PCs should be seeing a lot of. Maps of the inns etc would have
been nice too given that this is intended as a long term base. All the stuff Gygax & co were doing
in 1980 in 32 page adventures like Against the Cult of the Reptile God.

 

[Imaculata]

The other big fails are (1) Messy, hard to use presentation - seems to have started with 4e and
continued and (2) Certainly in LMoP, complete failure to detail the personalities of the major NPCs, notably the inhabitants of Phandalin who the PCs should be seeing a lot of. Maps of the inns etc would have
been nice too given that this is intended as a long term base. All the stuff Gygax & co were doing
in 1980 in 32 page adventures like Against the Cult of the Reptile God.

Good points. I think these sorts of campaign modules should be written in a way so that they are a good teaching tool for both players and DM's alike. So yes, it should most definitely include a simple map of inns and other side locations that the players might or might not visit.

And while we're at it, they should also include a list of random npc names for the DM to use, whenever he needs to quickly come up with a new character. These campaign modules never seem to encourage DM's to have some fun with the campaign. In fact, it literally tells the DM to follow it by the numbers, and I think that's wrong. I think they should give the DM a bit of a sandbox to play around with, with some freedom, and yet enough tools to run the story.

While we were playing, I noticed that our novice DM was very anxious that we might stray off the beaten path. I can't blame him, because the module gives you literally nothing to work with in case that happens. I think they could easily include more material to flesh out the surrounding area, so a DM does not need to panic.

As for the personalities of major NPC's, yes that would help a lot. The players may want to talk to them, and ask them questions. It would really help a DM to know a little bit more about these characters other than their appearance. "Dwarf" is not a personality. "Dwarf merchant" is also not a personality. What kind of guy is this npc we're talking to?

 

[iserith]

I won't pay for an adventure that has the map of an inn or tavern in it. There are thousands of them on the internet. I think it's an awful waste of space in a published adventure. I prefer having maps of where the heroic adventure can be found and typically it's not in the inn.