D&D 5E Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[Zsong]

I think the key missing piece of the puzzle here is that in the past 20 years or so (with the first published games in the movement being 2003's Fate and My Life with Master) there has been a lot of development into (a) what a GM is and (b) the interaction between the players, the GM, and how the ruleset mediates this in terms of what they bring out of everything at the table. The rules aren't there to be a physics model - they are there to train the GM to run this game well and the players to play this game well. And this means that although I run RC D&D, GURPS, and the Storyteller system fairly similarly (because I'm the same DM and the rules do roughly the same thing) but I run Apocalypse World in a very different way because I'm following D. Vincent Baker's guidelines for running that game, which are much much more like GMing a freeform game than DMing D&D.

There are definite precursors to these games (for example The Great Pendragon Campaign fits the original technical definition of a Storygame - and the oD&D XP for GP rule was brilliant at incentivising an intended playstyle) but the rules in most of them are there for the DMs to show them how to DM that game as well as for the players.

These rules are, for me, freeing for the game I want to play. I can do things as the result of the PCs actions in Apocalypse World that would make me an absolute naughty word in D&D. But I can do that in part because I'm a lot more bound; the PCs created much more of the world, and I never get to pick up a dice or even give a modifier. On the flipside they know if they fail a roll I get to cackle evilly and do something far worse than a failed roll would be normally. It's not for everyone - but that is why there are other games.

So I absolutely want rules even for the GM. They make the game more interesting and me more versatile. "Rulings, not rules" to me absolutely cuts off all these games that shape the GM.

And I've (as I've said in other threads) played with multiple groups and seen far far GM entitlement than I have seen player entitlement - and it's far more toxic to the game. I've yet to see the game where the players have the sense of superiority over the DM - but I've seen DMs effectively lobotomise PCs through house rules that nerfed things that were part of the character's fundamental design and pull stunts with rulings that meant that the PCs lost track of how the world was meant to work and were unable to engage with it effectively. And DMs who had their pet NPCs do everything while we just trailed round after them.

The problem is you can’t have a rule for every situation. The book would be like our legal code.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem is you can’t have a rule for every situation. The book would be like our legal code.

You can't have a separate rule for every situation. A rule "don't sweat the small stuff" covers a lot of situations and a "DM's best friend" style +2 or advantage covers a lot more. As does a set of attributes and just rolling against them.

If you're trying to have a separate rule for each situation IMO you're doing it wrong - and your game would be far better as a computer game. But I'm trying to think of anything I've seen tried in either Fate or Apocalypse World that didn't fit the rules.

 

[R_J_K75]

Comes down to...as quick as your group is...

 

[Zsong]

You can't have a separate rule for every situation. A rule "don't sweat the small stuff" covers a lot of situations and a "DM's best friend" style +2 or advantage covers a lot more. As does a set of attributes and just rolling against them.

If you're trying to have a separate rule for each situation IMO you're doing it wrong - and your game would be far better as a computer game. But I'm trying to think of anything I've seen tried in either Fate or Apocalypse World that didn't fit the rules.

What you are describing to me is DM fiat and intervention that I like. So think I agree with you.

 

[Oofta]

Funny how some people complain that D&D 5E isn't modular enough. Then other people complain it has too many options.

Almost like there is no way to please everyone and there's no such thing as a perfect game.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't believe that having options and being modular are always the same thing.

In a hypothetical game with options A, B, and C; three options exist.
At the same time, if adding option A means that C ceases to work properly, I'm not sure I'd say the game is modular.

I think D&D 5E does a lot of things very well. However, I also believe that there are times when there's a disconnect between designers and players when it comes to where the focus of modularity and/or options should be.

Back when I was playing 3rd Edition, I'm sure someone out there was happy with the 403rd variety of elf created for the game, but I would have rather had more support for other areas of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What you are describing to me is DM fiat and intervention that I like. So think I agree with you.

Is it DM fiat when the rules say "Here's when you should make a hard move and here's a list of suggestions for consequences of a hard move"? Or is it following the rules?

(Edit for clarity: this is a genuinely open question; I consider the answer is no it's not because the MC is following the rules but there is an argument that yes, that suggested move list is open enough that the MC can do just about anything most DMs would and probably more)

 

[tetrasodium]

What you are describing to me is DM fiat and intervention that I like. So think I agree with you.

Not really, this is the phb306 definition for a circumatance bonus in 3.5. There were details for the gm on bonuses on

Spoiler: dmg21

The +2/-2 was a second structural component on top of bonus types in 3.5 & seen in so many places that spelled out or not* almost every group seemed to settle on it.
*I'm not going to carefully comb through the 3.5 phb/dmg to check

 

[Panjumanju]

1) Do you feel D&D combat is slow (or "drags")?

Yes. Unquestionably. I don't know how anyone could reasonably say otherwise. Relative to other systems I struggle to think of anything slower.

2) If yes, how do you address this in 5E?

Play a different system. I'm sorry, but there it is. If you want 6 hour combats, and many people do, then D&D is great. It's all a matter of taste.

3) Has it always been that way? I'm not familiar with very much of 1E or 2E.

Earlier editions had faster combats. I personally prefer BECMI's speed. D&D's combat has slowed with each subsequent edition because it has gotten increasingly detailed, and those details add up in time spent.

//Panjumanju

 

[Coroc]

For a while now, my primary group has been playing other rpgs more often.

Also, for a while now, I have had the feeling that D&D combat seems to take a long time to work through one encounter. However, it really hit me how slow it was (or at least seems to be to me) after the group recently played a mini-campaign of 5E to cover a few sessions that a regular couldn't attend.

Thinking about it more, I started to ponder if D&D combat has always been this way. I'm most familiar with 3rd, 4th, and 5th. All three are relatively quick for the first few levels. As options (and monster HP) start to pile up, encounters slow. What highlights is more is that it becomes slow for reasons which aren't (imo) compelling. If an encounter is a dramatic fight with a tough opponent, involves and epic chase, or something else, it's not quite as noticeable. But taking (sometimes) an hour to beat on some basic critters as part of an opening encounter gets old quickly. When I played primarily D&D, I didn't notice it as much. As myself (and the group) have spent more time with other games, coming back to the D&D combat system feels more and more like a slog beyond around 5th level (and sometimes before that).

In comparison, our primary campaign is currently a FFG Star Wars game. Even with high-point-value characters and some ridiculous dice pools, we were still able to play through several encounters (and still have time to wrap up some RP stuff) in one session. Also, because of how the game functions, there were rarely turns during which nothing happened.

Likewise, for those of you who may be familiar with my posts elsewhere, you may know I play GURPS. Somehow, a game which has a reputation for being "overly complex" still manages to play through combat encounters faster than D&D.


So, my question is three parts:

1) Do you feel D&D combat is slow (or "drags")?

2) If yes, how do you address this in 5E?

3) Has it always been that way? I'm not familiar with very much of 1E or 2E.

d&d combat has been slow before 5e. Except maybe 2e darksun.

5e combat is much faster still than any other edition. D&d combat can get slow, if you run many opponents though, but there are dm tricks to work around this.

other rpgs have more or less complexity, deriving from their game dynamics, so you actually cannot quite compare.