Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8246262" data-attributes="member: 93670">Good then you should be able to point t things more objectively defined in ways everyone can look to than reinterpreting the types of games you think specific people or vague groups of nonspecific individuals run using nearly characterized descriptions. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />you kinda took what I wrote, dialed it to 11 & then responded to the new  version dialed to 11 there too.   When I explain that there is enjoyment in  "working together as a group to coordinate so as to minimize risks & maximize everyone's capabilities in combat as well as doing the same for the world & environment both as a player as well as a gm when my players do it. " &  pointed out how that is harmed as an element of gameplay by removing too many elements linked to fear of death & attrition I did not in any way take the potential for failure off the table just because it goes on to talk about the importance of having consequences to accompany "succeeding poorly" as an undesirable state to fear that is a whole wide range between success & failure.  I'm completely baffled how you could leap to that conclusion from my words as that's a rather strange leap of assumption.It's worth noting that what you call a "pervasive attitude" seems to rely on including almost anything less than a position close to calling 5e's near total lack of consequences as the pinnacle of perfection as some kind of  rallying cry for a flavor of hardcore meatgrinder dcc style funnel tomb of horrors campaigning.  I honestly think those types of mischaracterizations  are the root of the disconnect & why so many are strongly calling you out.  You can dismiss the reasons people give in support of that stretch of middle ground & suggest gm's bone up on skills by finding other motivations like revenge affection or even "something" as we've seen people suggest a few times in this thread but that doesn't solve the problems they are pointing at accompanying going too far with dialing back how fear of something in the system.This bit is largely the same topic just responding to different points people were making & it's a multipart problem in 5e.  Past editions had significant amounts of pagespace devoted to explaining things like intent behind things & ways of leveraging both the rules as well as the system as flexible tools you should feel empowered to modify. They also included a variety of subsystems & guidelines that would assist with the problem you are seeing.   Second characters had areas where they could confidentially avoid certain types of risks  with most attacks not actually beating ACs unless you were a squishy & the mods would often add up to a significant percentage of the d20 or oercentile dice making it more reliable than everyone just saying "well guess I'll try" & seeing who rolls high enough to dramatically outdo the player with a poor roll & mere specialization.  In some cases the specialist was literally the only one capable of even attempting something.  All of that combined gave  players a feeling that they had more of a buffer than the raw numbers of their hp & that their skill specializations were significant.  While system differences make most of the 2e advice on intent & leveraging the rules difficult to carry over or really even discuss too much there were some timeless ones like <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/giving-an-ad-d-feel-to-5e.679228/post-8243611" target="_blank">this </a>pg115 of the 2e dmg about awarding treasure. 3.x took that a step further by including a pair of linked rules called going beyond the rule & the dm's best friend(<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/giving-an-ad-d-feel-to-5e.679228/post-8241363" target="_blank">here</a>) that provided both the insight & advice to leverage it as well as a simple flexible framework both sides of the gm screen could use to interact with the world in ways far too deep into situational edge cases to have specific rules on in a way they could feel comfortable inferring cause & effect of reasonable measures.  Finally players who felt they needed to display serious caution had powerful limited use tools to manipulate things in their favor given proper planning & strategy, casters especially.  5e weakened many of those tools to no longer be all that solid or reliable at doing their thing then gated fr far too many of them behind  concentration so players were left feeling like the party lacked a solid safety net from the often little more than dead weight caster.  Coupled with bob the fighter/pally no longer being able to confidentially avoid most attacks reliably to make healing spells have a bigger bang for the buck.  Those areas all overlapped with the tactical rules so casters could control the situation & keep an emergency ace or two  to  dump everything ending it if things suddenly went south while the martials could use their crunchyness & the robust tactical combat rules to feel confident keeping their squishies safe & managing the semicontrolled but safe enough situationIf you are at 5hp in  most older editions you were probably terrified because it didn't even take a crit to  flat out kill you.  If you are at 5hp in 5e you can take  5 points of damage plus up to your max hp(instant death phb197) then two more attacks before anyone in the group can heal you for even a single point to reset you back to virtually the same state you were in with the 5hp.  Despite how terrifying it was to be at 5hp in the past  players had a lot more tools to slow the descent to 5hp  & the system was setup in ways that made your armor further slow the slide even when those tools aren't justified or things somehow go sideways.</blockquote>

Verification