D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Tony Vargas]

But aren't you kind of complaining about mods being too easy? When you were just complaining about mods being too hard?

I think the point was that, yes, the game may seem 'too easy' but 'too easy' is easier to fix than 'too hard...'

Or maybe that's the point you were making, or someone the guy you re replying to was replying to was making...

...anyway, it's a point.

'Too easy' is also the kind of 'problem' that'll be noticed by skilled players, presumably with an experienced DM, while 'too hard' could be a problem for new players and DMs.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Here's my particular problem with "too easy" -- and that problem is that it's usually not a problem for most of the people at the table.

I'm serious. I'd say that for every gamer who enjoys being challenged and threatened and wanting a shot at losing it all if they're not on they're toes, there are at least three more gamers who pretty much want to show up, be badass (regardless of their metagame or table-specific efficacy), and brag about the cool loot and powers they get. Now, the latter group of gamers tends to not specifically ask for a Monty Haul power fantasy. They want to have the illusion of challenge, even though a lot of people in that group don't do the hardcore rules analyses and min-maxing and creative theorizing the former group of games do.

The thing is, when the game is accidentally too easy, the latter group is still very satisfied as long as it doesn't get completely out of hand. A DM who tweaks the base assumptions of the game to have less of a 'Chicago Bulls in 1996 vs. the rest of the NBA' setup risks stepping on the toes of and disempowering the latter group. And while it's ironic that the latter group would rather have the difficulty slider tweaked off-camera and by neutral game designers than with a DM who can actually see what's going on in real time, it is what it is. D&D's a complex psychodrama that takes pains to provide the illusion of difficulty without actually being unduly difficult. And it's really difficult to avoid piercing the illusion when you're tweaking on the fly.

Now, like I said, this problem is a lot less pressing than a game that has one of those other difficulty problems I mentioned on the last page. So I'm not going to raise a big stink about it. I'd just like for people to see where some of the other '5E D&D is too darn easy!' people are coming from.

 

[Oofta]

Here's my particular problem with "too easy" -- and that problem is that it's usually not a problem for most of the people at the table.

I'm serious. I'd say that for every gamer who enjoys being challenged and threatened and wanting a shot at losing it all if they're not on they're toes, there are at least three more gamers who pretty much want to show up, be badass (regardless of their metagame or table-specific efficacy), and brag about the cool loot and powers they get. Now, the latter group of gamers tends to not specifically ask for a Monty Haul power fantasy. They want to have the illusion of challenge, even though a lot of people in that group don't do the hardcore rules analyses and min-maxing and creative theorizing the former group of games do.

The thing is, when the game is accidentally too easy, the latter group is still very satisfied as long as it doesn't get completely out of hand. A DM who tweaks the base assumptions of the game to have less of a 'Chicago Bulls in 1996 vs. the rest of the NBA' setup risks stepping on the toes of and disempowering the latter group. And while it's ironic that the latter group would rather have the difficulty slider tweaked off-camera and by neutral game designers than with a DM who can actually see what's going on in real time, it is what it is. D&D's a complex psychodrama that takes pains to provide the illusion of difficulty without actually being unduly difficult. And it's really difficult to avoid piercing the illusion when you're tweaking on the fly.

Now, like I said, this problem is a lot less pressing than a game that has one of those other difficulty problems I mentioned on the last page. So I'm not going to raise a big stink about it. I'd just like for people to see where some of the other '5E D&D is too darn easy!' people are coming from.

I think different expectations has always been an issue. A guy in our 4E campaign was only happy if he was personally dominating combat without getting a scratch or breaking a sweat.

So my point has been that this has always been an issue with no good solution. Try to come to a consensus as a group on what the difficulty should be and adjust encounter difficulty as necessary. Personally I enjoy difficult games, as long as the PCs have a reasonable chance of success (even if success is bravely retreating). If the group (or at least a majority) agrees to turn up the dial, it can be done.

Just speaking for myself I do adjust monsters, sometimes significantly, and always have. But I'm still glad when the PCs occasionally stomp all over my carefully laid plans. At the same time, if they always stomp on my encounters, that wouldn't find that fun either.

Some of the best games I've run had most of the group down and dying while the last PC standing is a wizard hiding under a table casting cantrips at the last monster standing with people leaning in holding their breath cheering on the wizard's dice. Probably more memorable than when they beat what should have been an extremely difficult fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think different expectations has always been an issue. A guy in our 4E campaign was only happy if he was personally dominating combat without getting a scratch or breaking a sweat.

He can't have been too happy on the attack/defense treadmill,* then - and I expect BA must also be driving him crazy (if he's still playing).

So my point has been that this has always been an issue with no good solution.

Games don't just meet or break expectations - they also set them (especially the first game of a new type!). Our little community's expectations have been formed over 40 years and at least 5 (more like 7 or 10) occasionally quite different editions of the game, most of which lent themselves to being run in radically different ways under different DMing styles, variants/house-rules, etc.

Had the game ever gotten its feet under it and been able to provide a more consistent experience for a while, it might have started setting less problematic expectations. Maybe.

As it is, 5e is trying to cater to a fanbase that expects everything from classic 'Monty Haul' and 'Killer DM' styles to high-brow 'troupe-style play' to realistic process simulation & seamless immersion, as well as 'support' (rewards) for anything from modern system-mastery or to collective storytelling, all the way back to Gygaxian 'skilled play.'

Intimidating when you think about it, and puts any flaws we may find in the system in perspective, I think.



















* though, from that earlier anecdote, it sounds like your campaign might have been pretty far off those rails.

 

[OB1]

Here you go: https://gsllc.wordpress.com/2017/03...he-yawning-portal-rpg-bandofmisfits-stitched/

Even better is dndbeyond.com


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Manbearcat]

Sounds good. But good rarely sells to D&Ders...
;P

My ideas are taking hold!

Including these two with @TwoSix and @Eric V , that is at least 4!!!

Probably
The catch being WotC doesn't make many books anymore, so something like that won't be coming soon. My guess is a magic item book in 2018 and psionics in 2019. So the earliest for something like that would be 2020.

It's really the kind of product that might work better as a series of En5ider articles or a 3rd Party product.

I agree with the first two parts. Don't agree with the last part.

My guess is folks like the 4 mentioned above (except maybe Tony) and others like them are looking for design and implementation backed by an intimate understanding of system maths and knock-on effects. Balancing (even roughly) something like the ability I mentioned above (for the Marilith) requires a lot of consideration and depth of understanding of system maths/action economy ramifications/CR and encounter budget ramifications, and multiple iteration capacity. I think folks looking not just for interesting thematics, but also systemitized balance and tactical depth in a Monster Supplement are looking for professional design by creators, the means to iterate/playtest on that design, and (especially) maybe have a few Magic the Gathering eyes consult!

Finally (unrelated to the above), I dispute in the highest amount that (obviously not perfect, but well more than functional) balance isn't attainable in a TTRPG. That is simply not true and the engineering marvels (big and small) of the Industrial Revolution era certainly disagrees vehemently (an abundance of marvels of which weren't backed by big money/incorporation). We've already seen it in tons of games both complex and system light. The "its art, not science" ethos needs to dial it back a bit. Its both art and science.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The "its art, not science" ethos needs to dial it back a bit. Its both art and science.

It's /more/ art than science.

A lot more.

Like orders of magnitude.

Except 'orders of magnitude' is way too scientific a way to put it...

 

[Manbearcat]

It's /more/ are than science.

A lot more.

Like orders of magnitude.

Except 'orders of magnitude' is way too scientific a way to put it...

I see what you did there

And, yeah, I don't agree.

I think the statement "a certain sort of GMing and a certain sort of game design is (much) more art than science" is fair to make.

But empirically, as a matter of actual fact, flatly saying that "(all) GMing and/or game design is (much) more art than science" is just not accurate.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But empirically, as a matter of actual fact, flatly saying that "(all) GMing and/or game design is (much) more art than science" is just not accurate.

Sure it is. We certainly have plenty of precedence for this by looking at which RPGs became the most popular or not. Playing an RPG is meant to convey a sense of enjoyment when playing it. That's much less science, and much more art because it hits the emotional (fun and enjoyment) aspect primarily. Heck, the popularity of an rpg or rpg supplement is often impacted just by artwork. Doesn't matter how technical the rules are, or how much math went into it. If there is no art/little art, they aren't purchased or played by many. Conversely, games with beautiful artwork appeal to that emotional aspect and are purchased and played by people even if the game has mechanical or mathematical errors.

We don't even need to look at rpgs other than D&D to prove this either. 4e was considered the most mechanically balanced (science) but was not received nearly as well as hoped, and drove swaths of gamers away from it. 5e is less balanced, but much more popular. Why is that? Because designing a game is much more art than science. Appealing to the emotional reactions is much more important than appealing to the logical side. What gives games the desire to play the game is inspiration, and that is very much art. Not to toot my horn, but I'm an award winning game designer myself, and I can tell you with confidence that putting together a successful game is in fact much more art than science. There is no formula to follow to put out a great game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e was considered the most mechanically balanced (science) but was not received nearly as well as hoped and drove swaths of gamers away from it. 5e is less balanced, but much more popular. Why is that?

To be fair, D&D was really imbalanced for almost 40 years, and that systematically drove away many of the fans and potential fans who didn't care for such imbalance. 5e returns to being imbalanced (but, throws us a bone by being theoretically balance-able at 6-8 encounters/day and limited build options and no magic items...), and it's brought back enough of those balance-intolerant fans that it's returned to a larger fraction* of it's fad-years popularity.

And to being way more art than science. Which is great for artist DMs and their ... patrons, I guess, players would be in that analogy. Not so good for scientist-DMs looking for metaphorical grant money.

I see what you did there

It's art, everyone sees it differently.

I think the statement "a certain sort of GMing and a certain sort of game design is (much) more art than science" is fair to make.

Well, OK:
A certain sort of game design, the sort 5e uses, and a certain sort of DMing (Empowered DMing), the sort 5e uses, is much more art than science.










* Based on hearsay from the 800k thread: 5e has moved going on 800k books to date, which would mean approximately 750k over 3 years... and TSR, at the height of the fad, was moving 750k per year. So that fraction might be roughly 1/3rd.