D&D General "I'm glad to be back playing D&D."

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That I don’t like it isn’t a design flaw, no. That it’s not cleanly designed to do what it’s meant to is a design flaw.

A lot of people seem to disagree with you. Especially when it comes to 5E.

But it’s not much of a game at that point. If this really is the goal, the majority of the rules are pointless. It’s designed to make people think they’re playing one kind of game when they’re not, they’re playing a completely different “game.” Something I wouldn’t even recognize as a game, honestly. You could have all the rules in a pamphlet. “Let the players do cool stuff and always win.” You don’t need three core books at $50 each and 350+ pages each to do that.

5E could do better with "combat as sport" play, with better encounter building and creatures that actually pose a threat against competently played PC's. You'd need to go beyond that as well, with the adversaries and world having resource allocation to the challenges the DM presents to keep it fair. This would allow an actual challenge for the players to legitimately "win" at D&D. Essentially each adventure would need to be a narrative wargame.

But D&D has always had a strong element of "6 year old arm wrestling their dad", where one party has essentially unlimited power, authority, and resources, and the players get to win because the DM set up a scenario that lets them. The more you DM yourself, the more obvious it becomes. You've not only peered behind the curtain, you've been the man pulling the strings behind the curtain. The "challenge" players face is somewhat illusory. The real challenge is the balancing act the DM has to pull off to make them forget it.

 

[TwoSix]

But it’s not much of a game at that point. If this really is the goal, the majority of the rules are pointless. It’s designed to make people think they’re playing one kind of game when they’re not, they’re playing a completely different “game.” Something I wouldn’t even recognize as a game, honestly. You could have all the rules in a pamphlet. “Let the players do cool stuff and always win.” You don’t need three core books at $50 each and 350+ pages each to do that.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the "game" is what it is. You can't "lose D&D", anymore than you can lose watching a TV show. Even if your characters die, the point was the story.

The more interesting question is why do people desire a complex, structured rules base (myself included) around an activity that isn't actually competitive?

 

[gorice]

I hate having to "be mean" when DMing. I shouldn't have to throw crazy monsters and overly devious traps at the party to make it an adventure, but 5E pretty much requires it. It feels more like Im telling them a story with occasional player input instead of playing a game. "You get into a fight and easily win, you loot a magic sword. Next is a door, you easily bypass the trap and move on."

For me, this part is really key. The issue with 5e isn't that it's easy, it's that nothing much happens except by fiat. It just kind of plods along, with no real stakes and no surprises. As a player, you're pushing buttons on your character sheet when prompted; as a DM, you're leading everyone along, or fighting the system to try and inject some drama or risk.

Compare this to something like Apocalypse World, in which even brand new PCs are extremely powerful, but that doesn't stop them from getting into all kinds of trouble.

 

[Reynard]

There's nothing inherently more serious about a traditional Tolkein party than one with a warforged and a tabaxi. It's how you play the character and the tone.

Sure. I wasn't making any claims about that, just making a guess about how the miscommunication happened.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the "game" is what it is. You can't "lose D&D", anymore than you can lose watching a TV show. Even if your characters die, the point was the story.

Sure. But you want the story to be interesting. Endless “I always win” power fantasy is not an interesting story.

The more interesting question is why do people desire a complex, structured rules base (myself included) around an activity that isn't actually competitive?

I don’t think competition comes into it. No clue why people want complex systems. Maybe so they can convince themselves it’s a complex game with more nerdy elements than it really needs? So they can feel good about understanding all the complex rules other people don’t? No idea.

At most you need dice to introduce randomness into it. If you know the end before you even start, all the fun drains away.

 

[el-remmen]

The issue with 5e isn't that it's easy, it's that nothing much happens except by fiat. It just kind of plods along, with no real stakes and no surprises. As a player, you're pushing buttons on your character sheet when prompted; as a DM, you're leading everyone along, or fighting the system to try and inject some drama or risk.

The thing ENWorld is best at is making me feel like I must be playing a different game.

 

[Reynard]

The thing ENWorld is best at is making me feel like I must be playing a different game.

It may be less that and more that so many people assume that their experience is somehow representative, even when they play in a particular way with a particular group and have done so for years or decades.

 

[el-remmen]

It may be less that and more that so many people assume that their experience is somehow representative, even when they play in a particular way with a particular group and have done so for years or decades.

Yes, that is another lesson ENWorld has taught me about my own assumptions about playing D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For me, this part is really key. The issue with 5e isn't that it's easy, it's that nothing much happens except by fiat. It just kind of plods along, with no real stakes and no surprises. As a player, you're pushing buttons on your character sheet when prompted; as a DM, you're leading everyone along, or fighting the system to try and inject some drama or risk.

Sounds like you are playing a completely different game to me.

 

[Distracted DM]

I'd like to imagine that as GMs, we're complaining or citing grievances etc. against a system because we're always looking for something better: a better way of doing things, a better (sub)system for a better game, better experiences for everyone at the table including the GM.

We can be running great games with 5e, but still want more or better from it.