D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?

[ad_hoc]

Pathfinder is essentially a version of D&D—one with good brand prestige and product support, too. It was the most popular TTRPG for a while—and before that, D&D was.

That sounds like one of the factors of "brand prestige" to me.

I didn't say that people just don't know better, nor did I state—or imply—that ignorance is a bad thing. I said that many people don't know about other games (and so have no basis for comparison, which by definition requires more than one object to compare), and also that some people, whether they know about other games or not, don't care about design. And I didn't mention high-level competitive play at all, because it's not relevant to what I did say.

I didn't say the game is worse, or that players are stupid. I didn't even try to imply either of those statements.

All I can say to this is, "huh?"

My entire post was about how specific parts of the game can have problems, or how some people can find specific parts of the game not fun, even if the game overall can be just fine for many people. Maybe you're talking about other people's responses on this thread, but my post—which you quoted—does not assert any of those things.

Well, you've played more than one game, and you come across as a serious player, who cares about such things, so it stands to reason you would know more and care about the design of games.

But again, even good designs can have problems. Even good designs can have compromises. Even good designs can have aspects that particular people like, and others that particular people don't like. This is more likely the more complex a design is. Not liking some aspect of a design is not the same as condemning the entire design.

The point stands that D&D was thought to be dying. People wondered whether it could recover.

The point of bringing up Pathfinder is that even though it was #1 before 5e it is tiny when compared to it now.

5e has over 50 million players right now.

People thought that 1/4 of that was no longer possible 7 years ago.

Brand recognition gets you the success of 4e. It still sold well relative to ttrpgs in general but not compared to other games outside the hobby.

5e is an entirely different thing. I think people who are used to the popularity of D&d through 3e and 4e can have trouble realizing just how big 5e is.

 

[niklinna]

The point stands that D&D was thought to be dying. People wondered whether it could recover.

The point of bringing up Pathfinder is that even though it was #1 before 5e it is tiny when compared to it now.

5e has over 50 million players right now.

People thought that 1/4 of that was no longer possible 7 years ago.

Brand recognition gets you the success of 4e. It still sold well relative to ttrpgs in general but not compared to other games outside the hobby.

5e is an entirely different thing. I think people who are used to the popularity of D&d through 3e and 4e can have trouble realizing just how big 5e is.

What does any of that have to do with the point of my post that you quoted?

 

[CleverNickName]

Lots of folks are blaming the DM for a perceived "lack of fun" in combat scenes, but I think the players should share at least half the blame (if not two-thirds). There's only one DM, and multiple players, after all...and the DM is usually the most prepared person at the table. The DM usually isn't the one who forgot to bring their book and their dice. The DM isn't the one needing to scroll through their phone (again) to look up the Shield Master feat (again). The DM isn't the one arguing to get Advantage, again, and then pouting when their arguments fall on deaf ears. The DM isn't the one who always spends an eternity trying to figure out The Perfect Action^TM to take on every turn of every round of every battle, only to scrap it and start over because the rogue missed.

My point is, combat isn't fun for a number of reasons. And only one of those reasons is the DM; the others are players.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes and random adventures also make the story unknown. One of the main things I look for in a published adventure is a good random encounter table.

Random encounters don't need to just be a few monsters from the MM jumping out at the characters and then a fight happens. Good ones are entire scenes that the players can interact with in different ways. Sure, many end up with a fight somewhere but how that happens is up to the players.

Random encounters at least in my games are also a chance for more treasure. I use treasure hoard tables and sometimes there is treasure in rolled encounters. And it's up to the players, do they risk engaging with the encounter and draining their resources (and thus risking the adventure) to get some treasure (or perform a good deed like rescuing people in peril) or do they just continue on and ignore the hook. It's up to them.

It's one reason why wandering monster tables and reaction rolls were used. To make sure every encounter was more than a fight. Sure, you could encounter a band of a dozen orcs at 1st level, but they're not interested in killing you. They're doing something else. But you can talk to them and maybe trade with them, if you'd like. "It's ugly and evil! KILL IT!" is such a boring style of play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You can increase the fun in combat by ignoring aspects that drag it down; like HP!

 

[ad_hoc]

What does any of that have to do with the point of my post that you quoted?

You said that 5e is popular because or brand recognition and the like.

This was in response to me saying that it is popular because it is well designed and people like it.

It isn't popular just because it is a household name and everyone remembers it from their childhood like say Monopoly. There are plenty of fantastic children's games out there that just won't have the sheer weight of marketing and nostalgia behind them to be as popular.

D&D isn't that. It isn't popular because of nostalgia or brand recognition. The latter helps but not as much as you think.

Ttrpgs aren't things that people can typically just pick up. The game is popular through word of mouth. That kind of momentum is hard to get in a game that isn't designed well.

 

[ad_hoc]

Lots of folks are blaming the DM for a perceived "lack of fun" in combat scenes, but I think the players should share at least half the blame (if not two-thirds). There's only one DM, and multiple players, after all...and the DM is usually the most prepared person at the table. The DM usually isn't the one who forgot to bring their book and their dice. The DM isn't the one needing to scroll through their phone (again) to look up the Shield Master feat (again). The DM isn't the one arguing to get Advantage, again, and then pouting when their arguments fall on deaf ears. The DM isn't the one who always spends an eternity trying to figure out The Perfect Action^TM to take on every turn of every round of every battle, only to scrap it and start over because the rogue missed.

My point is, combat isn't fun for a number of reasons. And only one of those reasons is the DM; the others are players.

I think you are right here and I'd like to highlight that this kind of play is endemic to hobby gamers.

The player base at large doesn't play like this and is probably why they have a better time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Before 5e many people thought D&D might be dead.

Pathfinder was the most popular ttrpg.

This is an old argument but just doesn't hold weight. 5e is popular because of word of mouth. People play it and love it and invite more friends.

Saying that people just don't know better is hubristic and insulting. Most people saying such things haven't even played a competitive game to a high level in their lives.

And a game being on the lighter side doesn't make it worse or the players stupider for playing it.

The truth of the matter is that some people are so blinded by their hubris that they cannot fathom that maybe it is them who can't figure out how to play the game properly.

No it must be the game that is broken, the designers who are morons, and the casuals who just don't know any better.

I have played competitive games at a high level (even professionally) and I think 5e is well designed. It isn't that I just don't know any better.

Mod Note:

“Hubris “? I get what you’re saying, but you’re REALLY close to making this personal. You may wish to reconsider dialing back the rhetoric a bit…

 

[S'mon]

You're assuming - wrongly in this case, I think - that the game's entertainment revolves solely around your own character and what it's doing.

From here it sounds like @Jmarso was getting some fine entertainment out of watching the other PCs play out the fight and, by the sound of it, barely win. And as I've been in this position many a time myself, I can state with certainty that your assumption would be wrong in my case.

You're probably right in this, but IMO that feedback was taken a bit - nay, a lot - too much to heart.

This brings up a different-but-related issue. In older editions it was very possible for one PC in a combat to die due to bad luck while the rest sailed through relatively unscathed (e.g. pretty much any fight vs a Medusa). From what I can tell, in both 4e and 5e it seems much more the case that the PCs rise and fall as a unit; if one dies chances are good they're all close to death, meaning individual death is less common but TPKs aren't.

5e people with old-school experience: am I right on this, or not?

Yes, that is correct, for both 4e & 5e. Seems to be intended design.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

You said that 5e is popular because or brand recognition and the like.

This was in response to me saying that it is popular because it is well designed and people like it.

It isn't popular just because it is a household name and everyone remembers it from their childhood like say Monopoly. There are plenty of fantastic children's games out there that just won't have the sheer weight of marketing and nostalgia behind them to be as popular.

D&D isn't that. It isn't popular because of nostalgia or brand recognition. The latter helps but not as much as you think.

Ttrpgs aren't things that people can typically just pick up. The game is popular through word of mouth. That kind of momentum is hard to get in a game that isn't designed well.

Except that everything you're describing is not exclusive to what he's said.

I absolutely think he's right in saying that for a huge portion of that 50 million players (as you said yourself, nobody dreamed of these numbers before) 5E is their first and only tabletop RPG. You're right in saying that they enjoy it, they love it and they invite friends over. I don't think anyone is saying that 5E is just plainly poorly designed. It's a good game. But some parts are very elegant, very neatly designed and others are a mess. We can disagree on which parts, but that's another discussion. However, it is good enough so that all these people are having a grand time and inviting others.

However, that has says nothing about how much of the game's success is affected by brand recognition. D&D is a product that has the luxury of having a brand that's bigger than the medium or market it's in. When I go to the grocery store, I don't buy tissues, I play kleenex. "Hey, can you pass me the kleenex?". No matter the brand, when my friend ask me for a beer, I tell him "Yeah, there's some on the second shelf of the frigidaire." Very few products reach this type of brand recognition. It's huge.

I have two friends that work in gamestores. And nobody has ever come in saying "Hey, I heard about tabletop roleplaying games. I'd like to get into that, what do you recommend?". People come in saying "I want to play Dungeons & Dragons". Because the brand of D&D is bigger than the reputation of the hobby or market it's in, it becomes very likely that it will be the product that because will enter the hobby with. Then it's a fantastic product, it's popular, there's ton of people playing and they see no reason to check elsewhere.

It's been 7 years since 5E released. It's been 4 or 5 years since most of the new TTRPG players around me starting playing it. And just now do I start seeing some dissatisfaction with what the game is and some interest in other games. People start to see the cracks and want to try something else. And as players, they're much better equipped now, after years of experience, to explain why they're going dissatisfied with it. The game's own value and quality has not changed, but like any product, with time you start to see its flaws.

In my opinion, it cannot be overstated how huge the game's brand recognition.