D&D 5E Is the Default Playstyle of 5E "Monty Haul?"

[dave2008]

Had my 5E group play some 2E. 3 of them never played it before. 2 of them LOVE it, the 3rd feels underpowered.

The 2 that love it, love that, and I quote, "The dice rolls feel more important. I actually feel like I'm doing something." "I love that when I swing my axe it can completely change how the battle is going."

One player always ran into rooms and tripped traps etc in 5E because he knew he could easily survive almost anything. Now he actually lets the Thief do her job and uses strategy and caution. Battles have become much more fun.

That sounds pretty much like my 5e games. I admit the HP inflation from 3e forward can be an issue, but that is why I use damage inflation to compensate!

PS. This chart from the DMG is your friend in this regard:

 

[DarkCrisis]

That sounds pretty much like my 5e games. I admit the HP inflation from 3e forward can be an issue, but that is why I use damage inflation to compensate!

PS. This chart from the DMG is your friend in this regard:
View attachment 266319

Its not just HP. It's more healing. Easier saves. Easily fixable death. Etc etc Everything is so stacked in favor of the PCs. Yeah I could put in effort and "fix" 5E or I can just play 2E where it seems its more fair on both sides. Yeah you can cave that Orcs head in easily enough, but he can do the same to you now.

 

[tetrasodium]

Fundamentally, 'Monty Haul' (at the time it was originally used. Nowadays it can mean 5 different things to 4 different people) was a reference to people playing an existing system in ways someone with a platform (Gary, who developed the thing, which may or may not be relevant) thought out of sync with best practices. Declaring a whole system to be Monty Haul seems outside the intended use of the term. For the time, I can understand the point. As DEFCON 1 points out, that was when XP approximately equaled GP, so a lot of it was people levelling faster than Gary thought prudent*. And there's merit to that -- there wasn't a lot of stuff to get after name level for most classes, and the high-level spells were better suited for big-bad enemies the PCs should be defeating than really for PC usage (at least until some more high-level play structures like plane hopping madness were also developed). Opining that getting to that point was intended to take several years instead of months or the like was not an unreasonable position (TSR didn't really go about it in a very level-headed or diplomatic manner, but that's another issue).
*it could also be magic items, but honestly the oD&D and AD&D treasure tables gave out quite a bit of magic item loot, and stories abound of characters in his oD&D game being awash in wishes, so this would be more of a hypocritical focus if it were the case.

Regarding 5e -- IMO, it's not 'Monty Haul' (again, I don't know how that works in the original context of the term). I would say that its' defining quality is 'default to and easy setting' -- I won't even say it defaults to easy mode, since since if people find it too easy they can just keep taking on greater threats until they are in over their head (and it becomes hard again), but I think we can safely call the default play rules an easy setting.

Fundamentally, I think this is a great move that TSR should have done very early in the game's evolution -- at least for B, BX, and BECMI which were billed as being for ages 8 or 10 and up* (but were mostly oD&D rewritten to a 4th grade reading level). I can't begin to count the number of friends I had in grade school who seemed the target audience for the game but who tried it for a day or a summer but didn't stick around, oftentimes because they died for the 18th time before 3rd level and decided the game just wasn't fun.
*or some specifics, away from books atm.

Of course, then you need guidelines for what to do when you want to move the challenge up*. 5e has some relatively clear and straightforward options in the DMG (as alternates, and also a roadmap for adjustments of your own), but then huge swaths of gamers look right past them and continue to complain about the game being too easy (and I can't really blame them). Whatever 'right way' there is for setting up optional difficulty moderation, they clearly botched it for many-to-most.
*preferably other than just going after higher and higher challenges within the existing system, which IMO ends up becoming really swingy in a 'everything is fine until everything is a complete disaster' kind of way.


What I don't really get is this: Once the game left the Sandbox/West Marches dungeoncrawling campaign style (that may or may not ever been standard play for most groups), all versions of D&D* have that. Barring DM imposed time clocks, players could always go out and rest overnight, two nights, or a couple nights (if your cleric couldn't cover all the HP loss in a single memorization cycle**) and come back with a full refresh of abilities. I agree that it is a fundamental issue that the game never really solved to satisfaction (other than perhaps admonishments against, similar to the call of a playstyle Monty Haul), but I don't really know why 5e gets special mention on this. Maybe because there number of save-or-die effects have also been ameliorated (removing one of the consequences other than TPK and slow wear-down of resources), or because HP return overnight rather than merely 'usually over two days (if you also want full cleric spells).' Both were changed for reasons I understand, but I can also see some unintended consequences in the aftermath.
*barring 4e, and even it has daily powers.
**and if the only cleric went down, well then I guess then things became a challenge


I'm unsure how the system could be doing that. How does the game system stop story developments from being challenging? How does the game continue or pass them through even if they are on autopilot? The only thing the game is doing is making the combat (and dungeon-crawling) aspects of the game relatively easy.

Sure, if rescuing the merchant's son is too easy against the 8-member band of brigands, well sure the DM might have to put them up against 12 or 16 brigands if they want it to be a challenge. But the party still has to negotiate reward with the merchant, find the brigands, scout their camp, figure out how to rescue the son (and not have him be killed in the resulting scuffle), and all the other things that happen in any game system.

So you think you can't let them not win because the game world is destroyed? I don't know how the game system can address that.


The first part is going to be about preferences. I know several people who disliked 3e specifically because it seemed to want everyone to be extremely powerful but always feeling like they were a single unexpected event away from complete annihilation. They would prefer the 5e model, and I'm guessing you preferred 3e.

To the second, fundamentally, if a DM feels they can't call the shots on when the party can recharge, there's nothing else to say (but again I don't know how this is really different from all D&Ds). Maybe in your case, 5e as your group seems wont to play it (I'm assuming pushing back against you trying to control how frequently they can rest) is Monty Haul in the original intent of a playstyle you find at odds with how you see the game best going.

4e was too different to compare & was almost a whole new game sold under the wrong name, 5e gets called out because it's the first version of a game called d&d that was trying to be d&d where rests were no longer risky & dicey to take out in the wild. Yes the cleric could pray to get their spells back tomorow if they didn't get interrupted and the expectation was more like 3-5 or 4-6 encounters where some of those spell slots they would have used got used healing people up & such. Now it's entirely trivialized

 

[Oofta]

Had my 5E group play some 2E. 3 of them never played it before. 2 of them LOVE it, the 3rd feels underpowered.

The 2 that love it, love that, and I quote, "The dice rolls feel more important. I actually feel like I'm doing something." "I love that when I swing my axe it can completely change how the battle is going."

One player always ran into rooms and tripped traps etc in 5E because he knew he could easily survive almost anything. Now he actually lets the Thief do her job and uses strategy and caution. Battles have become much more fun.

And they actually love getting XP now (and I love giving it now too). It feels earned.

I don't think ill ever run 5th ed again.

If people feel like they can trip traps because they'll survive, that's not a problem of the system it's a problem with the DM. What's the purpose of the trap? Is it just to add a bit to the attrition? If the PC takes any damage at all or has to expend resources to escape then it's done it's job. If the point is to severely damage or kill the PC then just, I don't know, up the damage of the trap.

Sorry, but I'll never understand how people think D&D 5E is on "easy" mode and that there's nothing they can do about it. You're the DM. Experiment a little. Switch things up. Create some new monsters that are based on lower level monsters so they don't have a ton of hit points but always hit with advantage. Give the enemies cursed blades that drive the bearer insane but do triple the damage the weapon would normally do in psychic damage.

I regularly have one or more PCs knocked unconscious in encounters even when I throw monsters at them that come straight out of the book.

Obviously play whatever edition you want. Just don't blame the fact that you didn't make traps dangerous in 5E on the edition.

 

[dave2008]

You do what is fun for you and your group. I will always recommend that.

Its not just HP.

OK, I agree too.

It's more healing.

Why? 5e doesn't need to be played with more healing.

Easier saves.

IDK, High level fighters in 1e (and I assume 2e) are pretty incredible saves.

Easily fixable death.

Not necessarily. Death is pretty permanent in my games.

Everything is so stacked in favor of the PCs.

Only if you want it to be, IME

Yeah I could put in effort and "fix" 5E or I can just play 2E where it seems its more fair on both sides.

As I said before, absolutely play what works for you!

Yeah you can cave that Orcs head in easily enough, but he can do the same to you now.

Well that is back to the HP issue. In my games an orc crit is lethal.

 

[DarkCrisis]

If people feel like they can trip traps because they'll survive, that's not a problem of the system it's a problem with the DM. What's the purpose of the trap? Is it just to add a bit to the attrition? If the PC takes any damage at all or has to expend resources to escape then it's done it's job. If the point is to severely damage or kill the PC then just, I don't know, up the damage of the trap.

Sorry, but I'll never understand how people think D&D 5E is on "easy" mode and that there's nothing they can do about it. You're the DM. Experiment a little. Switch things up. Create some new monsters that are based on lower level monsters so they don't have a ton of hit points but always hit with advantage. Give the enemies cursed blades that drive the bearer insane but do triple the damage the weapon would normally do in psychic damage.

I regularly have one or more PCs knocked unconscious in encounters even when I throw monsters at them that come straight out of the book.

Obviously play whatever edition you want. Just don't blame the fact that you didn't make traps dangerous in 5E on the edition.

I ran published adventures. Again, why should I work more to make the game fair?

 

[DarkCrisis]

You do what is fun for you and your group. I will always recommend that.

OK, I agree too.

Why? 5e doesn't need to be played with more healing.

IDK, High level fighters in 1e (and I assume 2e) are pretty incredible saves.

Not necessarily. Death is pretty permanent in my games.

Only if you want it to be, IME

As I said before, absolutely play what works for you!

Well that is back to the HP issue. In my games an orc crit is lethal.

Stuff like 3 saves to turn to stone in 5E.

So you modified 5E. Not effort I want to do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nes. Yo. Naybe.

The game wants to have its cake and eat it too. It offers a bunch of mechanics which benefit from getting good gear, and the modules tend to hand out a fair amount. But the rules themselves give extremely strong implications that many characters shouldn't get more than a tiny amount of magical gear, and the rules kinda go out of their way to avoid actually supporting item-related gameplay. The items themselves are fine, but buying/selling, making, and otherwise doing stuff involving items is just...awkward at best.

There's a reason that, for several years, a perennial question about 5e was "what on earth are you supposed to do with the piles of money you get????"

 

[Oofta]

I ran published adventures. Again, why should I work more to make the game fair?

Published adventures are designed for the lowest common denominator. It's trivial to up the difficulty (and expected) or to change the tactics of the enemy so that they focus fire and double tap.

If anything it's a problem with the modules, not the system.

 

[NotAYakk]

Also, note that +X items are mechanically surprisingly powerful despite being very pedestrian.

A +2 weapon (+2 to hit +2 damage) can easily do as much damage as a flametongue (+2d6 fire damage) despite the 2nd requiring attunement.

Avoid giving out vanilla +X weapons. Avoid making their weapons +X and something else. Just give great other effects.

+X is both raw power and boring.

Instead of +1, give +1d4 or even +1d6 damage. Toss on some other fun effect on a crit.