D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

[Lanefan]

Sounds like this:

All this tells me is that the late-19th-century version of Strahd must have lived in San Francisco, as other than one or two dead ends all the paths ultimately lead to there.

 

[Reynard]

Were I a potential player given this as a pitch, my question would be why neither Druid nor Nature Cleric are available as classes. Don't need both, but one would be nice.

I'd also be curious what spells you were culling and, possibly, what you were inserting to replace them particularly for utility mages and diviners (who I would guess would be most squarely in your crosshairs) to keep those archetypes viable.

Other than those minor things, and my belief that every campaign starts at 1st level, this looks like it could rock pretty good! I like the slow advancement, the limited races, and so forth - very old-school feel to it.

I thought about the druid but I just don't like the implementation in 5e. I like my druids 2E ish rather than shape-shifting combat monsters. I'll look again at the nature domain.

Spell wise I was more thinking stuff like Create Food and Water and Tiny Hut that make travel through the wilderness too easy.

 

[Don Durito]

I sometimes wonder what 5e would look like if both cantrips and hit dice recovery were removed.

For one, it would pull back the feel of the game to something that matches the earlier editions. Hit points and spell points would both be a more precious resource. Right now it feels like it takes a long time for players to learn that they can't just run in and hit everything with an axe. It would also bring back the resource management to something that feels more in line with the length of sessions, and therefore more satisying. I find actually draining pcs to the point where there is a threat takes 2 to 3 sessions of game time - and that's just too much. I'm not sure how class balance would be impacted though.

I ran a homebrewed adventure for 5e recently that I'd previously run in an OSR version of the game. In the OSR game the players avoided the vast majority of the fights, and ran a mile when they figured out from hints that there was a beholder in the other tower.

In 5e the players just fought everything (because they could). They figured out much earlier that there was a beholder present, but instead rushed in to fight. It was only when one of the PCs died from a death ray, that they figured out that actually they may be a bit out of their depth and should consider running.

 

[TheSword]

Well, my "way of seeing things" comes from starting out with 4e when it launched and eventually running Temple of Elemental Evil after running and playing in a variety of by-now-traditional narrative-driven campaigns and reading some OSR blogs. IMO, it's far more "old fashioned" to view pre-Dragonlance styles of gaming as primitive and less advanced rather than as just a legitimately different type of game.

Sounds like this:

I didn’t say they were primitive. I said it was old fashioned to think all play was like that. I’m fleshing out a dungeon as we speak. When the PCs reach the end they will level up. Maybe it’s milestone. Maybe it’s linear not sure. They certainly don’t have to complete everything in it. Just take one of the multiple paths to the end. There are several threats inside the multiple levels - some tougher some easier.

I’m not sure what point you’re making with your US map. Barovia has little in common with the US. This is a better representation.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn’t say they were primitive. I said it was old fashioned to think all play was like that. I’m fleshing out a dungeon as we speak. When the PCs reach the end they will level up. Maybe it’s milestone. Maybe it’s linear not sure. They certainly don’t have to complete everything in it. Just take one of the multiple paths to the end. There are several threats inside the multiple levels - some tougher some easier.

If they're only going to level up when they reach the end, and the players know this, what incentive is there to do anything other than get to the end as quickly and efficiently as possible?

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, this almost certainly means you're designing and prepping a lot of material you're not going to end up using, because they'll skip past it if they can.

From a play point of view, that ends up making the whole game far too goal-oriented for my tastes. Sure the PCs' adventure count goes up, but to what enjoyment if all they're doing is dipping their toes into each adventure to the minimum extent required to complete it?

I’m not sure what point you’re making with your US map. Barovia has little in common with the US.

I suspect the point was to cheekily note that a multi-path railroad is, in the end, still a railroad.

 

[Don Durito]

It goes to the heart of exploration - which is what dungeons were originally for. A goal oriented game focuses on the goal, not the exploration. You don't really get exploration unless you can open the door and go down the corridor just to see what's there.

Searching through a dungeon for something in particular is not the same as exploring it. The activities are superficially similar, but there's a big gulf in play style. This is also why time limits are far from a universal solution to resting issues. They take freedom away from the players and enforce movement toward the resolution of a goal

 

[Don Durito]

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, this almost certainly means you're designing and prepping a lot of material you're not going to end up using, because they'll skip past it if they can

This why a goal oriented dungeon tends to be fairly linear. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for it to be otherwise.

You used to see this in published adventures, when they were designed around plots but with something of the mindset of older dungeons - it could get quite weird.

I remember there was one I had which mapped out something like 3 floors of an entire mansion, but according to the adventure as soon as the PCs arrived they had a blood trail to follow to the final room with the boss fight. Presumably, the module writer spent hours mapping out an entire mansion just in case the players were feeling extremely contrary?

 

[TheSword]

If they're only going to level up when they reach the end, and the players know this, what incentive is there to do anything other than get to the end as quickly and efficiently as possible?

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, this almost certainly means you're designing and prepping a lot of material you're not going to end up using, because they'll skip past it if they can.

From a play point of view, that ends up making the whole game far too goal-oriented for my tastes. Sure the PCs' adventure count goes up, but to what enjoyment if all they're doing is dipping their toes into each adventure to the minimum extent required to complete it?

I suspect the point was to cheekily note that a multi-path railroad is, in the end, still a railroad.

My players enjoy the experience. They play for the fun of it. They can explore without an immediate gain if it aids the verisimilitude of the game.

 

[fearsomepirate]

All this tells me is that the late-19th-century version of Strahd must have lived in San Francisco, as other than one or two dead ends all the paths ultimately lead to there.

Most people don't realize the Strahd family got its wealth in the '49 gold rush. The pretensions about being ancient nobility are just an act.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I didn’t say they were primitive. I said it was old fashioned to think all play was like that. I’m fleshing out a dungeon as we speak. When the PCs reach the end they will level up. Maybe it’s milestone. Maybe it’s linear not sure. They certainly don’t have to complete everything in it. Just take one of the multiple paths to the end. There are several threats inside the multiple levels - some tougher some easier.

Well, you're describing a situation where, absent more information, finding the quickest and easiest path from A to B is ideal. There is no good reason to put your character at risk if you can avoid it. It's still a far cry different from something like Temple of Elemental Evil or Greyhawk Ruins, where players go down, down, up, down, up, down, and up again as they search out experience and treasure so they can explore the depths without getting turned into goo.

I’m not sure what point you’re making with your US map.

It's a map of railroads. Note how multiple routes can be found between any two points. It is still a map of railroads.