D&D 5E My Players Didn't Like 5e :( Help Me Get Them Into It!!

[Jessica]

This is one of the things that brought me back. I don't think martial characters should be on equal footing with casters. That's not a fantasy genre trope. The only game I've seen this to be important is an MMORPG with PVP.

MMORPGs also put great importance on balance in PvE as well. Playing a underpowered class in a cooperative game is still really crappy because either people don't bring you along, they bring you along if you are insanely skilled at your class(and then you are still lagging behind many other people who are playing classes that aren't underpowered), or you or a friend/relative/SO of an officer. In high end raiding depending on MMO and time in that MMO's life cycle, you might even see certain classes completely put on the bench or forced into one specific playstyle. Back in vanilla WoW* almost every single priest, paladin, druid, and shaman who wanted to raid were told to "heal or GTFO". Even other classes often had their playstyle and choices pre-determined for them if they wanted to remain competitive and not be sat out consistently.

Having martial characters and magic characters on equal footing with each other is important simply for the fact that D&D is a game played by actual people. It's poor game design to make some options clearly inferior to other options** and to tell a player that their choices are crappy by design because of a certain bias by the developers. Even if it might break with a caster supremacist's warped and cherry picked view of fantasy sources, the important thing is that every player can feel useful at the table and have fun. One of the big reasons why I quit being a D&D player for a long while(until 4th edition came along) was that I was sick of being made to feel worthless by people who knew how to pick the way stronger classes and build their character more optimally. I was that dumbass who preferred playing her Clerics as actual healers(instead of as unstoppable engines of melee destruction) or who would play such utterly stupid things as....get this.... a DWARF FIGHTER who would prefer such dumb playstyles like using an axe and a shield. I left 3.X for MMOs because MMOs were better at capturing that whole party of fantasy adventurers group up to explore dungeons and defeat evil threats through the power of teamwork that for some dumb reason I thought D&D was always about.



*The Warcraft universe has a lot of interesting counter examples to caster dominance. As far as faction leaders go, the majority are definitely martial types with a large representation of what would be Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins in D&D. The general exceptions being on Alliance side with the Night Elf leaders being a Druid and a Priest(in D&D terms similar to a Cleric but without that whole weapons and heavy armor deal), the Draenei leader being a Priest, and the always present and secondary Jaina Proudmoore being a Wizard. Even on the bad guy's side of things, Kel'thuzad(would probably be a Necromancer class wise) is subordinate to Arthas(who is almost iconic in his transition from Paladin to Blackguard), Kael'thas(Wizard) was subordinate to Illidan(who is a demon hunter but I don't think that class translates well to D&D although it is a primarily martial class) before he switched allegiances to the Burning Legion, and Gul'dan(who would be a Warlock although he started off as a Shaman) was subordinate to Orgrim Doomhammer(who would probably be a Fighter) before he decided to betray him and then got killed off by demons at the Tomb of Sargeras although in the alternate timeline that is going in the Warcraft universe now he is alive and well and does lead the Iron Horde.

**Barring weird Fighting Game-esque meta considerations where poor characters might have the right moveset or options that make them a really strong choice against certain top tier matchups but are otherwise saddled with great mediocrity.

 

[sunshadow21]

For me, I think the perfect D&D lies somewhere between 5E and Pathfinder.

This to me sums up my feelings on both of these systems, and the biggest problem with either isn't really the system itself, but the culture around then. I am tired of both the legacy of the player entitled viewpoint that dominates the 3.x/PF crowd, and equally dislike the stance taken by 5E and most of it's adherents that players can't do anything at all without first asking the DM. The former denies the critical role and extra time the DM spends on a campaign; the latter has the problem of eating up far too much (usually limited) game time on mundane paperwork and questions rather than focusing on the actual campaign. I am actually to the point where neither system (or D&D in any other version) would be my preferred system. The two very different views on the player vs DM debate and the magic vs martial debate that exist in D&D and always have from it's very inception make it hard to find a group of people that can actually agree on "all" of the necessary basics, meaning that there is almost always friction at the table that cannot be entirely ignored for those not blessed with a permanent group that has played together consistently for a long time. The biggest challenge is that D&D was designed to emulate a fairly specific type of fantasy, and really does not translate well to any other type of story (be it fantasy or a different genre entirely) without basically ignoring or changing a lot of the underlying rules and assumptions. It was never really designed to emulate greek mythology or Conan and true high magic worlds like Faerun also suffer a lot of problems as well. The biggest thing I've taken from 5E is that D&D as a whole is not a balanced system, will never be a balanced system, and while it can be really fun at the right table with the right people, finding that table is pretty much like winning the lottery. I still enjoy PF and would almost certainly enjoy 5E with the right DM, but I am at a point where I would be ecstatic if more tables were willing to consider the wide library of non-D&D systems out there, even if it was just for the occasional break from a long term campaign. I am in a Pendragon campaign and loving it; I wouldn't want it to be the only game I played, but as one of several, it's fantastic to have a system that knows what kind of story it wants to tell, and does so extremely well. D&D's biggest problem has become that it was originally designed for one thing, but has fallen into the position of having to try to adapt to be everything all at once, and that makes for a lot of frustration at a table that most other systems simply don't have; most other systems people like or they don't and play it or move on. D&D, for better or for worse, is a completely unique beast that can entice and enrage people at the same time, often the same person with the same mechanic.

To the OP, if you get tired of running PF, perhaps you could convince your group to play the occasional one off of 5E as a break, as several of the opinions seemed to not mind the system in that capacity. That would allow you to play and tweak the system you want while allowing the group to become more comfortable with it. Just because they don't want it as a campaign, it sounds like at least a few of them did seem open to the occasional adventure. It doesn't have to be an either/or; both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Occasionally present them an option of which one they feel like that given week.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am tired of both the legacy of the player entitled viewpoint that dominates the 3.x/PF crowd, and equally dislike the stance taken by 5E and most of it's adherents that players can't do anything at all without first asking the DM. The former denies the critical role and extra time the DM spends on a campaign; the latter has the problem of eating up far too much (usually limited) game time on mundane paperwork and questions rather than focusing on the actual campaign.

Player empowerment vs DM empowerment ('entitlement' has gotten an unpleasant connotation from politics) does seem to have become an issue and 3.x/PF and 5e do stake out extreme positions.

Either way, though, 'empowerment' is not a bad thing. Empowered players have move control over the definition and development of their characters and have more chances to knowingly influence how the game progresses (and the campaign or 'story' develops) by the decisions they make. Empowered DMs have more control over their campaigns - the sub-genre they're trying to evoke, the tone and pacing they're going for, and so forth. Neither are the two necessarily incompatible.

I am actually to the point where neither system (or D&D in any other version) would be my preferred system. The two very different views on the player vs DM debate and the magic vs martial debate that exist in D&D and always have from it's very inception make it hard to find a group of people that can actually agree on "all" of the necessary basics, meaning that there is almost always friction at the table that cannot be entirely ignored for those not blessed with a permanent group that has played together consistently for a long time.

Interesting way of looking at it. I usually focus on how D&D is about the only game that a group can readily agree upon playing, because so many of us started with it and thus everyone's likely familiar with it. That they may also have very different expectations about it is a complication I hadn't thought so much about.

The biggest challenge is that D&D was designed to emulate a fairly specific type of fantasy, and really does not translate well to any other type of story (be it fantasy or a different genre entirely) without basically ignoring or changing a lot of the underlying rules and assumptions. It was never really designed to emulate greek mythology or Conan and true high magic worlds like Faerun also suffer a lot of problems as well. ...but has fallen into the position of having to try to adapt to be everything all at once, and that makes for a lot of frustration at a table that most other systems simply don't have; most other systems people like or they don't and play it or move on.

When D&D first got the RPG hobby rollling, it was briefly alone, and it's always remained the most widely-familiar RPG. So, naturally, it gets adapted to all sorts of things it's not so well-suited for. d20 was, perhaps, the ultimate expression of that victory of familiarity over facility - basically still D&D, but adapted with questionable success to all sorts of other genres, where hps/healing, class & level, AC, and the whole host of other D&Disms didn't work so smoothly.

The biggest thing I've taken from 5E is that D&D as a whole is not a balanced system, will never be a balanced system

Balance was pretty roundly rejected by enough of the community, to make that seem likely, yes. Balance, though, can be imposed by the Empowered DM. And, it's a less fragile, less complex way of achieving balance, one that's not system-dependent. Obviously, it puts a lot of responsibility on the DM...

and while it can be really fun at the right table with the right people, finding that table is pretty much like winning the lottery. I still enjoy PF and would almost certainly enjoy 5E with the right DM, but I am at a point where I would be ecstatic if more tables were willing to consider the wide library of non-D&D systems out there, even if it was just for the occasional break from a long term campaign.

I get it. I've felt that way since the late 80s, I'd say. D&D is the game that started it all, and I'll always love it, but, it does sometimes seem like it's holding back the broader TTRPG hobby (if there really is one, not just D&D and some "games like D&D, but..").