D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Minigiant]

If it were easy to build in, or if there was widespread demand, it would have been done by now.

That is a false assumption.

Someone has to have the will, opportunity, and resources to fulfill a demand. Then they have to supply it with a good enough problem.

None of that is guaranteed. Just look at the video game industry. Tons of demand. Tons of low quality supply.

 

[Oofta]

That is a false assumption.

Someone has to have the will, opportunity, and resources to fulfill a demand. Then they have to supply it with a good enough problem.

None of that is guaranteed. Just look at the video game industry. Tons of demand. Tons of low quality supply.

There are also plenty of video games that are highly praised so the analogy doesn't hold up. People wouldn't spend billions of dollars every year if they didn't enjoy playing the games in preference to other leisure time activities.

You claim that mass combat doesn't work because it's always been "an afterthought". Therefore the only logical conclusion is that mass combat should be considered as one of the primary design goals of core design. I think that's unrealistic and unattainable. I could just as well wish that my car could fly so I could avoid traffic, because it's not going to happen either.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well they are doing bastions which is baby first domains.


Yeah but 3PPs due to having to make higher margin money , make super crunchy stuff, designed to be compatible to multiple systems, and/or stuff tied into their other work.

MCMD's Strongholds and followers is I heard really crunchy and barely 5e.

Strongholds and Followers is strongly tied to diplomacy and the accompanying abstracted wargame battle system that does not really fit with D&D characters. It is its own thing which is very good for players and a DM running a game focused on kingdom politics and diplomacy and the domain management and of that type of play.
If your players are into traditional fantasy and threats that can be faced down by the traditional party with the appropriate MCGuffin then Strongholds and Followers will add little to the campaign. The proposed Bastion system would be a better fit.

 

[Minigiant]

There are also plenty of video games that are highly praised so the analogy doesn't hold up. People wouldn't spend billions of dollars every year if they didn't enjoy playing the games in preference to other leisure time activities.

So there are no bad games? There are no bad movies? Both are billion dollar industries that have more failures than successes.

You claim that mass combat doesn't work because it's always been "an afterthought". Therefore the only logical conclusion is that mass combat should be considered as one of the primary design goals of core design. I think that's unrealistic and unattainable. I could just as well wish that my car could fly so I could avoid traffic, because it's not going to happen either

That's not the only logical conclusion. All they have to do is consider and think about mass combat or high level play or future setting books seriously before they seal everything down. Especially if you are putting your own bias and favoritism in the core.

 

[Oofta]

So there are no bad games? There are no bad movies? Both are billion dollar industries that have more failures than successes.

That's not the only logical conclusion. All they have to do is consider and think about mass combat or high level play or future setting books seriously before they seal everything down. Especially if you are putting your own bias and favoritism in the core.

I'm done arguing about some hypothetical system that needs to be incorporated into core design that does not and has never existed in half a century of the game.

 

[Minigiant]

Strongholds and Followers is strongly tied to diplomacy and the accompanying abstracted wargame battle system that does not really fit with D&D characters. It is its own thing which is very good for players and a DM running a game focused on kingdom politics and diplomacy and the domain management and of that type of play.
If your players are into traditional fantasy and threats that can be faced down by the traditional party with the appropriate MCGuffin then Strongholds and Followers will add little to the campaign. The proposed Bastion system would be a better fit.

That's what I heard.

And it makes sense. MCDM is it's own company that needs to make money. Making a big system that can staple itself on multiple games would make the most money.

This is why the "oh let 3PP handled it." is not a full solution. Because they have to make decisions that might not fulfill most demands to make money as well. And the industry is only so big to have so many companies put money into competition.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's what I heard.

And it makes sense. MCDM is it's own company that needs to make money. Making a big system that can staple itself on multiple games would make the most money.

This is why the "oh let 3PP handled it." is not a full solution. Because they have to make decisions that might not fulfill most demands to make money as well. And the industry is only so big to have so many companies put money into competition.

A couple of points, It is not all that crunchy. My two gripes with it are: if one is not using the mini wargame I see little point to it and it (like other third party efforts and somewhat in the Bastion System) it assumes that each player is interested in domain management. In my experience the party may be interested in the idea of a stronghold but for the party and they want it to provide research/magic items/healing or something like that.
That is why I liked the herb garden idea from the Bastion system. A stronghold that supplied the party with a reasonable number of potions per adventure with out a shopping episode is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Minigiant]

A couple of points, It is not all that crunchy. My two gripes with it are: if one is not using the mini wargame I see little point to it and it (like other third party efforts and somewhat in the Bastion System) it assumes that each player is interested in domain management. In my experience the party may be interested in the idea of a stronghold but for the party and they want it to provide research/magic items/healing or something like that.
That is why I liked the herb garden idea from the Bastion system. A stronghold that supplied the party with a reasonable number of potions per adventure with out a shopping episode is a good idea in my opinion.

That's what I meant.

It's less about hard mechanics and how the mechanics are intwinned in the core game.

The Stronghold gives you a mini game outside of the game

The Bastion gives you game items and game mechanics already in the game using the games base game loop.

That's what I meant about designing the game with the subsystems in mind. A 3PP can't do that as they aren't designing the game. A 3PP can't design a small optional subsystem alone because it's not enough for a book. A 3PP can't do that unless they sign a license that lets them into the design phase of the game

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh where did Isay casters are invincible?

I said caster have too many spell slots so the DM has to chuck throwaway battles to chip them down and the players have too many spells to consider every turn. And that's before the DM plays casters to counter the casters and the Final Jeopardy theme plays on everyone's turn every turn every battle.

Spotify says Jeopardy theme is one of my favorite songs from playing it so much to rush my players.

This is becoming like political debate where people see things that aren't there.

The bolded is where you said it. It is implied. I have to chip the casters down or else...

And I am telling you that is not even remotely close to true.

You also said this:

That's why I say "High level 5e is objectively broken because casters have too many spell slots and this reduces the number of playstyles that high levels can run to 2 because 1)the DM has to burn down a lot of spells slots in unrealistic ways in order to create a challenge and 2) in order to burn though all those spell slots, he DM must make the caster look at all their complex spells and lengthen their turn dramatically"

You are saying the game is broken at high levels. In your own words, your very first reason is: "The DM has to burn down a lot of spell slots in unrealistic ways in order to create a challenge..."

And I am telling you that is 100% false. Wrong. Not correct.

Now, if you were just talking about the length of time it takes for some casters to take their turn, I am 100% on board. I think you are correct. But it is patently wrong to say the DM can't challenge them.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say D&D has to support all playstyles.

I said D&D, as the entry point, has to support more than 1.

And it always has. There has never been a point when you could only play 1 way.