D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[UngeheuerLich]

The difference is, in 1e you didn't have to change the rules or remove anything. In 5e you kinda do.

I don't think 1e, as much as you or we liked it would work today.
Too much work to make it work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think 1e, as much as you or we liked it would work today.
Too much work to make it work.

Like I said, I'm not going to get my players to play  exactly the game I like. I have to make the current edition work for me.

 

[tetrasodium]

Even the hickman revolution stuff doesn't really work in 5e precisely because too much has been obliviated from d&d in the name of "story" & simplicity, much of it done as a result of the addition of beyond high magic as the baseline.

Spoiler: Look at the hickman manifesto

1. A player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing.
2. An intriguing story that is intricately woven into play itself.
3. Dungeons with an architectural sense.
4. An attainable and honorable end within one to two sessions playing time

It got mentioned back in post160 how the GM can't make it count for story that it be difficulty to find a place to sleep when it matters for the story, MaGiC ItEmS ArE OpTiOnAl" & the shift to everything simply needing nothing more than a "magic" weapon severely curtails #1. #2 isn't really relevant since it's more about the story itself but is very much hampered by the need for constant doom clocks. #3 & #4 are severely hampered by the need to squeeze 6-8 medium to hard encounters into an adventuring day and find make things like LTH/rest overuse harder.
Finally I can't really fit 6-8 encounters and story in 1-2 sessions

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even the hickman revolution stuff doesn't really work in 5e precisely because too much has been obliviated from d&d in the name of "story" & simplicity, much of it done as a result of the addition of beyond high magic as the baseline.

Spoiler: Look at the hickman manifesto

1. A player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing.
2. An intriguing story that is intricately woven into play itself.
3. Dungeons with an architectural sense.
4. An attainable and honorable end within one to two sessions playing time

It got mentioned back in post160 how the GM can't make it count for story that it be difficulty to find a place to sleep when it matters for the story, MaGiC ItEmS ArE OpTiOnAl" & the shift to everything simply needing nothing more than a "magic" weapon severely curtails #1. #2 isn't really relevant since it's more about the story itself but is very much hampered by the need for constant doom clocks. #3 & #4 are severely hampered by the need to squeeze 6-8 medium to hard encounters into an adventuring day and find make things like LTH/rest overuse harder.
Finally I can't really fit 6-8 encounters and story in 1-2 sessions

It should be noted that back in the 80s, PC were quite a bit simpler mechanically, and monsters usually were too. As a result, combat went faster. So maybe you could achieve #4 under those conditions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But those aren't Stories. Those are just different Standard Operating Procedures.

I think we have different views of what constitute Stories.

A ranger finding food and shelter? Are you going to play that out every single night? Yes, the first time might be interesting... but after like the third time most modern players won't care about it anymore. So it'll be handwaved-- you find food and shelter. Which is no different than the wizard using Tiny Hut. The Standard Operating Procedure during gameplay is no different.

The Story is that it is the ranger that does it because it is part of what makes a ranger a ranger. If you remove shelter (LTH), foraging (goodberry) and pathfinding (flying, phantom steeds, teleports and handwaving), what makes the ranger a ranger?

A dwarf having darvision when no one else does? Sure, the WHY he has darkvision might be interesting from a character perspective... but during gameplay? It means everyone breaks out torches and Light spells and the party proceeds no differently than if everyone is using darkvision. So once again, the Standard Operating Procedure during gameplay is no different.

One of the things that makes a dwarf distinctive is being at home underground. This translates to Darkvision and Stonecunning plus whatever else the DM can add.

And sometimes, the right call will be to break out the torches. Sometimes, that will draw unwanted attention to you. Either way, the dwarf has options that make sense to the character.

And if your players keep selecting the "10 most overpowered spells" each and every time... why does that matter? Are they able to get past whatever encounters you throw at them as part of the Story? Isn't that then up to you to change the Story so that they can't just rely on their Standard Operating Procedures (if indeed that is an issue?)

It matters because it decreases variability among PCs, and THAT is a story issue. I’ve been on both sides of that: as a player, sometimes it is hard to choose the spell/feature that makes sense for your character if doing so will impact your effectiveness, letting down the people you are playing with.

And as far as the King being assassinated... you're the DM. If that's the Story, then why is there a Court Cleric there in the chambers at all, or why does Revivify actually work? You can set up the assassination however you want, and give any reasoning why he wasn't able to be brought back from the dead. That's the glories of being the Dungeon Master.

Because Story means that Verisimilitude and maintaining Suspension of disbelief is MORE important, not less.

In a Story campaign, characters are given more range to colour outside the lines and address challenges in their own way, but the only way to make this work is if the characters have an idea of what the baseline is, and the DM applies it consistently.

Do temples exist and is bringing back dead PCs a realistic proposition ? Well, the PC’s plan to assassinate the evil high priest is going to run into the problem that the high priest can be raised as well.

Rather than accepting the NPC’s quest, the PCs are going to break into their house and steal the McGuffin? The countermeasures will be commensurate to the power of the NPC, so the PCs have a baseline to create their plan.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Both experienced and newbies & it's easy to believe when you consider the impact of death saves on player mindset. I started in the 90s well into the hickman revolution so d&d was always heavy on story for me. Thanks to death saves though NPCs offering powerful healing potions/cure items went from "oh wow how many can I buy" to "no... I think it's a waste of money but guess I'll buy one"->gm: "anyone else?"->Other players: "no... I have a regular potion".

Players don't have tools to save themselves when things are going bad & they don't consider being at 7/70hp to be the end of the line. Death saves leave players shocked when the monsters confirm the kill or something & as players they didn't even consider themselves to be in danger when the first attack dropped them & even the second doing two death saves wasn't a nail biting moment when so many players could healing word them before that monster got another turn. When that expectation doesn't hold upplayers are shocked & say things like this

Not trying to be rude but I am honestly unable to process what you're even trying to say here. It just seems contradictory and confused. Like what are we talking about with "NPCs offering powerful healing potions/cure items"? Like what is that? That's not something from 5E. That's maybe a 3.XE/PF thing? Arguably?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Specific example to my last post. Someone posted about a campaign where magic is rare and viewed with suspicion.

From a Story perspective, this may seem great at first glance. Obvious spellcasters tend to have penalties in social encounters, as people shun them.

Applying this consistently though, creates problems from a story perspective. What about clerics ? Are devout people who worship gods are treated with superstition and disdain ? It’s pretty easy for a spellcaster to appear as a non-spellcaster, so it is pretty easy to avoid the penalties while still getting the benefits of being s spellcaster in a low-magic world. Like there being very few people who can counterspell or dispel your magic. Few places warded against the use of magic. Few people that would recognize a familiar in cat guise. Very few people that can see invisible. Etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, the counterarguments keep taking this extreme stance. "Tracking every gram of food". "Describing foraging every single night". Etc.

I don't think that's what anybody is saying is fun.

The goal is...again, like Hobbit/LotR...to make it possible for these things to be challenges at appropriate moments. So, sure, Tiny Hut means you don't have to worry about finding shelter "every night", but so does the DM saying, "It's easy to find shelter in this part of the world."

But then when the DM wants shelter to be part of the story, Tiny Hut makes that very difficult.

I like that you say it as "make it possible for these things to be challenges at appropriate moments" because that I think is what I've been talking about in a nutshell.

We all know anything can be challenges. Anything can be an encounter or an event the players (through their PCs) have to deal with. String enough of these together and you produce a story. But if these events or challenges are all the exact same thing done time and time again... the story becomes tedious. We don't need to read (or in D&D's case play) these tedious events. Very few people want to roleplay how they go about setting up their campsite when they bed for the night each and every night of the game. Rather... player would prefer to do it at an "appropriate moment"... a moment where things have been set up for the PCs where how they set up their campsite actually matters at this moment in the game.

And when it's been determined for any reason why this night it matters how they set up camp over any other night we've just handwaved passed... then this is the night when the DM can set up the reasoning why Tiny Hut either doesn't work or is not a good idea. I agree wholeheartedly that Tiny Hut does make finding shelter no longer a difficult event or encounter... which is why it's perfectly okay for the story to arrive at this place where this one time it is. Might that way be contrived a bit? Possibly. But it also might make perfect sense why this night in this adventure using Tiny Hut is not an option... at which point this story event can take its place in the overarching narrative.

All the addition of Tiny Hut does is change EVERY night from a "how are we going to find shelter?" event to a SPECIFIC "how are we going to find shelter?" event. Which will be a boon for those groups who find that aspect of D&D to not be interesting... but a major loss for those groups that do.

I don't fault anyone for wanting that old school playstyle and feel... I just wish they were able to find just three other people out there that they could actually play one of these old school editions or games with, rather than continually be stuck playing a 5E game that they know does not do what they wish it did.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Specific example to my last post. Someone posted about a campaign where magic is rare and viewed with suspicion.

From a Story perspective, this may seem great at first glance. Obvious spellcasters tend to have penalties in social encounters, as people shun them.

Applying this consistently though, creates problems from a story perspective. What about clerics ? Are devout people who worship gods are treated with superstition and disdain ? It’s pretty easy for a spellcaster to appear as a non-spellcaster, so it is pretty easy to avoid the penalties while still getting the benefits of being s spellcaster in a low-magic world. Like there being very few people who can counterspell or dispel your magic. Few places warded against the use of magic. Few people that would recognize a familiar in cat guise. Very few people that can see invisible. Etc.

I think this is a valid thing to bring up, but Clerics even existing just causes SO MANY problems for D&D settings and fantasy in general, because it's opening this absolutely huge can of worms. It's notable that a lot of more serious fantasy heartbreakers throw Clerics overboard, and replace them with non-divine classes, or even get rid of any kind of formal "healing classes" entirely, because by doing so they get to close that can of worms.

All the addition of Tiny Hut does is change EVERY night from a "how are we going to find shelter?" event to a SPECIFIC "how are we going to find shelter?" event. Which will be a boon for those groups who find that aspect of D&D to not be interesting... but a major loss for those groups that do.

I don't think that's quite right. Tiny Hut changes it from every night to no nights. Not specific nights, just basically never. It invalidates the entire concept of seeking shelter, which pushes the game into a weirdly posthuman and videogame-y space that doesn't jive at all well with the "vibe" D&D clearly wants to have, in every edition. I don't think it's even a boon to the groups who don't care, it's only a boon for the tiny, probably single-digit percentage (or less) who actually hate that kind of thing. For groups who "don't care", the traditional way to handle shelter has just been to not go into it, just say "We find shelter", unless something wild is happening, in which case they probably do care.

It's like you could write an entire SF novel just with the concept of people having access to something like Tiny Hut, that's how huge and how deep the changes it potentially causes are. Generally any spell that's not congruent with world mythology or fantasy literature in general, and has massive potential impacts on how people with access to it would live, probably needs reconsidering, at this point, whether it's Goodberry, Tiny Hut, Resurrection, or whatever (stuff like Revivify is much less of an issue, it's almost like the paramedic spell).

 

[Bill Zebub]

All the addition of Tiny Hut does is change EVERY night from a "how are we going to find shelter?"...

Why does it have to be that every night, in the absence of Tiny Hut? Can't the DM just say, "Shelter is plentiful on this leg of the trip. Don't worry about it unless you feel like describing it."

To me that is much easier, and feels more natural/less adversarial, than contriving a reason that Tiny Hut can't be used when you want to up the challenge.