D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Mecheon]

They often believe D&D is its own setting rather than a TTRPG toolbox.

I mean, D&D has always been its own setting, ever since Greyhawk. A lot of D&Disms have made their way into standard fantasy but they're D&D-isms specifically.

Let's just take a look at some D&D-isms that are unique to D&D and not

1: Spellcasters need a book. Not wands or staffs, they gotta have a spellbook
2: Spells are in short supply but powerful. Vancian casting. Limited numbers of spells but at high power
3: Enough ruins with ancient ruins that 'adventurer' is a viable path
4: Humans, elves, dwarves and some totally-not-a-hobbit will be around. Orcs will probably be around.
5: Depending on age, elves will also go into that partially magic user path and follow similar rules
6: Colour coded dragons.
7: Clerics as the main healing one. Most non-D&D fantasy will go with some sort of priest or, say, an alternative spellcaster for the healing one. Clerics as the main healer and all of their quirks is a particularly D&D quirk of time.

D&D is not a generic toolbox of completely generic fantasy, and never has been ever since the particular quirks of the wizard and cleric were made at the very least. Its included its very specific tropes into things

 

[GobHag]

Except that you cannot call it D&D and do not have WotC behind you with their marketing and distribution channels, apart from that, yes. Pretty sure WotC could push a different version of D&D and be successful, it's not like they haven't done that a few times already


I do not think the planes are a relevant part of that. FR, Dragionlance, Ravenloft, etc. sure, those are important. The plane of Fire? I don't think so. And FR is basically generic fantasy, I would have to think whether I would have any issues running an FR adventure in Midgard, Golarion, or a dozen other settings.

Given that about half of players do not play in an official setting, WotC would shoot themselves in the foot if their adventures could not be run outside of, say, FR

The most important thing that D&D can and should do isn't to be able to play outside of FR, it's to be able to play the D&D fantasy genre. This whole thread is at least a disagreement on some major assumptions on what that genre consist of

 

[M_Natas]

Whereas to me, it's like skipping three math classes you've already taken, and which got re-reviewed in both previous physics courses you've taken, so you can actually get to the classes that interest you.

I find levels 1-3 simultaneously stress-inducing and extremely not fun. Like painfully not fun. The stress isn't exciting, it just makes me...well, stressed. I worry and fret, I feel like naughty word if my character dies, I get disheartened. And of course half the groups I've been in drag these levels out forever and ever and ever, so it doesn't even feel like progress, it just feels like I'm trapped in levels where I'm outright incapable, unbelievably fragile, and spending 99.9% of my attention on Not Dying Today rather than being able to engage with or invest into anything at all.

I genuinely, unreservedly hate the early-game experience of 5e at this point. But of course that's where every goddamn GM wants to start. I didn't mind it with Hussar's group because we're running a module which expects that kind of start, and is actually written to account for it. But in a custom campaign? For God's sake, let me start at LEAST at level 3.

So, I don't think we can come together on this, because it being a challenge and dangerous and being the only tier that really has a significant of death in 5e (if you build Challenges according to the rules) means, it is the most fun to play and when you make it to the higher levels that now feels really rewarding, because you survived and are now (basically) invincible - so you feel your character grow and become stronger.
If you start at level 3 or 4 you basically already start as an invincible superhuman.

 

[M_Natas]

Why do you assume that? It was neither stated nor even implied.


Where are these "perfect character(s)" coming from? Why can't they change? Why are they inflexible?

I've literally never seen this. Ever. Not in 3e, 4e, or 5e. Not once.

Why does having to endure the tortuous slog of level 1 and 2 inure the player to these things? It's two bloody levels! Ones that are meant to take no more than three sessions TOTAL to complete! (Of course, I have seen far far far far FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR too many GMs who stretch out those first two levels into six+ sessions, which drives me up the bloody WALL.)

So, my experience at tables so far (obviously a generalization) has been this:
Players who arrive with fully planned characters—complete backstories, a fixed personality, and a very clear idea of who the character “really is”—often engage less with the game world. Because the character is already fully defined, there’s little room for change or growth. The game becomes more of a stage to present the character rather than a space to interact with the world or the other PCs. They are not allowing themselves that their character can surprise them. As a result, these characters can feel like foreign objects dropped into the setting.

In contrast, players who come in with only a loose idea of their character tend to immerse themselves more deeply. They allow the events of play to shape who the character becomes, which leads to more organic development and, in my experience, a more satisfying role-playing experience for everyone at the table.

 

[teitan]

As someone who is a huge fan of 4e...

What on earth makes 5.5e look even remotely like 4e?

I would absolutely, hands-down, no-questions give you 3.x, because 5e (either version) is literally 3.x retooled. But 4e? 5.5e didn't add diddly-squat from 4e that wasn't already there, and I've already gone through (in painstaking detail) how 5.0 mostly doesn't look like 4e, and even in some the places where it does, either it's completely superficial, OR the culture-of-play actively fights it for reasons that are beyond me.

My point wasn’t that they even look alike. My point was I looked at the game, similar to how I did 4e, and said eh it’s great design but not for me. I don’t see how that’s hard to figure out or think I’m saying they are the same.

 

[M_Natas]

I guess you are a GM?

Well feeling different because it feels for most players bad. And yes its "more progress" because power level from level 1 to 3 doubles. (And then from level 3 to 5 doubles and then from 5 to 9 or so doubles again). The progression is way more extreme than later mathematically.

Also its more like skipping the 200 pages of the dudes traveling through forests in lord of the rings, which any editor would skip and any modern book with such a boring section in it would not be bought.


Its just a relic from the past which today can be done better.

if there is no sense of progress without levels 1 to 3, then the GM just does a bad job showing progress through the story.

D&D is known for being heroic fantasy. Thats what the movie shows, the computer and boardgames show. Its what 95% of the rpg game is (level 2 and 3 take by design way less xp to reach!)


So people sign up to play that, not "get tortured for 2 levels by a sadistic GM".

If I go to a boardgame night, I would be pissed if I would be forced to first play for 1 houe chess before we can actually play modern boardgames.



So the suggestion from WotC to start at level 3 is really a good and reasonable one. Acceptibg that modern gamedesign is bettet than outdated 30+ year old one, and start at the power level 4E started for the exact same reasons using modern gamedesign.

Yes, in my current campaign I'm the DM. But even as a player I love the low levels more than the later ones. But I also like to count encumbrance, arrows and food rations and would like a more realistic resting variant and not having the players ressources reset after a good night's rest.
II love my D&D games gritty and challenging.

 

[M_Natas]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, except an example of how I must play D&D so differently from what I hear is the baseline experience for others. Because as far as I know, I am running very tough fights and other kinds of encounters, awarding XP based on what they face, plus bonus XP for other kinds of situations and I still have very slow advancement.

I have run 3 campaigns in 5E so far (2 still ongoing). The first got to 2nd level in the 4th session and 3rd level in the 9th. The second got to 2nd in session 5, and 3rd in session 14 , and the third campaign hit 2nd level in the 4th session and 3rd level in the 12th.



Anyway, just ignore this.

It really depends on the campaign. I'm running a fast paced spelljammer campaign right now, and first session ended with the party destroying an enemy pirate ship by waking an asteroid spider up, that did the job for them.
If I remember right, for example Phandelvar took way longer to get to levels 2 and 3.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

because you survived and are now (basically) invincible

This is and remains completely untrue. It is not, even remotely, accurate to describe 4th+ level characters as "invincible".

The problem is that 5e's encounter-building math is so crap that the line between "dull non-challenge" and "unwinnable garbage" is razor-thin once you get to so-called "higher" levels. I wonder why that might be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My point wasn’t that they even look alike. My point was I looked at the game, similar to how I did 4e, and said eh it’s great design but not for me. I don’t see how that’s hard to figure out or think I’m saying they are the same.

Well it would be this sentence.

Like I read 2024 and i want to like it but it’s a LOT like reading 4e to me.

If reading A is "a LOT like" reading B, then the two must be fairly similar. But it sounds like what you meant was "While reading 5.5e, I got feelings that reminded me of the ones I had while reading 4e." Because then the similarity is only in the feelings--not in the reading.

 

[GobHag]

So, I don't think we can come together on this, because it being a challenge and dangerous and being the only tier that really has a significant of death in 5e (if you build Challenges according to the rules) means, it is the most fun to play and when you make it to the higher levels that now feels really rewarding, because you survived and are now (basically) invincible - so you feel your character grow and become stronger.
If you start at level 3 or 4 you basically already start as an invincible superhuman.

I want that turned on it's head personally and like I said, I much prefer if people are killed by Nazguls when they're Lancelots and not by goblins when they're early Arya Starks. Safe but grounded or dangerous but high-flying