D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[jayoungr]

5e enjoyed a period where it was immune to criticism because no one wanted an edition war.

Not really. I remember the guy who used to moan about once a month about the slow release schedule, predicting that 5E would flop miserably as people deserted it for better-supported systems...

Anyway, I feel like this specific complaint has been on the rise over the past few years.

 

[James Gasik]

Not really. I remember the guy who used to moan about once a month about the slow release schedule, predicting that 5E would flop miserably as people deserted it for better-supported systems...

Anyway, I feel like this specific complaint has been on the rise over the past few years.

As Godzilla can tell you, "haters gonna hate".

 

[overgeeked]

Are you saying that because of the diversity of gaming circumstances, the RAW has to give permission to all possible playstyles?

No. Almost the opposite. No game can handle all possible playstyles well. The absurd amount of variation in the game as played is a symptom of the game being designed to be all things to all players. It lacks focus. It should be more focused. But, that's antithetical to WotC's goals, re: market dominance and sales. They want D&D to be all things to all gamers. So it's designed as such. Whenever anyone says D&D, they mean "D&D as played by me and mine" but there's a nearly infinite variety of differing circumstances, playstyles, preferences, etc...hence the nearly infinite amount of arguments about D&D.

I think 4E was an infinitely better designed game because it knew what it was striving for and focused on it. Quite well, too. If that was your thing. Trouble was, it only appealed to fans who wanted that exact experience, and so it floundered. In response, WotC designed 5E to be the "do everything, but do it half-as-well" edition. Pick an aspect of the game and ask someone who's been playing D&D longer than just 5E. They'll almost all tell you that some other edition did X better than 5E, but 5E is second best at X. So it comes across like a Greatest B-Sides album. It's incredibly popular, which is good for sales. But, that popularity is at the expense of focus. It's not one game, it's a dozen games...each with thousands of variations...in a trenchcoat that seems to think simply having "unified mechanics" means it's a single game.

Listening to and reading what the proper old-school gamers said about the early days of the hobby is illuminating. If forget who said it, but one player that had both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax as referees said something along the lines of "I've never played D&D. I've played Dave's Blackmoor and Gary's Greyhawk."

But, since WotC is doing what it's doing, it falls on us to sort out the mess. Things like Colville's suggested rating system on the backs of modules. It's an admission that D&D is trying to be all things to all gamers, but actual content literally cannot be all things to all gamers, so that content needs focus. It needs to declare what it's meant to do. "This module is for strategic/tactical play with about this many players of about this level" whereas "this module is for roleplay-heavy groups with about this many players and about this level."

 

[tetrasodium]

Hm. Well I guess you have a point. My point of view is, people say the game is broken unless you constantly push the player characters to the limit.

To which I intended to say, "but if you don't, it's ok, because they will probably level slower". Obviously I need to level up my communication skills. Since you know, those aging bonuses I'm supposed to have gotten to make me smarter/wiser/more persuasive don't seem to be kicking in.

Why would they level slower? Do you have some houserules that change how long it takes to say "ok you finish a [long/short] rest" at your table? Players can usually recalculate their hp to max & unuse their spell slots with only fractionally more time needed than it takes to say that.

 

[James Gasik]

Why would they level slower? Do you have some houserules that change how long it takes to say "ok you finish a [long/short] rest" at your table? Players can usually recalculate their hp to max & unuse their spell slots with only fractionally more time needed than it takes to say that.

Because they are not being pushed to have the budget of 6-8 encounters per session?

 

[overgeeked]

Hm. Well I guess you have a point. My point of view is, people say the game is broken unless you constantly push the player characters to the limit.

To which I intended to say, "but if you don't, it's ok, because they will probably level slower". Obviously I need to level up my communication skills. Since you know, those aging bonuses I'm supposed to have gotten to make me smarter/wiser/more persuasive don't seem to be kicking in.

And that's great...if the metric that matters to you is how long it takes to level. For some DMs and players, like me, the metric that matters is how challenging the game is. The variability you're talking about means that the challenge is based on the frequency of fights and long rests, so a DM who wants more challenging game play has to push for harder fights, more fights, and fewer rests. And that can make perfect sense, in-fiction, during some really limited time frames or circumstances, like dungeons or PCs who actually care about NPCs and ticking clocks, etc. But that default assumption of resource drain also destroys any notion of wilderness exploration as a challenge as the characters only run low on resources after 6-8 combats between long rests...so you either house rule things or you let go of wilderness exploration as a challenge.

Because they are not being pushed to have the budget of 6-8 encounters per session?

Fights per day only affect leveling if you're counting individual XP per fight. Most DMs seem to use milestones and/or story-based leveling. Most WotC modules seem to reinforce that.

 

[James Gasik]

And that's great...if the metric that matters to you is how long it takes to level. For some DMs and players, like me, the metric that matters is how challenging the game is. The variability you're talking about means that the challenge is based on the frequency of fights and long rests, so a DM who wants more challenging game play has to push for harder fights, more fights, and fewer rests. And that can make perfect sense, in-fiction, during some really limited time frames or circumstances, like dungeons or PCs who actually care about NPCs and ticking clocks, etc. But that default assumption of resource drain also destroys any notion of wilderness exploration as a challenge as the characters only run low on resources after 6-8 combats between long rests...so you either house rule things or you let go of wilderness exploration as a challenge.

Fights per day only affect leveling if you're counting individual XP per fight. Most DMs seem to use milestones and/or story-based leveling. Most WotC modules seem to reinforce that.

I did mention that in the earlier post "Now some people may have stopped with xp altogether, as is their right, but if you're tracking these things...". And yes, if you've dispensed with per encounter xp. none of what I said is true.

But if you are, the balance between pushing the party to the limit and not might become evident.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because they are not being pushed to have the budget of 6-8 encounters per session?

That's not the case though. Lets say Bob is running an adventure with 6-8 encounters & the assumption of one long rest plus two long rests but the players take six short rests for the short rest sorlock/fighter/monk heavy party and two long rests cause they figured the cleric should get extra too. The players will burn though that 6-8 encounter expectation even faster & do so with ease because they nova their way through every round of every encounter unless Bob uses even tougher monsters that will give more xp. I'd say those tougher monsters would make a feeedback loop of players resting even more often but they are already basically resting every fight & can't exactly squeeze a rest in mid fight.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No. Almost the opposite. No game can handle all possible playstyles well. The absurd amount of variation in the game as played is a symptom of the game being designed to be all things to all players. It lacks focus. It should be more focused. But, that's antithetical to WotC's goals, re: market dominance and sales. They want D&D to be all things to all gamers. So it's designed as such. Whenever anyone says D&D, they mean "D&D as played by me and mine" but there's a nearly infinite variety of differing circumstances, playstyles, preferences, etc...hence the nearly infinite amount of arguments about D&D.

First off, the conversation I think I was having, with others - not you; was about people seeming to need explicit language in the rules to do stuff like forbid non human pcs in their campaign or whatever. Which, is counter to the ruling not rules ethos of the game and is a very 3.x RAW is King view of the game.

Secondly, I think it was ever thus, with regard to the diversity of playstyles, that D&D has been asked to service. With the exception of 4e and possibly in a different way Basic, D&D has not been very focused.

I think 4E was an infinitely better designed game because it knew what it was striving for and focused on it. Quite well, too. If that was your thing. Trouble was, it only appealed to fans who wanted that exact experience, and so it floundered. In response, WotC designed 5E to be the "do everything, but do it half-as-well" edition. Pick an aspect of the game and ask someone who's been playing D&D longer than just 5E. They'll almost all tell you that some other edition did X better than 5E, but 5E is second best at X. So it comes across like a Greatest B-Sides album. It's incredibly popular, which is good for sales. But, that popularity is at the expense of focus. It's not one game, it's a dozen games...each with thousands of variations...in a trenchcoat that seems to think simply having "unified mechanics" means it's a single game.

While I agree that 4e was very focused and clear as to what it was striving to be, I do not accept that 5e is not well designed. I think it is pretty good. I may have preferred 4e a few years ago I am increasingly impressed by the robustness of the 5e game.

Aside from that, however, 4e was commercially not as successful and 5e is a much more commercially successful game. Given that WoTC/Hasbro are looking to profit from D&D IP in the broader entertainment world, they have every incentive not to alienate any part of the market. So they would see broad appeal and lack of focus as a selling point and a marketing bonus.

Listening to and reading what the proper old-school gamers said about the early days of the hobby is illuminating. If forget who said it, but one player that had both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax as referees said something along the lines of "I've never played D&D. I've played Dave's Blackmoor and Gary's Greyhawk."

I played back in those days, (though not with Dave or Gary) and my experience was that D&D followed lineages based on the DM and player that introduced players to D&D in an area.

But, since WotC is doing what it's doing, it falls on us to sort out the mess. Things like Colville's suggested rating system on the backs of modules. It's an admission that D&D is trying to be all things to all gamers, but actual content literally cannot be all things to all gamers, so that content needs focus. It needs to declare what it's meant to do. "This module is for strategic/tactical play with about this many players of about this level" whereas "this module is for roleplay-heavy groups with about this many players and about this level."

I played many of those old Avalon Hill games back in the day and those rating systems were highly hit and miss.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok but what I'm talking is, per encounter xp. If you're using milestones, yeah, obviously there's no difference.

Let's say group A is like "we have 6-8 encounters per 5 hour session": standard xp allotment.
Group B has 5 encounters per 5 hour session: same xp allotment as Group A.
Group C has 3 encounters per 5 hour session, but those three encounters are worth less xp than what group A and B use.