D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Ruin Explorer]

1e and 2e are much more different than is generally acknowledged because the XP system is so different. 2e cleaned up 1e - but if you're playing them relatively purely then 1e has the XP for GP rule meaning that it's a game about exploration, heists, and where combat is a failure mode. 2e's default XP rules are XP for killing and XP for acting like a stereotypical member of your class meaning that it's a game about slaughter and acting like stereotypes.

But if you switched then you at the time probably saw it as an improvement because you had either ditched the old XP rules or you kept them.

2E also had the GP = XP rule. It's right there in the DMG. That fewer people chose to use it doesn't make it not exist.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Mundane tents provide shelter, it's why they're on the equipment list. But, they are also heavy. Having a wizard is more convenient but they have to save a 3rd level spell for it. Goodberry is an excellent option, certainly, but you're a bit stuck without a druid or any season other than summer.

Tiny Hut is a ritual. It doesn’t cost you a spell slot.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the thing.

In videogaming, there is a genre of games called survival sim games. Survival sim games have a niche popularity. Its fans are feverishly devoted. However they are few in number. And it isn't about marketing. Survival simulation just isn't popular to the general public.

So as long as D&D is going for widespread appeal, it will not focus on simulation of survival no matter how much its fans boast about how fun it is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And then there's survival crafting games where you can carry a building's worth of walls and a jaguar in your pocket, but Crom help you if you don't have twenty gallons of water to drink a day.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Shovels come in different sizes and shapes, earth comes in different densities and compositions, and strength/constitution would play into it. Short of another Wilderness Survival Guide with a fairly sizable chart, there's no way to tell a DM how much someone can dig with a shovel.

You're only reinforcing my point lol.

 

[billd91]

Like in 4E, Initiative was the higher of DEX or INT mods. That devalued DEX and valued INT, relative to 5E. It was simply a better design.

In 4E, you had three defences, and each of them took the better of two stats (did 3E do the same?). Again that devalued a number of stats that could easily get over valued.

Debatable whether it was a better design or not. It had it's unevennesses the way it worked. An artful dodger rogue could safely invest in all 3 desired stats (Con, Dex, Cha) and dump the other 3 because of the way his exploits broke down. But the brutal thug rogue really wanted both Str and Con, same with a lot of fighters, and could only dump 2.
A better design would use the pairings but divide them up into offense/defense orientations (Str offense/Con defense, Cha offense/Wis defense, Int offense/Dex defense). You still have potential dump options, but you don't have some classes doubling up with offense and defense for a single stat, while others really can't.

 

[Maxperson]

You're only reinforcing my point lol.

I know. I felt it needed a bit of reinforcement.

 

[Oofta]

Shovels come in different sizes and shapes, earth comes in different densities and compositions, and strength/constitution would play into it. Short of another Wilderness Survival Guide with a fairly sizable chart, there's no way to tell a DM how much someone can dig with a shovel.

Right. Which is why we need a cross reference calculation chart. Type of shovel, cross referenced with type of soil, add in current ground moisture levels, potential obstacles like roots and stones! Remember to factor in depth as well since the soil composition may well change. Double check the weight of the character if it's dense soil and the character can stand on the shovel. Don't forget to include their strength modifier.

Phew. Okay, only a page or two of complex calculations, just be sure to cross reference with the soil type and density charts and we should be good to go! After all, don't want the DM just making up a number and going with it since most of the factors are arbitrary anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree that the trade-off you describe is apt for survival gameplay. For "heroic" gameplay, where (I presume) players aren't particularly interested in keeping track of how much stuff they're carrying at all save in the most abstract sense, though, is that even a worthwhile trade-off to insist upon?

Apropos of annoying players, to my mind it's still better design if the game's rules aren't actively interfering with the kind of game players are interested in playing. That's not something that ought to have to be solved in session 0, except, of course, for the players to vote on or come to a consensus on what kind of game they want to play and then adding the appropriate variant rules.


This is, as far as I can see, plain and simply false insofar as you are asserting it to be some sort of "objective" property of RPG gameplay.

I am comfortable asserting that for the vast majority of players currently playing D&D, "How much gear can I carry right now?" is not an interesting question that they want to be made to answer through the game's mechanics. A more-or-less unlimited carrying capacity would, for those players, be genuinely better because they can focus their time and energy on those questions they do find interesting enough to answer through gameplay.

For those players for whom "How much gear can I carry right now?" is an interesting question, the way in which the game's ruleset and mechanics force them to answer the question also matters; some methods are going lead to more enjoyable gameplay by those players' lights than others. I am comfortable asserting that those methods are not going to correspond precisely to "realistic" encumbrance systems.

I'm also quite comfortable asserting that your preferences are very niche. Nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but it would simply be a mistake for D&D to cater exclusively or even primarily to them.


Again, it seems to me that you are treating your own niche preferences as being "objective" qualities of RPG play - or, at the very least, you come across as not satisfactorily allowing for the fact that satisfying gameplay preferences you don't share is just as valid RPG gameplay as satisfying your own preferences.

I feel comfortable asserting that to the largest chunk of the D&D player base, their preference is either very casual "kick in the dungeon door and kill everything for its loot" gameplay, or character-driven gameplay with an overlay of strategic and/or tactical decision-making, and not for logistics-driven gameplay. "What dungeon are we knocking over in tonight's game session", "What goal is more important for me to pursue right now?", "What allies can I call upon in this situation, or what allies should I call upon?" or "Should I cast a spell right now and if so, what spell?" are interesting questions by such standards, while "Did I remember to bring a crowbar on this expedition or not" just isn't.

Spellcasting, then, is seemingly leading to more of the kinds of decisions players have to make that they find interesting and enjoyable to confront during gameplay. These decisions could relate to questions of resource management, but they don't have to.

Meanwhile, for players who do want to incorporate more mundane resource management and/or logistics-driven gameplay, it's not clear to me that a more "realistic" set of mechanics is going to do the trick. "How much stuff can I carry right now?" might or might not be an interesting question, but "How many pounds or fractions of a pound of stuff am I carrying that I have to spend precious table time computing?" is rather less likely to be.

Finally, bluntly put, challenge is, at best, only minimally "objectively" good for gameplay, insofar as gameplay that is not-at-all challenging, or that is consistently underwhelming as regards challenge, is likely to be boring. Beyond that, it is a useful element of gameplay when players find it interesting and enjoyable in and of itself. And, of course, even when players who are not Lanefan value challenge, it does not follow that a more "realistic" encumbrance mechanic is going to be an interesting and enjoyable way for them to experience challenge.

See, I'm of the apparently aberrant opinion that D&D the game does not need to reinvent itself regularly to conform to what its current designers and marketing team think "today's" players want. No other RPG does this, and being popular does not make D&D special.

 

[Hussar]

Fair. But a ballpark figure wouldn’t hurt. After all, spells like Move Earth have that. Why not something like, a Str 10 medium humanoid can dig a 5x5x5 foot hole in 2 hours. Or whatever is actually plausible?