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

[Hussar]

So the group's are more important? If there's a conflict, the player's always win?

As DM, yeah I’m going to prioritize the group being happy and enthusiastic over me forcing them to do something they have specifically said they don’t want to do just because I’m the dm.

Yes the group’s preferences are more important than any one player’s. Regardless of where the player is sitting.

At the end of the day, the players always win. If you pitch a campaign idea and no one is interested, you either go with plan B or find a new group.

This notion that the dms preferences should trump the group’s is truly toxic. It gets right to the heart of the worst gaming stories.

 

[Hussar]

In this case, it sounds like everything was to the player's liking except one thing, and that was just too much for them to handle.

You are spinning this in a truly weird direction. I don’t really know what else to say here.

I get 90% of what I want and the group get what they want. How is that not how compromise works?

Losing ship to ship combat isn’t a deal breaker for me. It just isn’t. I’m sorry that seems to offend you so much but it’s just not a hill I need to die on.

And, having done it this way now, I do see the benefits. Faster play. Less screwing around with Mickey Mouse rules. More player engagement.

It’s been an actual win.

 

[pemerton]

@Hussar, when are you going to recognise that the true issue with 5e is that you are not forcing your players to play a naval battles war game!

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar, when are you going to recognise that the true issue with 5e is that you are not forcing your players to play a naval battles war game!

I know right? Allowing other people to enjoy something without repeatedly taking a big dump on it is just not the way to win DnD.

 

[M_Natas]

And yet I’m now several months into my Spelljammer campaign and having a blast.

I'm also running a Spelljammer Campaign since Januray. But like I said, I had to create most of the rules/how the spelljammer setting works myself.
The players and I (me?) have a blast. I'm using the Spelljammer Set and see how lacking it really is.
Like the Total Lack of any details. In my normal D&D games if my players ask how something works, 80-90% of the time it can be found in the PHB, DMG, Xanathars or Tashas.
With Spelljammer, my players ask fair questions about how spelljammer related thinks work, that are just not covered in the 5e spelljammer rules set.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So the group's are more important? If there's a conflict, the player's always win?

The group as a whole is more important than any one player, yes. Even if that player is the DM. But that doesn't mean the DM has to be the DM.

And this ties back into the commonly agreed 5e problem - the DMing guidance and hence the ease of getting new DMs is bad.

 

[CleverNickName]

Players tend to forget that the DM is also playing D&D, and is also supposed to be having fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some DM's tend to forget that they're not the Daddy of the table and the players deserve the same consideration and respect as any other adults you are friends with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm coming at it from a perspective of exactly what I said: Encumbrance is bad as a general design approach to a problem because it exclusively exists to punish poor play, and never reward good play. Which is why so many groups elect to simply ignore it completely or handwave it in most in-character situations.

I'd say that you are confusing the concept of encumbrance with the D&D implementation of encumbrance (which is almost unchanged in 50 years when actually used). There are better versions of encumbrance out there, that among other things help you visualise the character. Anti-Hammerspace uses bulk not weight and makes the character much more visual, and the Blades in the Dark system rewards gives you plot coupons depending on your encumbrance weight and class (you take a light, medium, or heavy load and then get a number of uses of class-appropriate equipment depending on your load with how visibly you're equipped being based on the load you chose).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd say that you are confusing the concept of encumbrance with the D&D implementation of encumbrance (which is almost unchanged in 50 years when actually used). There are better versions of encumbrance out there, that among other things help you visualise the character. Anti-Hammerspace uses bulk not weight and makes the character much more visual, and the Blades in the Dark system rewards gives you plot coupons depending on your encumbrance weight and class (you take a light, medium, or heavy load and then get a number of uses of class-appropriate equipment depending on your load with how visibly you're equipped being based on the load you chose).

I mean...I did reference "capactiy in some form other than encumbrance" (emphasis in original):

Capacity in some form other than encumbrance can be a third. E.g., as I mentioned before, you can only wear so many weapons, hold so many things, etc. That's not relevant for everything, but it's relevant for some things. Great, you can carry a thousand suits of plate mail--too bad it takes forever to switch between them so there's literally no point. Etc.

I didn't know of Anti-Hammerspace, but it is pretty well the kind of thing I was envisioning. I just didn't have a clear throughline to present it, so I spoke in generalities. (Though I have to agree with the description in that link, that this method is quite harsh in its own ways and, at least in this form, not really appropriate for the kinds of adventuring D&D purports to offer.) Capacity is a very different way to handle the question of "how much can I bring with me?", which can in fact be rewarding, not just non-punitive. Especially if there are bonuses for choosing to carry fewer containers than your maximum/leaving containers fully empty.