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

[Micah Sweet]

Its hardly the 4E way (and honestly based on a lot of complaints I've heard about 5E, I suspect people do got a bit of fondness for 'everyone can make tactical decisions in combat'), it dates back to Dragonlance at the very least. The general Internet vibe of D&D has rarely placed much influence on stuff like mundane item keeping or encumbrance, and I suspect it dates to the inspiring fiction that's around. Folks hear "Dungeons and Dragons" and they have a very specific view, absolutely reinforced by the recent movie, as to what its going to be. How its played.

The popular examples of playing D&D was the novels, and then games like Baldurs Gate or NWN (Which, at least in some modules, does try to go closer to your style of things, but absolutely not all). Effectively the inertia of the game is very much away from that mundane item noting and instead very much into the high fantasy adventure. That's basically the problem. Even back in 2E when those were published, that playstyle was on its way out and just became an increasingly niche thing

I did say, "not everybody". I don't particularly care whether or not classic play is popular; I expect that's pretty obvious by now, and appeals to popularity do not work on me.

 

[Parmandur]

In my mind - which may be as mangled as a door-crushed beer stein - these are all related, and relate also to @Warpiglet-7's example of the need to dig the trench.

I see two ways to use equipment in play.

One is like the classic procedure of play that I spelled out above - the players are expected to declare rather detailed actions for their PCs, for circumventing the cunning architectural obstacles the GM has described, and the GM adjudicates based on being as true as possible to the shared imaginary situation and shared knowledge of how shovels, poles etc work. Obviously the more varied the obstacles become - digging trenches, pitching tents in the arctic, etc - the harder it is to work this out. In my Classic Traveller game, when the PCs were using their triple beam laser to blast through kilometres of ice to uncover a buried alien installation, we - as in, the group - spent 15 minutes or so Googling up information about how lasers cut through ice, and then reached an agree extrapolation of this to the imaginary situation.

I reckon that the sort of approach I've just described is not all that mainstream in current D&D play.

The other approach involves feeding the equipment into a more general, somewhat abstract, resolution framework. There are different ways this can be done - I enjoy Torchbearer's and I enjoy 4e D&D's and I enjoy Marvel Heroic RP's, although they're all different - and in the context of 5e D&D this would mean feeding it into the general ability/skill check framework.

Which means I think @Parmandur is right - it seems like something for the DMG.

But it might also affect the way the equipment list is set out - instead of just an alphabetical list, there could be things like Tools for digging, cutting etc with some examples listed, and a note that these help STR checks as per the DMG; and Tools for measuring, assaying etc with some examples listed, and a note that these help INT checks as per the DMG; and Tools for protecting from weather, exposure, cold, etc with some examples listed, and a note that these help CON checks as per the DMG; etc.

And then the DMG, in its advice on setting DCs, granting advantage or imposing disadvantage, etc, could include a discussion of how the use of tools is a factor in this.

For context, the 5E DMG suggests that all action adjudication should be fit into one of three target DCs (15, 20, or 25) to just go with and move the action along.

 

[pemerton]

For context, the 5E DMG suggests that all action adjudication should be fit into one of three target DCs (15, 20, or 25) to just go with and move the action along.

Yep, I think I knew that!

But if tools/gear are going to matter, it will have to say a bit more than that, won't it? Of course that extra stuff could be flagged as optional, though - as per the concurrent "why can't people acknowledge D&D is a game thread" - there does seem to be some controversy around flagging rules elements as optional.

EDIT for an extra sentence or two: the flipside is that if the GM is running the game following the literal method you've set out - ie use DCs of 15, 20 or 25 to manage pacing and keep things moving - then hasn't that GM decided that tools/gear are basically irrelevant as anything but colour? Which is fine - another RPG I really like is Agon 2e, and tools/gear are almost never anything but colour in that system - but maybe it would help for the rulebooks to spell this out. That is, to tell the GM and players "If you're using the approach of setting DCs for pacing and action as per page <XX> of the DMG, then don't bother about the mundane equipment rules. Just describe your PC's look and cut to the action!"

 

[Parmandur]

Yep, I think I knew that!

But if tools/gear are going to matter, it will have to say a bit more than that, won't it? Of course that extra stuff could be flagged as optional, though - as per the concurrent "why can't people acknowledge D&D is a game thread" - there does seem to be some controversy around flagging rules elements as optional.

Not necessarily, though they could. An awful lot of it is just adjudication based on common sense. An action declaration of digging a trench without shovels is going to change the off-the-cuff equation of what sort of DC gets set, but that's entirely DM fiat territory.

 

[pemerton]

Not necessarily, though they could. An awful lot of it is just adjudication based on common sense. An action declaration of digging a trench without shovels is going to change the off-the-cuff equation of what sort of DC gets set, but that's entirely DM fiat territory.

I'm interested in your thoughts on my edit to my post.

 

[Parmandur]

EDIT for an extra sentence or two: the flipside is that if the GM is running the game following the literal method you've set out - ie use DCs of 15, 20 or 25 to manage pacing and keep things moving - then hasn't that GM decided that tools/gear are basically irrelevant as anything but colour? Which is fine - another RPG I really like is Agon 2e, and tools/gear are almost never anything but colour in that system - but maybe it would help for the rulebooks to spell this out. That is, to tell the GM and players "If you're using the approach of setting DCs for pacing and action as per page <XX> of the DMG, then don't bother about the mundane equipment rules. Just describe your PC's look and cut to the action!"

I mean, essentially, yes. And I would go further to suggest that the majority of DMs already made that decision, and the 5E rules more or less just recognize that as the typical playstyle. The new DMG is getting a full overhaul, so I would expect that discussions on how to make these sorts of calls and how to adjust would be something they add. We do know that they are adding in more explicit pricing guidelines for magic and more esoteric items than the PHB lists, per Chris Perkins.

 

[billd91]

But when I give a game company ~40 bucks for a book, I don't really want to be told "hey, make it up". I could already do that, with the only cost being my time and effort! I thought I was paying professional game designers to do that for me...

But that IS kind of what this industry has always been. And not just D&D. We’re always making up worlds, antagonists, dungeons, supervillains, planetary systems, friendly NPCs, horrific conspiracies of cultists, etc etc.

 

[billd91]

If we want detailed, intricate systems, that’s what dms guild is for. I’ve no problem with that.

But a little bit more in the core rules isn’t exactly a huge ask.

But a little bit more of what? Ship combat rules?
That may sound a bit flippant given another conversation on this board, but there is a litany of different things different players want more details about for D&D. How many of them can be done and still not be a huge ask?

 

[Hussar]

But a little bit more of what? Ship combat rules?
That may sound a bit flippant given another conversation on this board, but there is a litany of different things different players want more details about for D&D. How many of them can be done and still not be a huge ask?

Not quite a fair comparison though.

There aren’t ship combat rules at all in the core rules. So any rules are an addition.

We already have pages of rules for how magic interacts with mundane tasks. You could go the other way - a tent is equal to Leomund’s Hut. Using a shovel is equal to the move earth cantrip (sorry forgot the exact name).

I mean we already HAVE these rule interactions in the game. But only if it’s magic.

It’s the double standard that I object to.

I can make a sword with a Fabricate spell. I know exactly what I can make with a fabricate spell.

What can I make with smith’s tools and how long does it take?

After all, my character can have and be proficient with these tools. But I have no idea how long it takes to make an iron key. Can I make a lock with smith’s tools? How long does it take?

On and on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But a little bit more of what? Ship combat rules?
That may sound a bit flippant given another conversation on this board, but there is a litany of different things different players want more details about for D&D. How many of them can be done and still not be a huge ask?

The Arms and Equipment Guide to the rescue again.

If the Book of Many Things isn't this, then I will call them cowards. 4e have 3 of them. 3e put new equipment in basically every player-facing book and STILL rolled an AEG that remains the best D&D book ever released. It's been ten long years!