D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I don’t subscribe to the Dragonball Z school of awesome.

My post was literally about the fact that 'realism' is being used to make the fantasy world less awesome than the real world. Everything in my post are actual things that exist on Earth: Pistol Shrimp, Eucalyptus Trees and Playpi.

What alternate universe version of me said anything about DBZ or destroying planets?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's a matter of preference, I guess. My preference is to make healing harder, and combat more dangerous.

Let's say we're watching an action movie, and the hero Brett Strongjaw gets shot. He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black, we wonder if this is the end for our hero. But no! The lights come back up after a few seconds, the action resumes, Brett gets up and returns fire! But look out, he gets shot again! He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black...

...and so on. After the first time, this device loses its impact. And after about the third or fourth time, it starts to get boring. Then annoying.

It's a terrible plot device. And it's not made better (or more exciting, or even more interesting) by making the bad guys stop shooting at the hero.

That is of course, by far, not the only way to describe being knocked down. Nor IME even a common way. I don't see a lot of players/GMs in my many decades of play richly describing the vast majority of the action in fights at all. It is generally just he was hit, he wasn't hit, he hit you, he missed, roll some damage, maybe exclaim "Ouch! That hurt!" and then maybe when you go down there's a mention of how the orc 'knocked your lights out with that blow' or something. Is the PC bleeding and unconscious? We don't even really know for sure exactly what the situation is. The rest of the team sees them stop fighting and concludes their team member is in serious trouble. Maybe someone casts a spell at them, or whatever. Exactly what that LOOKED LIKE is not dictated by the rules to any degree. You could still be standing, stunned. The heal could arrive before you even hit the floor, or at the same time as the blow (surely turns are a mechanical contrivance, right)?

This is one of those sort of things where the argument is OK in a hypothetical kind of way, but it really has no practical application in actual play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me? Usually, it's an attempt to get the player to try a different tactic--any at all--other than "keep fighting until I drop." Remember it's not always the DM who is "so hopelessly addicted to just one kind of stakes."

This seems to be more of an issue of characters which are too limited in scope of what they can do. Why is the character wading into a repeating series of fights where their options are limited to 'jump into melee and slug it out'? That and see below.

I'm curious, though. What other kinds of stakes would you have the DM provide, that would prevent the issue of PCs dropping too often?

And why not break out of the 'endless series of fights to the death' paradigm that seems to pervade D&D, both in play and in terms of how it is designed. I look at what the players goals and interests are, and then I craft stories and encounters (which are small stories themselves) which engage those things. If the character decided he's attracted to the guard captain, then there are stakes for you! Maybe the PCs just need to find something, or get past the bad guys, or create a diversion. Or maybe the roof starts to cave in, etc. Make it exciting and dynamic and engaging the specific characters.

I mean, NOBODY is going to get much drama out of "a square room with 4 orcs in it. They leap up and grab their weapons! Roll for initiative." It might work once, but effective narrative needs a bit more to work with, and not just some minor differences in scenery. Plot needs more.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You would need to provide clear alternative ways to win.

Theoretically, the pc's could make the enemy flee, or convince them to switch side, or get them to surrender or whatever. But the rules don't tell them how, and the dm will decide on the fly if it will work, how it will work, and what success will look like. There are so many known unknowns that the strategy of 'talking to them' is massively risky. Whereas killing the enemies is clear, direct, actionable, and has measurable progress points. So of course the players choose that every time.

And you have now very succinctly stated the logic which is the reason the Skill Challenge exists, only it doesn't exist anymore, because anything invented in 4e = poopy. Well, you can add them back in, but that is a topic for a 'What one thing would you ADD to 5e' thread...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

“Not a strategy game” [bold emphasis mine). I beg to differ. When the players decide to act in a certain way because of thought rather than instinct with the reasonable prediction of those actions leading to a more favourable result... then that’s strategy.

Limits don’t reduce opportunities they actually prompt them. A settlement with a wall is a more interesting target than a settlement without one for instance... though of course not if everyone can fly.

Strategizing is not THE central focus and unique characteristic of any RPG (I suppose we could imagine one where it was, and true old-school mid-70's vintage Gygax style play certainly has a strong ELEMENT of strategy). If strategy was the main activity of the game, and inherently necessary as an element of play, like say in Chess, then you wouldn't really be able to play without it. But you can play an RPG perfectly well. Again, maybe pure 70's dungeon crawl would treat you harshly, but that is only a very narrow niche of D&D play, let alone RPGs.

The point is, in fact, 'strategy' in RPGs is more about describing the reasons why PCs do some specific thing, rather than a primary element of play. In fact virtually all modern RPGs do not involve any sort of conflict between the participants in the game which would require them to strategize. OTOH how does a certain way of dying or not dying interfere with strategy? And this, to me, is the fundamental issue. The complaint is complaint about NARRATIVE QUALITIES, but the people making it are focused on something else. In your case you invoke strategy. In another case a poster invokes their specific type of verisimilitude. You cannot have everything. I think 5e clearly has at least made a few concessions to narrative and to playability.

 

[TheSword]

Strategizing is not THE central focus and unique characteristic of any RPG (I suppose we could imagine one where it was, and true old-school mid-70's vintage Gygax style play certainly has a strong ELEMENT of strategy). If strategy was the main activity of the game, and inherently necessary as an element of play, like say in Chess, then you wouldn't really be able to play without it. But you can play an RPG perfectly well. Again, maybe pure 70's dungeon crawl would treat you harshly, but that is only a very narrow niche of D&D play, let alone RPGs.

The point is, in fact, 'strategy' in RPGs is more about describing the reasons why PCs do some specific thing, rather than a primary element of play. In fact virtually all modern RPGs do not involve any sort of conflict between the participants in the game which would require them to strategize. OTOH how does a certain way of dying or not dying interfere with strategy? And this, to me, is the fundamental issue. The complaint is complaint about NARRATIVE QUALITIES, but the people making it are focused on something else. In your case you invoke strategy. In another case a poster invokes their specific type of verisimilitude. You cannot have everything. I think 5e clearly has at least made a few concessions to narrative and to playability.

Maybe it’s a group to group thing. I find my groups strategise before opening a tomb; before they break into the corrupt mayors house; and when they’re defending the ruined fort from the lizard folk.

Why does it have to be the central focus for it to be relevant? I don’t think the game is all about strategy, but it’s as much a part of it as anything else. As I said, internally consistent logic means players can make plans and reach logical decisions. Maybe strategy is to high a word for it.

 

[rmcoen]

Tactics = winning the battle. Strategy = winning the war. Much of D&D relies on tactics these days, the rules and focus is on the battle. "5 encounters a day" is a "strategy-level" thought. but D&D shouldn't be played as a "strategic game" because that implies "players vs. DM"; it's not Axis & Allies or Risk or (insert your favorite game here). The DM can set up situations that encourage strategic thought in-game from the PCs though, and that's a good thing.

(Wait, what was my point? Dang...)

 

[Reynard]

Tactics = winning the battle. Strategy = winning the war. Much of D&D relies on tactics these days, the rules and focus is on the battle. "5 encounters a day" is a "strategy-level" thought. but D&D shouldn't be played as a "strategic game" because that implies "players vs. DM"; it's not Axis & Allies or Risk or (insert your favorite game here). The DM can set up situations that encourage strategic thought in-game from the PCs though, and that's a good thing.

(Wait, what was my point? Dang...)

The DM is not the players' enemy -- they are partners in the overall endeavor, -- BUT one of the hats the DM wears is that of Adversary. As such, the DM should be thinking of ways to beat the players, and the players thinking of ways to beat the DM -- both in the form of whatever the enemy is. So if the BBEG is some Saruman like wizard, the DM should totally be trying to capture/kill/turn the PCs with all the tools at that wizard's disposal. And the players should be aware of that and working through their PCs to stop that from happening. It isn't "DM versus players" but it should be "PCs versus Villains" with real stakes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe it’s a group to group thing. I find my groups strategise before opening a tomb; before they break into the corrupt mayors house; and when they’re defending the ruined fort from the lizard folk.

Why does it have to be the central focus for it to be relevant? I don’t think the game is all about strategy, but it’s as much a part of it as anything else. As I said, internally consistent logic means players can make plans and reach logical decisions. Maybe strategy is to high a word for it.

I don't think we actually disagree at all in that fictional positioning should provide the player with an understanding of what is at stake, what their options are, what the costs of those options will be, etc. Also I am not denying that players engage in discussions like "There are obviously mummies in there, we want to use fire and keep out of melee. Wizard, what if you cast a web? That will entangle the mummies and then we can burn them after we pump them full of a few arrows." Right? That I would call tactical thinking. Obviously if the genre is entirely open-ended then this sort of thing devolves more down to inventing cool sounding plot devices, right? This is how supers games work to a large extent. The PCs abilities (at least those of comic book characters) are not really defined in specific detail. So the players invent ways to use them. This is really not too different from spell casters in 5e though, especially at higher levels...

And this is one of those things where I find most versions of D&D come up fairly short. They have super-hero like casters with fairly open-ended spells that might be construed to solve a lot of problems, and fighters, whom you are trying to restrict to basically a slightly fantastical version of what real world people can do (Note how objections were made to the example of the real-life archer, even REAL LIFE is sometimes too fantastic? I find that disheartening).

Given that we are working in a fantasy RPG genre, where anything is 'possible', reality is simply a contrivance. It can have the effect you note, of providing a reference framework for our assumptions of how the world works. However, what REALLY IS happening is the application of fictional positioning and then narration. There will always be some judgment required here, but games will not break down if things are more fantastical. Genre conventions and player expectations should apply, that's all. MOST doors work like the real world, but not all. Travel in the Feywild doesn't work like it does in the real world, etc. Very high level PCs and creatures may behave in very fantastical ways (IE lifting mountains, killing 100 enemies in a single stroke, etc.).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Tactics = winning the battle. Strategy = winning the war. Much of D&D relies on tactics these days, the rules and focus is on the battle. "5 encounters a day" is a "strategy-level" thought. but D&D shouldn't be played as a "strategic game" because that implies "players vs. DM"; it's not Axis & Allies or Risk or (insert your favorite game here). The DM can set up situations that encourage strategic thought in-game from the PCs though, and that's a good thing.

(Wait, what was my point? Dang...)

Right, Gygaxian D&D was exactly that. 5e is not Gygaxian. You can certainly recreate Gygaxian play, but that was the gist of the posts about removing things like Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Rope Trick, or making it more difficult to carry large amounts of stuff, etc. I would include changes to the design of 'wizards' WRT classic editions of D&D as well (pre 3e). You'd also need to ADD rules for exploration focused things that were removed from the game c. 1989, like turns and wandering monster checks, etc. Whether you would change how healing and recovery work is kind of up to you, Gygax's version of those processes was moderately harsh and tended to create a 'meat grinder' type of scenario. This did produce a lot of 'survival play', which I think was the intent. You can produce much of the effect without that though.