Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6653155" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>There are games in which the players are co-equal and the DM is just another player. 5e is not one of them. 5e actively followed a design goal of DM Empowerment, and delivered on it. Thus, yes, the DM's imagination trumps that of each of his players individually, or all of them, collectively. D&D has mostly gone that way. In 3.5/Pathfinder, you might be able to assert yourself a great deal as a player, and 'rules lawyer' the DM into seeing things your way, thanks to the reverence fans of that ed/system have for 'the RAW,' but 3.5, itself, actually codifies the DM's prerogative as 'Rule 0' - the community just tends to ignore it. </p><p></p><p> In that example, the DM undercuts himself by explaining his reasoning, but, in general, yes, that's the idea. The system failed (snapped under the strain of your system mastery), but the DM corrected that failure. </p><p></p><p> Yes, really. In that case, of course, one of the more imaginative players might just offer to take over the DM role, himself.</p><p></p><p> The only thing that would be 'inherently flawed' would be if the DC somehow didn't work. If 'easy' DCs turned out to be impossible, and 'hard' ones turned out to be a cakewalk. Given something as simple as d20+mods vs a DC, I don't see how that could easily happen.</p><p></p><p> Unfortunately, 'failure' in D&D combats is prettymuch the TPK. That's a pretty extreme failure, and it's not like there's a grand tradition of saving to disk in D&D, either. </p><p></p><p>Instead, the sense of jeopardy or challenge can be provided not by actual total failure once in a while, but in making a combat feel close or an enemy clearly threatening, much of the time. The typical dynamic in a fantasy confrontation, for instance, is for the villain/monster to come on strong, nearly mop the floor with the hero, then the hero comes back and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat. It's dramatic even though you know the script. D&D uses the rather oddball D&D-originated trope of the Cleric (in-combat healer) to get there, but it does get there.</p><p></p><p> (the fun of expression and discovery vs. the fun of creation and presentation). </p><p></p><p> An encounter that fits 'easy' guidelines can be anything but, a 'deadly' encounter can be a rollover. They really haven't gotten the kinks ironed out yet. It's hard to say it's even as dependable a guide as CR was in 3e.</p><p></p><p> That's in in-fiction concept of 'hard.' If it doesn't do a good job of predicting how it'll challenge your PCs, it's not very dependable for you, as a DM. </p><p></p><p> Yeah, I'm always sure to kill off the character of any player who starts bitching about that kind of thing.</p><p></p><p> Still nonsense. The DC of a lock that stands between the party and some objective of theirs is decided by the DM - not by the level of the party, not by some static chart of lock DCs somewhere. Neither a guideline that gives DCs that should challenge a party of a given level to a given degree, nor a guideline that lists DCs for different kinds of locks, keeps the DM from giving that lock whatever DC he wants: the former (if dependable) gives him an idea of how challenging a given DC will be, useful for a 'tailored' style game, the latter gives him a touchstone for in-world consistency, useful for a 'status quo' style. A particularly complete game will give you both.</p><p></p><p> False. There was no such philosophy. There were just guidelines showing about what DCs would challenge a party of a given level. Locks didn't morph to become more difficult as higher-level characters approached them. The DM just had a tool for designing 'tailored' challenges. That still might mean that the party encountered a lock they couldn't pick, it just meant that the DM had a pretty good idea, when he set the DC, that such would be the case. You could also turn those guidelines around to design a status-quo scenario. For instance, you could decide that a rakshasa laired in a certain building, and, being a little paranoid and very wealthy, had locks, traps and other security that were up to it's standards (level). If the PC thief tried to crack that joint at level 6, he'd be hosed.</p><p></p><p> False, there is no such philosophy. The party will encounter locks that they can open or not as the DM sees fit. If he's using a 'tailored' approach, they'll often require a roll, if 'status quo' they'll be opened without one when the PCs are slumming, impossible to open when they overreach, and allow a roll when they blunder into something closer to their paygrade.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Not true. A nearly impossible DC 30 is entirely out of your league if the total bonus you can manage is less than +10, for instance, and not really solidly in your league until you have a pretty fair chance - which'd likely mean very high level with max stat & expertise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6653155, member: 996"] There are games in which the players are co-equal and the DM is just another player. 5e is not one of them. 5e actively followed a design goal of DM Empowerment, and delivered on it. Thus, yes, the DM's imagination trumps that of each of his players individually, or all of them, collectively. D&D has mostly gone that way. In 3.5/Pathfinder, you might be able to assert yourself a great deal as a player, and 'rules lawyer' the DM into seeing things your way, thanks to the reverence fans of that ed/system have for 'the RAW,' but 3.5, itself, actually codifies the DM's prerogative as 'Rule 0' - the community just tends to ignore it. In that example, the DM undercuts himself by explaining his reasoning, but, in general, yes, that's the idea. The system failed (snapped under the strain of your system mastery), but the DM corrected that failure. Yes, really. In that case, of course, one of the more imaginative players might just offer to take over the DM role, himself. The only thing that would be 'inherently flawed' would be if the DC somehow didn't work. If 'easy' DCs turned out to be impossible, and 'hard' ones turned out to be a cakewalk. Given something as simple as d20+mods vs a DC, I don't see how that could easily happen. Unfortunately, 'failure' in D&D combats is prettymuch the TPK. That's a pretty extreme failure, and it's not like there's a grand tradition of saving to disk in D&D, either. Instead, the sense of jeopardy or challenge can be provided not by actual total failure once in a while, but in making a combat feel close or an enemy clearly threatening, much of the time. The typical dynamic in a fantasy confrontation, for instance, is for the villain/monster to come on strong, nearly mop the floor with the hero, then the hero comes back and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat. It's dramatic even though you know the script. D&D uses the rather oddball D&D-originated trope of the Cleric (in-combat healer) to get there, but it does get there. (the fun of expression and discovery vs. the fun of creation and presentation). An encounter that fits 'easy' guidelines can be anything but, a 'deadly' encounter can be a rollover. They really haven't gotten the kinks ironed out yet. It's hard to say it's even as dependable a guide as CR was in 3e. That's in in-fiction concept of 'hard.' If it doesn't do a good job of predicting how it'll challenge your PCs, it's not very dependable for you, as a DM. Yeah, I'm always sure to kill off the character of any player who starts bitching about that kind of thing. Still nonsense. The DC of a lock that stands between the party and some objective of theirs is decided by the DM - not by the level of the party, not by some static chart of lock DCs somewhere. Neither a guideline that gives DCs that should challenge a party of a given level to a given degree, nor a guideline that lists DCs for different kinds of locks, keeps the DM from giving that lock whatever DC he wants: the former (if dependable) gives him an idea of how challenging a given DC will be, useful for a 'tailored' style game, the latter gives him a touchstone for in-world consistency, useful for a 'status quo' style. A particularly complete game will give you both. False. There was no such philosophy. There were just guidelines showing about what DCs would challenge a party of a given level. Locks didn't morph to become more difficult as higher-level characters approached them. The DM just had a tool for designing 'tailored' challenges. That still might mean that the party encountered a lock they couldn't pick, it just meant that the DM had a pretty good idea, when he set the DC, that such would be the case. You could also turn those guidelines around to design a status-quo scenario. For instance, you could decide that a rakshasa laired in a certain building, and, being a little paranoid and very wealthy, had locks, traps and other security that were up to it's standards (level). If the PC thief tried to crack that joint at level 6, he'd be hosed. False, there is no such philosophy. The party will encounter locks that they can open or not as the DM sees fit. If he's using a 'tailored' approach, they'll often require a roll, if 'status quo' they'll be opened without one when the PCs are slumming, impossible to open when they overreach, and allow a roll when they blunder into something closer to their paygrade. Not true. A nearly impossible DC 30 is entirely out of your league if the total bonus you can manage is less than +10, for instance, and not really solidly in your league until you have a pretty fair chance - which'd likely mean very high level with max stat & expertise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top