D&D 5E Why my friends hate talking to me about 5e.

[CleverNickName]

And we’re already discussing house-ruling so this seems like a silly position to take. Yes, if you want to change the gameplay of 5e, you have to do a bit of houseruling. Obviously.

And even the act of "house-ruling" is allowed per the rules in the DMG, which say that you can change any of the rules to suit your table. So from a certain point of view, there's really no such thing as a "house rule" in 5th Edition D&D.

 

[tetrasodium]

oh... so you admit the system doesn't work and change the system... that doesn't seem to help that they system isn't working... It's like saying "Yeah every car we sell doesn't have a stearing wheel...just make a stearing wheel"

Edit: your advice is flawed if your advice requires a house rule to change the basics of movement.

Actually I'd say that it's not that her advice "doesn't work" so much as how it exposes an example of the kind of endless cascade of fixes needed to support dialing up the risk & down the safety. With going the other way it would be a simple matter of saying "yea I made those magic caltrops wayyyy too good so they aren't going to be so easy to get in the future & might be they won't even be available again"

 

[billd91]

There's a reason I said "manages territory." When you retreat, you are surrendering territory. That's not managing territory.

Militarily it sure is. Retreat can lead to a number of benefits - usually because it's cheaper to give it up than shed too much blood or other expensive resources to keep it. Managing territory, knowing when to defend it vs give it up when facing a strong enemy, is an important aspect of strategy.
Not that adventuring PCs really have territory, per se... they're usually the invader on the offensive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Militarily it sure is. Retreat can lead to a number of benefits - usually because it's cheaper to give it up than shed too much blood or other expensive resources to keep it. Managing territory, knowing when to defend it vs give it up when facing a strong enemy, is an important aspect of strategy.
Not that adventuring PCs really have territory, per se... they're usually the invader on the offensive.

It was an analogy, so yes, I wasn't literally saying adventurers have territory.

And no I don't consider that "managing territory." You are abandoning it. You cannot manage something you no longer influence. Retreat may be prudent, it may be necessary, it may even be a stepping stone to later victory.

But it isn't managing the territory. It's surrender. Period.

 

[billd91]

It was an analogy, so yes, I wasn't literally saying adventurers have territory.

And no I don't consider that "managing territory." You are abandoning it. You cannot manage something you no longer influence. Retreat may be prudent, it may be necessary, it may even be a stepping stone to later victory.

But it isn't managing the territory. It's surrender. Period.

There are a number of world leaders who felt that way over the years and history generally isn't kind to them for that sentiment. So on that you're just going to have to be content to be wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are a number of world leaders who felt that way over the years and history generally isn't kind to them for that sentiment. So on that you're just going to have to be content to be wrong.

I literally said it might be the correct thing to do. That doesn't make it not surrender. Nor does it being (contextually) correct make it managing the territory. You can't manage something over which you have given up all control! This is not complicated!

Trading space for time, for example, can be an excellent strategy. But you are still giving up—surrendering—the territory in order to gain that time. You are specifically letting go any ability to manage the territory in order to get some other benefit instead. That other benefit may absolutely 100% be worthwhile and correct to pursue. It's still surrender! Calling it anything else is disingenuous.

 

[Charlaquin]

I literally said it might be the correct thing to do. That doesn't make it not surrender. Nor does it being (contextually) correct make it managing the territory. You can't manage something over which you have given up all control! This is not complicated!

Trading space for time, for example, can be an excellent strategy. But you are still giving up—surrendering—the territory in order to gain that time. You are specifically letting go any ability to manage the territory in order to get some other benefit instead. That other benefit may absolutely 100% be worthwhile and correct to pursue. It's still surrender! Calling it anything else is disingenuous.

I get the impression that you define words very rigidly.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I get the impression that you define words very rigidly.

How dare you say such a hateful thing about Jeff Goldblum.

(I define words very loosely)

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how combat can be fun and engaging if there's no risk. The rest of D&D, sure, if you build for it, but not combat.

For the same reason people play cards for fun, or do crosswords.

Neither of those activities are intended to be dangerous.

Neither is roleplaying!

I don't understand this response.

I thought it was quite straightforward.

You asked how combat, in D&D, can be fun and engaging if there's no risk. My reply was that it might be fun or engaging in the same way that playing cards for fun (as opposed to money), or doing crosswords, might be fun.

Those things are not dangerous, but neither is playing RPGs (or at least it need not be): all can be approached as pastimes where the pleasure in the activity is the doing of it. Where there is no risk of anything more than a bit of frustration or a bit of chiding from a friend on your side. If I lose a hand of cards when playing for fun, we just deal the next hand and keep going. D&D combat can be approached in exactly the same spirit.

As I said, to me this seems quite straightforward.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I thought it was quite straightforward.

You asked how combat, in D&D, can be fun and engaging if there's no risk. My reply was that it might be fun or engaging in the same way that playing cards for fun (as opposed to money), or doing crosswords, might be fun.

Those things are not dangerous, but neither is playing RPGs (or at least it need not be): all can be approached as pastimes where the pleasure in the activity is the doing of it. Where there is no risk of anything more than a bit of frustration or a bit of chiding from a friend on your side. If I lose a hand of cards when playing for fun, we just deal the next hand and keep going. D&D combat can be approached in exactly the same spirit.

As I said, to me this seems quite straightforward.

I think the point @Micah Sweet is trying to make is that the action in the RPG is not a safe one, battling against men and monsters who are trying to outright kill you more often than not.

If there’s no risk then can we actually fail? If there was no chance to fail were you ever actually in danger? If you weren’t in danger then why did we play through four rounds of combat just now? or were we just going through the motions because fighting things is what you do in DnD? That just sounds like busywork, And If failure isn’t an option is what you achieved can it really be called victory?