| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1tehsquirrelySep 20, 2014 16:17:07 | I've seen a lot of math threads lately claiming x class isn't as good as y class, or a weapon isn't as competitive as b weapon, or m save is not as useful as n save, etc etc. While looking at the math is fine, and I really don't have a problem with it, I feel like players are becoming increasingly entitled to "win" D&D. There is no more desire to sturggle to make your way; you're supposed to win all the time, and the only question is how fast and how hard you can win instead of, and I think this is a better question, how can something help you to struggle against adversity.
The D&D world is full of adversity, but it has been reduced to much number crunchage. Hobgoblins and bugbears are "broken" because they can do a lot of damage to low level PC's. Frankly I'm glad. I think players should fear every fight and have to seriously weigh their options lest they wind up in the cook pot of an ogre. Retreat should be a serious consideration, as should inventive ways of AVOIDING combat, instead of rushing into everything headlong knowing that the numbers on your character sheet will ensure victory.
My point, is that characters aren't as strong as they were in WotC's previous editions of D&D, and that monsters are much stronger, and that this is okay. It's more than okay it's a good thing. Adevnturers must once again struggle to make it through a dungeon instead of simply cruising through crushing anything in their way. This is how it should be, otherwise why wouldn't everyone in the world be an adventurer? |
| #2RhennySep 20, 2014 16:26:47 | I agree with you.
I'm finding it quite refreshing that the games I'm playing in have been somewhat of a struggle especially for the 1st and 2nd level PCs I've been running (as player and as DM).
In our last game, our 5 person 2nd level party was nearly TPKd by 4 guards and a few rounds later 5 cultists (an encounter that we faced after 6 other encounters, so we were low on resources). Two of our team went down and my cleric only had 1 more spell left. Instead of healing, I decided to use Thunderwave with destructive wrath. That killed 3 guards and then the tables turned. It was awesome.
I also like the feeling that sometimes, we just run or try to avoid combat if possible.
|
| #3Tony_VargasSep 20, 2014 16:46:40 |
|
| #4ChrisCarlsonSep 20, 2014 17:29:48 |
|
| #5Tony_VargasSep 20, 2014 17:48:56 |
|
| #6warpiggletSep 20, 2014 18:08:37 |
|
| #7NoonSep 20, 2014 18:16:22 |
|
| #8ChrisCarlsonSep 20, 2014 18:53:48 |
|
| #9Tony_VargasSep 20, 2014 18:54:54 |
|
| #10MechaPilotSep 20, 2014 19:03:53 |
|
| #11Tony_VargasSep 20, 2014 19:04:41 |
|
| #12Tony_VargasSep 20, 2014 20:18:05 |
|
| #13ShasarakSep 20, 2014 20:48:55 |
|
| #14arnwolf666Sep 20, 2014 21:43:38 | I still use 1E monster abilities. Fear my table, we energy drain, save versus death for some monster abilities. Some monsters I like better in 5E, some not. And I believe every DM should create their own or modify critters. Players who read the monster manual and expect a critter to be like the monster manual will be greatly surprised at my game. Admittedly some critters like orcs have very little change. |
| #15NoonSep 21, 2014 2:25:50 |
|
| #16CaptainPicardSep 21, 2014 3:13:04 | From my experience, when a monster can outright kill a PC, from max HP, with a single, non-conditional attack, this has the opposite effect of encouraging players to be careful. It encourages them to not care anymore, because they feel like their choices as a player do not matter, and there is no tension at all.
A better approach, from my experiences with 4e, is to have monsters that are fully capable of outmaneuvering and severely wounding PCs, putting them on the ropes, so they have an opportunity to do something to attempt to mitigate the situation. This is what creates a tense scenario, because it is not utterly random doom. A bugbear the PCs missed exploding out of hiding and putting the party's Wizard at 1/3 of his max HP with a single swing is far more interesting than outright killing him, because then the party needs to consider what to do to help their friend. With especially the Bugbear in 5e, he does not necessarily even need surprise; I had Klarg kill a Warlock from max HP in a single strike, without his sneak attack bonus (this is the first and last time I run an adventure "by the book").
I don't know what to say to you if you believe that players can simply charge into any situation and think the "numbers on their sheets" will insure victory. I have repeatedly had characters die in 4e encounters, including complete party wipes, and it is actually not very hard to do so. In fact, one of my most complete blowouts was a group of normal on-level monsters (I believe one of them was one level higher than the party; certainly well within the bounds of a normal 4e encounter). |
| #17NoonSep 21, 2014 3:46:35 |
|
| #18NoonSep 21, 2014 3:49:21 |
|
| #19UchawiSep 21, 2014 4:27:32 | Comparisons are made, there is no away round it. It depends on what is important to each player. Challenges are presented in mulitple ways from what the DM presents at the table, to how the characters survive, or how the characters are developed. I may want a campaign that is very gritty to very heroic. Where 5E struggles is the flexibiltiy to make each class interesting, and allow each class to have choices in combat or outside of it. Regardless of math, or whether the world is brutal or a cake walk, it is hard to argue that players do not want interesting choices. And that is where caster classes and hybrids shine, in regards to having access to spells, and where martial characters start to suffer for not having an equivalent mechanic. But we can not disregard math or the choices presented, because over time some will be determined to be very powerful, or must have choices, versus others being not so useful. And it is more likely this will occur at an uneven pace amongst classes, just for the simple fact that spells are added with almost every supplement, and martial classes lag behind. And to buffer the martial classes, you have to add in more sub-systems, which makes the game more complicated, versus just giving martial characters an ability like maneuvers to begin with.
Obviously, I have a different take on this subject, and there is not a universal truth for accepting what is good in a game, or what is bad. You just have to make the decision if the good outweighs the bad, whether it is math, classes, etc. or in other words if you are having fun with the rules and overall experience then you continue to play. |
| #20Chiisai_UsagiSep 21, 2014 12:16:59 |
|
| #21tehsquirrelySep 21, 2014 12:28:38 | My point is, not that playing a high heroic superhero game is bad, but rather that playing a gritty struggle to survive game is just as good. I'm not saying chocolate is better than vanilla, I'm saying both are good, and the problem is everyone just wants chocolate all the time because chocolate is easy and gives immediate satisfaction. I also think having choices that are "worse" than other choices isn't bad either, as long as there isn't a bloat of choices (see 4e feat selection), because sometimes it's fun to be suboptimal. I'm not trying to say having a railroad from combat to combat game is bad, some groups quite like that, but that not all games run this way and if the game isn't perfect for that style of play because it compromises for other styles of play then straight up math concerns should be taken in context of the game being played.
As for entitlement to win more, if you think such a thing doesn't exist just know that charop does. If there wasn't a sense of entitlement to win then charop wouldn't be as much as issue as taking the most appropriate choice given the context of an individual game. Now I'm not trying to talk down to charop, I've been know to optomize myself; I'm just saying that players should realize that they can lose, and that, given the appropriate game, a highly optomized min/maxed dps character isn't as good a choice as a well rounded character. |
| #22Tony_VargasSep 21, 2014 12:54:20 |
|
| #23ankiyavonSep 21, 2014 13:04:14 |
|
| #24MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 13:19:58 |
|
| #25edwin_suSep 21, 2014 13:27:57 |
|
| #26Tony_VargasSep 21, 2014 13:47:02 |
|
| #27tehsquirrelySep 21, 2014 14:06:46 | I'm not arguing against balance in any sense. Balance is fine. What I am arguing against is PC favored balance, which WotC has had a habit of doing so far, and the idea that the only kind of "good" or even useful pc is a combat optimal pc. 3.5 and 4th heavily favored the players in any sort of "average" combat, usually a group of PCs would leave a combat with little more expended than a few spell slots or maybe a daily (depending on the system). The problem of course is finding a happy middle ground between the "15 minute work day" of 3.5 and 4th ed's godlike PCs who could come back from the brink of death with a five minute coffee break. Part of that problem is PC power relative to monster power, another big part is lasting effects that take hold for longer than just an encounter. WotC seems reluctant to add sources of long term effects, like curses or diseases or permanent maiming, but maybe such things will be in the DMG.
The other part of the problem I see it isn't one that is so much a problem with the game as it is a problem with the culture surrounding it. The winning entitlement isn't built into the system, it's something that has evolved with D&D. It's something that has come to shape what people consider to be, and not to be, balanced. Just as an example I have a friend who thinks every fighter should match every spellcaster in damage per round output, no matter what. His metric of what is balance is simply damage per round, and it seems to be a metric many people use these days. My point isn't that balance is bad, but that what we THINK balance is might be. |
| #28MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 14:25:15 |
|
| #29tehsquirrelySep 21, 2014 14:55:42 | The godlike pcs is more in reference to the assumption in 4e that each encounter should be started fresh by PCs. They should have max HP, all their encounters, and whatever dailies they haven't used. So no matter how badly bloodied and bruised PCs got in fights in 4e, after five minutes they were 100% again. I've had plenty of fights in 4e that were tense, but I've never had a dungeon that was tense because of that. |
| (Reply to #18)CaptainPicard |
|
| #31MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 16:26:19 |
|
| #32GattSep 21, 2014 16:54:33 |
|
| #33Tony_VargasSep 21, 2014 17:03:41 |
|
| (Reply to #32)CaptainPicard |
|
| #35rampantSep 21, 2014 17:34:47 | I would expect the players to come up with a better plan than yelling stop in the name of the law and rushing into the middle of a Hob capture team at work. There's other options between rush blindly and run away.
Also when was the last time Any party outnumbered goblins at the start of a fight that didn't involve an alarm that summons reinforcements?
A desire for game balance is not about feeling entitled to 'win' encounters, it's about wanting to play different character concepts while still making a meaningful contribution to the party's success, instead of being a drain on party resources because your character idea was best represented by a poorly built class like the 3e swashbuckler or samurai. |
| #36MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 17:39:39 |
|
| (Reply to #35)CaptainPicard |
|
| #38rampantSep 21, 2014 18:08:33 | Oh yeah some critters are just plain horribly designed. |
| #39ZardnaarSep 21, 2014 18:33:17 |
|
| #40MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 18:38:53 |
|
| #41ZardnaarSep 21, 2014 18:52:26 |
|
| #42MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 18:57:59 |
|
| #43ZardnaarSep 21, 2014 19:01:31 |
|
| #44MechaPilotSep 21, 2014 19:06:33 |
|
| #45ZardnaarSep 21, 2014 19:09:15 |
|
| #46thehobbSep 21, 2014 19:12:34 |
|
| #47NoonSep 21, 2014 19:49:54 |
|
| #48NoonSep 21, 2014 20:23:18 |
|
| #49dmgorgonSep 21, 2014 22:42:08 | IMO, those who want to win can find another game to play. If the level of "broken" is high and it keeps 5e free from such players I'm fine with it. |
| #50tehsquirrelySep 22, 2014 0:01:08 |
|
| #51NoonSep 22, 2014 1:27:12 |
|
| #52NoonSep 22, 2014 1:31:47 |
|
| (Reply to #52)MykeSchultz |
|
| #54ReiusSep 22, 2014 3:27:14 | This thread was kinda interesting at the beginning but now I'm not sure I understand it any more. Maybe I just don't get what people are talking about, but it seems to me like at least some people are talking about different things and missing each others' points.
I have to say, though, that I find the "sophistication" argument vaguely insulting. I don't know any of you, but based on my own background of years of schooling, practicing and training, I probably have a much more sophisticated ear and appreciation for music than most people here. Yes, I can listen to horrible, grating sounds or random blips determined by a mathematical algorithm or four and a half minutes of silence and I can appreciate it and talk about all the interesting things and amazing sounds and ideas, timbral colours, etc. It doesn't make me in any way better than anyone else, nor does it make my appreciation of music or my musical tastes better or more valid than that of anyone else. And it definitely doesn't mean that we should all be listening to Iannis Xenakis all the time. You shouldn't listen to Metastasis because it's "sophisticated" -- you should listen to it because it's mindblowingly awesome and you've never heard anything like it before and it's a cool experience. Not because of some elitist notion of sophistication and implicit superiority.
I don't mean ti insult anybody by calling them an elitist, so apologies if you feel insulted. But, that's what the argument starts to sound like when you go down that road: A private club with a high entry barrier, not very noob-friendly and not at all open to anyone that has different ideas. I'm wary of arguments that lean in those directions.
With that in mind, you should stick to arguing whatever your point is based on how fun and how awesome and how great an experience it is, not based on "sophistication." (Note that I don't think I totally disagreed with that person's post either, just the way it's framed it sounds too close to elitist superiority, for me.)
|
| #55NoonSep 22, 2014 4:23:51 | The irony is that that's just another elitism - avoiding sophistication as if that's somehow greater?
I directly referenced sophistication not to denote superiority, but to reference how some will react with a sense of superiority so as to reject any complexity/sophistication. And how that'll be the hurdle in the way of any other play other than pure sacarine. |
| #56ReiusSep 22, 2014 4:29:51 | Right, so you're rubber and I'm glue. Those were some great points you made there. This discussion is obviously going to go really far.
Have a nice day.
|
| #57OrzelSep 22, 2014 4:38:46 | Its all an issue of tone. Do youbwant to run pragmatic survivalist, heroic paragons, or elite dramatic action. Each previous edition leaned one way. 5e doesn't.. THEN there is character optization. The addition of character builds being meaningful mean power gamers curb stomp the base assumption while "flavorplay" and book-suggested build have harder time. Go back to 4e or 3e and don't optimized, the previously easy kills you. |
| #58NoonSep 22, 2014 18:21:34 |
|
| #59MechaPilotSep 23, 2014 19:29:51 |
|
| #60Tony_VargasSep 23, 2014 19:40:04 |
|
| #61NoonSep 23, 2014 22:30:48 |
|
| #62tehsquirrelySep 23, 2014 23:16:34 | There's an old expression I like "When you're a hammer all your problems start to look like nails." I think that applies pretty well to the point I'm trying to get across. There's nothing wrong with hammers, but they aren't the right tool for every job. The same thing goes with numbers based assumptions of balance. There's nothing wrong with them, but they aren't the right tool for every job. I'm not trying to accuse anyone here of playing the game "wrong" instead I'm trying to argue for an alternate theory of D&D if you will.
As for some ideas of how to allow "TPKs" where players live I really like MechaPilot's ideas, and have planned to use them for a game I'm running should that happen. Another idea came to mind; giving quarter. For those not familiar giving quarter was a practice of ransoming captives in war, wherein the family, or liege, would pay a quarter of the captives worth to the captor, and the captor would set them free. In a game I'm running the PCs have a patron who gets them jobs, so in a situation like that the option of giving quarter could be an interesting mechanic. In such a case death isn't the end, but you might have to give up some of your nice equipment or gold to be ransomed. This obviously makes more sense with intelligent, especially humanoid monsters.
Another idea in fights with intelligent humanoids is you could establish that within your setting it is customary to only fight to first blood (half HP value), and that to continue fighting afterwards is not only shameful, but illegal. This can also set up unique RP opportunities, and then if the PCs are attacked by something like an assassin who has no intention of stopping until he kills them it would really add some spice to the combat. |
| #63ShasarakSep 23, 2014 23:56:49 | It would be amusing for a humanoid clan to "mistranslate" giving quarter by sending back a quarter of their captive.
Hmm, I wonder which quarter we should send? |