D&D 5e has failed

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

silva wrote:But the giants were always the same crap from a decade ago, because the giant is always D&D. By this logic the hobby was ALWAYS a dark age.
Haven't we established that you know jack shit about D&D, I think we have so stop making a fool of yourself.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Hiram McDaniels wrote:What would constitute an "improvement" to 3.x?
In addition to what FrankTrollman said, here are some other areas of improvement.

A good default campaign setting: I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The biggest thing that will determine whether D&D or any TTRPG for that matter will be a success is if the default campaign setting that comes with the game is good. 3E D&D mostly outsourced its campaign setting work and the result was... mediocre. I think that D&D is the only non-supers game that got away with this, but if you want to recapture the glory days of D&D you need to have one. I don't particularly care if D&D wants to have a living and integrated campaign setting that tweaks (but not subverts) most of the tropes like A:TLA or FFX, a deconstruction like Earthdawn, a grimdark deconstruction like WHFB or Dark Sun (that might be going too far for most groups, though), a lightheated reconstruction like Skies of Arcadia, or whatever. But it needs to be there.

Different resource management schemes: 3E D&D had a pretty stunning achievement for TTRPGs; it made people care about classes that came at the end of the edition more than classes that came at the start or middle. And I fully think that this is because classes like the truenamer and warblade and warlock played differently from the basic classes. A remake of 3E D&D should studiously avoid to try having basic classes that weren't just some combination of spell slots, BAB, and feats.

Also related but 3E D&D really should have had classes that strove to be more thematically different from each other. The ranger and the druid as-is should not exist in the same game; neither should the cleric and paladin. Or, most obviously, the wizard and the sorcerer. 3E D&D should have the psion, the warlock, and the artificer in the game as basic classes.

Making the vision of higher-level D&D clearer: 4E and 5E D&D have a clear, if stupid vision of higher levels -- the game mostly plays the same as before but with different numbers and fluff elements. 3E D&D's is more mixed. Even if you tell the mundanes to eat shit and die, there's still the problem that high-level abilities are all over the place. Shit like fabricate and plane shift and teleport completely upend the basic assumptions of the game but D&D also has weirdness like curiously small-range and small-impact blasting spells existing side-by-side.

If the developers really aren't up to the task of making high-level D&D satisfying and/or balanced, well, honestly, I'd want them to try anyway even if the result ends up shit. Fantasy games that top out at Conan the Barbarian or Spider-Man level are literally the easiest kind of action games to design. Even easier than modern games, who have to worry about guns and cell phones and shit. There are a shitton of them already. 3E D&D is different because it at least tries to simulate a high-powered campaign setting and I'd rather them fuck it up Epic Level Handbook style than them not put it in the game at all.

There needs to be more shit to do at low levels: The vast majority of games start at level 1. And this is where the game is at its most boring. There's some genuine excitement to be had like a lucky orc critical completely swinging the tide of combat or the fighter being the only one able to make an outside chance knowledge roll, but by your 30th game you've already seen it all and it makes the low levels feel more like a punishment and a slog than the start to a great adventure. At this point, I don't even play in 3E D&D games that start below 5th level. That's a total dealbreaker to me.

Prestige classes: great idea, bad implementation: 3E D&D Prestige Classes were the money shot of the edition, but they had three major problems. The first was that a lot of them took too long to get into for ideas like 'dagger master' or 'dwarven defenders'. The second is that they exacerbated the LW/QW problem by having some prestige classes be archmages and others be dervishes. The third problem is that the prereqs required players to pretty much plan their entire character progression around them.

A 3E D&D remake should frankly use a modified version of 4E D&D's implementation. That is, you tell the Pathfinder archetypes and 3E altered class abilities to go fuck themselves and choose from a pallet of class neutral kits/themes to staple on top of your character at first level. None of this bullshit about trading out your domains or favored enemy bonuses for extra feats. When you get to a certain level, you pick from a long list of prestige classes/paragon paths. They have no prerequisites other than ensuring that people will be able to actually use the class features within. Prestige classing is also mandatory for every class. The prestige classes also aren't segregated by origin to avoid the whole 15th level gladiator bullshit.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:There needs to be more shit to do at low levels
How bad would it be to instead just cut XP requirements to get to 2nd (or 3rd) level? Level 1 is basically the tutorial, so it probably should have super limited options, but once the light bulb goes off in a new player's head, they want to cut out the hand-holding shit and get on with the actual playing of the game. Like, after about one or two encounters' worth of XP, you get to 2nd, and maybe the same idea from 2->3.

That way, we can still have an introductory session for new players without forcing veterans to sit through "waste 'em with my crossbow" because they only get to do something mildly interesting 1/day.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Could do with less levels and a better defined tier of levels so people don't feel obligated to start as peons.
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

erik wrote:Could do with less levels and a better defined tier of levels so people don't feel obligated to start as peons.
The problem I have with that is that a lot of DMs will just look at the level progression for the lowest part and say "Well, that's the lowest, so new characters should obviously start there." Unless you go from 1-10 in three different tiers (e.g. "Heroic level 1" or "Epic level 1"), there will be players the world over unjustly starting at 1.

EDIT: I should also mention that there are a disturbing amount of DMs with a raging erection for players being at "Steve the shit-covered farmer" levels of ability that have to constantly claw their way into relevancy.
Last edited by Ravengm on Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
User avatar
momothefiddler
Knight-Baron
Posts: 883
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:55 am
Location: United States

Post by momothefiddler »

Games that don't either make the tutorial fun or let you skip the tutorial are shitty and severely lose replay value for it. Making the tutorial shorter would help, sure, but you really need to either make it so people can start at higher level than 1 (which, as you've pointed out, really doesn't happen) or you need to make the tutorial fun to play (Lago's initial suggestion).
pragma
Knight-Baron
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 8:39 am

Post by pragma »

Ravengm wrote:How bad would it be to instead just cut XP requirements to get to 2nd (or 3rd) level? Level 1 is basically the tutorial, so it probably should have super limited options, ... Like, after about one or two encounters' worth of XP, you get to 2nd, and maybe the same idea from 2->3.
This is actually how 5E is set up, for reference. The first two levels are on a very compressed experience scale, requiring 300 and 900 XP respectively. That's (by approximate math based on released monsters subject to change as more books come out) about 2 encounters at 1st level and 3 at 2nd level before the choice of kit that comes in at 3rd.
Last edited by pragma on Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

The low levels should be fun in of themselves because for games with a lot of power scaling in them, like D&D, that's the only opportunity and portion of the game for adventurers to get a peon's eye view of the campaign setting. Things like bumming it in a flophouse or fording a river with a makeshift raft or trying their luck at a local festival to get enough money for the healer's.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
ACOS
Knight
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:15 pm

Post by ACOS »

DMs insist on starting at level 1 because that's what the game tells them is the starting level. 4e just compounded the problem with their WTF survivability for level 1 characters.
Yes, level 1 (and arguably extending through level 2) is the game's tutorial; and the game should be upfront and honest about it, instead of forcing you to start every single game hunting rats in a basement. For non-newbs, this is enormously dis-empowering. Origin stories involving peons can be told just fine starting at level 2-3; and that's plenty low enough for me to fully appreciate "how far I've come" when I hit level 10.
I mean, if there is a non-zero chance that a common house cat could kill me inside of 6 seconds, I doubt that I even qualify as being a real person (certainly not an adult) - I don't have the survivability to go grocery shopping, let alone step out for a life of adventuring.
Last edited by ACOS on Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

I figure one of the measures of a level is based on how big of a monster a lone fighting man can stab/throttle to death without too much difficulty

Level 1- Stab rats the size of dogs,
Level 2- Stab wolves the size of men
Level 3- Stab chimps the size of bodybuilders
Level 4- Stab a 300-400 lb gorilla
Level 5-Stab a 550+ lb lion
Level 6- Stab a 1,500+ lb grizzly bear
Level 7- Knockout an elephant

Things get hazy after that
Last edited by OgreBattle on Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Heisenberg
Apprentice
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 4:35 pm

Post by Heisenberg »

Lord Mistborn wrote:
hogarth wrote:I agree that some people here are like the economist who predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions.
Is there some instance where we predicted a product would fail and it succeded that I'm forgetting? When we say that the industry is composed of failing smarmgarglers that's not because we'er overly negative. It's actually because the industry actually is composed of failing smarmgarglers.
A ton of people thought that CGL would crash and burn and lose the Shadowrun license and well...they totally, utterly failed in their role as Cassandras. SR5 is terrible, but it's doing quite well commercially by all measures and buzz I've heard.

Anyway, what's this thing about D&D5E selling only 1/30th as well as D&D4E? How can you make that comparison without knowing the lifetime sales numbers of D&D5E?
Last edited by Heisenberg on Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

People didn't assume CGL would fail because of Shadowrun (even though the latest version certainly leaves a lot to be desired even in "reading the book and the info being where you fucking want it to be"), people assumed it would fail because of the company going bankrupt due to the dodgy dealings of the owner. Things like "not paying freelancers" and "not paying shareholders" and all that.

That the company was allowed to keep going long enough for this edition of SR to even be released and for them to see profits says plenty about the failings of the legal system more than anything else, although if SR did save them, then great, maybe people could be paid money owed.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
Dogbert
Duke
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:17 am
Contact:

Post by Dogbert »

Lord Mistborn wrote:Now sure because of the internet more games in the absolute sense are being published, but those games are shit.
A shrinking industry, a legion of hacks each crapping poorly written products from their garage, and a notorious decrease in overall quality... while there are still examples of games I rate as "good" out there, you make a good job at making it sound like a new 80's Videogame Crash.

It's just the beginning of a new cycle if you ask me. Things go back to the Bad Old Days and the circle is finally complete. For now, the dogs have their day, so we wait until the sheeple get sick of them once more, crave for less crappy and disempowering systems, and then we once again laugh the (neo)neckbeards out of the room.
Image
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Ravengm wrote:
erik wrote:Could do with less levels and a better defined tier of levels so people don't feel obligated to start as peons.
The problem I have with that is that a lot of DMs will just look at the level progression for the lowest part and say "Well, that's the lowest, so new characters should obviously start there." Unless you go from 1-10 in three different tiers (e.g. "Heroic level 1" or "Epic level 1"), there will be players the world over unjustly starting at 1.

EDIT: I should also mention that there are a disturbing amount of DMs with a raging erection for players being at "Steve the shit-covered farmer" levels of ability that have to constantly claw their way into relevancy.
Ehhh, I was meaning that if you are having defined tiers, then the lowest tier would be called something like Pre-Adventurer. Or Shit-Covered-Peasants. Basically something to let you know that at this level, house cats and rats are dangerous. Then at least if MC decides people have to start at SCP level, everyone is on the same page and calls it what it is.
User avatar
Ferret
Knight
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:08 pm

Post by Ferret »

In addition to defined Tiers and class progressions that stop being mundane around level 5 or so, I'd like to see two changes to the 3.x model:

"Wizard" as a class GOES AWAY. You're a Necromancer, an Evoker, a Diviner, whatever. This whole "choose what your class does anew each day" thing is a headache that needs to get dropped. Focused classes like Warmage and Dread Necromancer were objectively better for the game than the Wizard.

I'd like to see as much page space devoted to the non-arcane-or-divine classes as is devoted to them. I.E. I'd like to not have half the book be inaccessible because I put "Rogue" or "Fighter" on my sheet instead of Wizard. I know a lot of players flipped their shit at Book of Nine Swords, but at least that thing TRIED. It absolutely could have done better in execution, but there is the kernel of good ideas there that needs to be expanded on.
Schleiermacher
Knight-Baron
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am

Post by Schleiermacher »

Ehhh, I was meaning that if you are having defined tiers, then the lowest tier would be called something like Pre-Adventurer. Or Shit-Covered-Peasants. Basically something to let you know that at this level, house cats and rats are dangerous.
House cats should never be dangerous to humans though, that's just silly.

And rats should only be dangerous if at least one of the following is true:

1. They're disease carriers (and the threat is the disease)
2. There's a fracking horde of them (so the monster is "rat swarm", not "rat")
3. They're R.O.U.Ses.
Last edited by Schleiermacher on Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Schleiermacher wrote: House cats should never be dangerous to humans though, that's just silly.

And rats should only be dangerous if at least one of the following is true:

1. They're disease carriers (and the threat is the disease)
2. There's a fracking horde of them (so the monster is "rat swarm", not "rat")
3. They're R.O.U.Ses.
O Rly? I guess you haven't had a cat try a trip attack as you descended some stairs!

Disease from cats should be their main danger (rabies probably if they are attacking adults). A cat attack could fuck someone up if clawing eyes. Not kill but impair and wound.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

I imagine most people injured by cats aren't trying to hurt them though. Yes, if you give a cat a bath it is likely to shred your arms, but I imagine you could boot it in the head without taking an injury.

I should at this point suggest people not try that. For legal reasons.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

I think a lot of the small animal causing disease problems (wherein they may be deadlier by doing single hp damage) can be resolved by having a mechanic where you can infect while dealing zero damage on the successful hit.
ckafrica
Duke
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: HCMC, Vietnam

Post by ckafrica »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Hiram McDaniels wrote:What would constitute an "improvement" to 3.x?
There needs to be more shit to do at low levels: The vast majority of games start at level 1. And this is where the game is at its most boring. There's some genuine excitement to be had like a lucky orc critical completely swinging the tide of combat or the fighter being the only one able to make an outside chance knowledge roll, but by your 30th game you've already seen it all and it makes the low levels feel more like a punishment and a slog than the start to a great adventure. At this point, I don't even play in 3E D&D games that start below 5th level. That's a total dealbreaker to me.
I think this is a big one. My friends almost never want to start at Level 1 because they just feel to small in the pants. We like the gritty low level over the high end but being a one to three trick pony out of the gate is dull. I've been having the same problem trying to find an interesting CRPG/MMO. Every time I try a new one I get bored before I actually get to the point i can do anything cool. While they don't have to be super powered, I want 4-6 distinctly different options a can go with out of the gate even if they will be quickly superceded by more powerful stuff.

Not being in danger of being one-shotted out of the gate is also a must.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

erik wrote:
Ravengm wrote:
erik wrote:Could do with less levels and a better defined tier of levels so people don't feel obligated to start as peons.
The problem I have with that is that a lot of DMs will just look at the level progression for the lowest part and say "Well, that's the lowest, so new characters should obviously start there." Unless you go from 1-10 in three different tiers (e.g. "Heroic level 1" or "Epic level 1"), there will be players the world over unjustly starting at 1.

EDIT: I should also mention that there are a disturbing amount of DMs with a raging erection for players being at "Steve the shit-covered farmer" levels of ability that have to constantly claw their way into relevancy.
Ehhh, I was meaning that if you are having defined tiers, then the lowest tier would be called something like Pre-Adventurer. Or Shit-Covered-Peasants. Basically something to let you know that at this level, house cats and rats are dangerous. Then at least if MC decides people have to start at SCP level, everyone is on the same page and calls it what it is.
I can get behind that mentality. Explicitly calling it out and saying your abilities won't amount to much more than dying to crossbow bolts is fine. We could even harken back to the old days and use negative levels or something.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
Schleiermacher
Knight-Baron
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am

Post by Schleiermacher »

ckafrica wrote:Not being in danger of being one-shotted out of the gate is also a must.
No, in this context, being in danger of being one-shotted for the first level or two is a must, because this is explicitly the "everyman" tier, and being threatened with weapons should actually be something people in that tier take dead seriously.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

I'd say that making level one more interesting is dependent on making engaging mechanics that are "character agnostic" ones you get access to by being a small to medium sized humanoid. People go on rants here alot about how having thumbs levers, and pulleys doesn't matter at high levels, but at low levels it's totally ok for that shit to take center stage.
Schleiermacher
Knight-Baron
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am

Post by Schleiermacher »

Stone the crows, I agree unreservedly with Lord Mistborn!
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

Schleiermacher wrote:Stone the crows, I agree unreservedly with Lord Mistborn!
Then you should seriously reevaluate your life choices.
Last edited by Mistborn on Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply