5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[Ice]

I don't like avocados

something is fucking wrong with you

 

[Ice]

I know that a lot of RPGers want to try them all, but If I join a jeep club, it's because I have a jeep I want that takes me to all those places out in the wild to enjoy the wild. It isn't to test drive every jeep model that comes up year-upon-year, or talk about how to get max horsepower out of the engine in a garage full of gearheads. So long as it gives me the experience I want, I'm not really looking to invest again because the 2020 has bluetooth and a cup warmer.

I know every inch of the one I've driven for decades, every vibration, and other feedback loops most don't even notice; and it never fails in getting me to that wild outdoors that's the real driver for my participation in the hobby.

Interesting take, but I am not sure that the jeep metaphor is entirely accurate.

A better metaphor for designing and running a campaign is putting together a collage. I think I saw Jeff Rients use this metaphor on his blog recently (so credit to him). You take a bunch of pieces, some of which you make, some of which you just cut out, then stick them together in a coherent fashion to make your own personalized thing to share with all of your goober friends (my friends are goobers, anyways). The rule system you use is a bit like the backing material and glue that hold everything together. They all essentially do the same thing, but different mediums can have wildly different effects on how the collage actually comes out.

Personally, experimenting with this 'backing material' has helped me becoming a much better DM, as well as refine my own tastes a bit.

One of the most salient things that I have learned is that you can't necessarily see how the largest differences between systems will manifest themselves without actually trying them. I didn't know what I didn't like about 5e until I went back and played DCC and 1e for a while. On the same token, I remember as a kid going from 2e to 3e and thinking that 3e was going to be god-awful, but it actually got rid of most of the issues I had (at the time) with 2e. I just had to get over the 'NEW THING BAD' feeling and actually try it.

Of course, now I view 3e as the worst of all systems but I wouldn't have been able to see that unless I tried 5e.

And my opinion of 5e has changed as I've experimented with different systems. 5 years ago, when I picked up the 5e starter box and got back into DMing, I would have said Race-As-Class was horrendously stupid, but now that I've actually used Race-As-Class, I really prefer it. Lots of aspects of different game systems are like that. They look unbelievably weird at first, but then once you try it and adapt, they feel considerably different than you thought they would.

Experimenting with new systems is also fun and entertaining because it forces the players to also think outside of their comfort zone, which can be a lot more engaging. Seeing my players do new and unexpected things is my favorite part of DMing. I still remember the first time I tried 1e with my group. One of the players decided to make a magic-user and at first said something like "this is bullshit, I only get one spell?" He spent a long time looking through the spell list to find the right one. Later, when they were in the dungeon, after running a way from a bunch of horrible monsters/traps, the party was ambushed by a group of Halflings. He then cast his single spell, which was Sleep, putting all of the Halflings to sleep. He then said "ok, I can just going to go cut their throats now," to which I replied "no, you can't do that." He then read the spell to me verbatim and I realized he was right. He gleefully moved his miniature around the battle mat proving he could make it to all of them before the effects of Sleep wore off. I laughed so hard I nearly cried because it was so unexpected and comical. Also, I think that player had fun looking through the spells, knowing he could only take one, and then deciding on Sleep, which is a spell he would have just skipped in his native 3.5e for a damage dealing spell. Being off balance and trying new things made that session more fun for both of us.

While you can kind of tweak your system to your liking, a lot of systems have considerable differences which you can't necessarily see until you try a different rule set and are a bit off-balance. Here in lies the crux for me. I am not advocating 'trying all of the newest ones,' I am just advocating getting out of your comfort-zone every once in a while. Try a one-shot of some weird system you've never used before. Try running the same dungeon you made in two different systems. You'll get better as a DM and you might even find a few less than obvious things you want to incorporate into your material that you write/your regular game. It's also pretty fun (in my opinion, of course.), though it might be slightly uncomfortable at first, like jumping into a pool of cold water.

Like any skill (DMing and making content are definitely skills), being outside of your comfort zone will make you view things differently and definitely improve your abilities overall. It has certainly helped me and it's been fun along the way!

That was more words than I intended.

 

[squeen]

something is fucking wrong with you

Been called worse.

 

[squeen]

@EOTB: Do you ever make 1e system adjustments/house-rules, or is it strictly by-the-book?

 

[gandalf_scion]

Although nobody asked me, I want to throw in my two cents because I love the topic of 1e house rules and have two recommendations. One: I find that most of us never used the BtB armor class adjustments for weapons; therefore employing them is, ironically, akin to a house rule. I highly recommend those oft-neglected armor class adjustments as they offer critical detail on distinctions between different weapons. Two: if you cut all measures of game time in half (make a turn five minutes, a round 30 seconds, and a segment three seconds) the otherwise goofy 1e time and distance scales become much more plausible. I suspect Gary's one-minute round was a legacy of his time in war gaming, where one needs time padding for command and control functions that do not occur in role playing as it has evolved - into smaller groups. His original vision seemed to include larger groups (many early modules propose seven or more players) for which the one minute round would have accounted for "command and control" functions that fell away as most groups usually cluster around four players.

 

[squeen]

Ok DP. I see what you mean. One sentence, and I derailed your thread again.

(...but it had sorta run its course.)

Ironically, the two awesome responses by Gandalf_scion and EOTB are precisely what I'm looking for in cyberspace---learning what works from others so I can become a better DM. Especially when it comes from a deeper understanding of the cogs that drove the original system design.

I see two clear votes for weapons vs. AC, and now I'm curious enough to try adding it.

Between EOTB and Anthony Huso's recent blog posts, I'm starting to feel a strong pull out of the 0e and into the 1e camping. Oh the decisions!

I do like that D&D is a smorgasbord, and you get to pick and choose---but the point I perceive from EOTB (and others) is that D&D evolved organically, and like any complex (natural) system, the parts that balance its ecosystem are not obvious. What's more, we (humans) have a tendency to trample all over the natural balance in pursuit of our short-sighted desires. I think there is some of the modern-world excess in all of the latter editions---including 1e (looking at you UA). Good intentioned logical constructs spring from the minds of men, but are designed in vacuum with insufficient feedback---or, I suspect, by the one-sided feedback of polling novice players on what they "want" more of---until the unbalanced result collapses and drowns in its own waste-products. (Oops! Time for another rule-set reboot!)

That's why, almost 50 years later, it's so useful to hear which mechanics consistently work for folks. EOTB's rubic of "slows down play" and "Don't let your ego fuck up your ability to provide a fun play session." sound like good touchstones to me.

Less helpful is, "Everything's great at my table. I just make it work on the fly."

As for house-rules/style, EOTB's having players roll random encounters would probably go against the "immersive" (OD&D?) vibe I love. Too much looking-behind-the-curtains spoils the Grand Illusion, i.e. "this is a game...here's how this piece works...be strategic or suffer the consequences." That might be a bridge-to-far for my tastes...even though I once believed the same about weapons vs. AC. [In his post (above), he posits expert players who all grok the rules...so maybe that's the difference.]

Thanks all.

 

[squeen]

Basically, I find "DM mystery" and "player ignorance" to be vastly overrated and not useful to creating immersive play.
...
Trust me, when the dice are bagged up and the players are reconstructing the night's events from their character's perspectives - they're still seeing that immersive abstract "movie" in their heads, anyway.

As always, you make a persuasive argument. There is no doubt that moments of high drama can be focused around the dice roll (e.g. saving throws!), and that in retrospective those mechanics can mentally disappear, leaving an immersive recollection.

You would almost have me convinced were it not for my experiences as a player. I recall vividly how well it can work when a large portion of the mechanics happen behind a screen. Hearing the sound of rolling dice is one thing...understanding what is rolled, why, and how often has one major drawback (IMO)---it exposes how incredibly simple the game is.

I learned a great DM (mine was) is an illusionist who makes it appear as though even random mechanics are a seamless virtual world. We weren't little tikes he was fooling either---high school and college-aged players. We all had the 1e books, but he was an iconoclast who followed the beat of his own drum. We had no way of knowing when and how the published rules has been twisted or bent, and he rarely revealed his hand.

We serious enjoyed the process of "not knowing" and figuring things out from the verbal feedback. It was another kind of exploration.

Again, it may be your veteran players who understand the 1e system to a tee making the difference. Perhaps trying to pull the wool over their eyes as to what's happening with the dice is an exercise in futility. I dunno. (Your comment in one of Bryce's reviews about the utility of standard magic items also alludes to a different play-style than what I'm trying to recreate.)

However, with my novice players, things have worked out well so far---even though I've let them see more of the dice than I did in the 70's and early 80's. Still, even after five years, I think of myself as a novice DM and continue looking for ways to improve.

With that in mind, here's another quasi-tangential question for this hijacked thread: How to best introduce the Weapons-vs-AC mechanic to a game?

1. Just tell the players I am going to use it, and then show them a weapons table with the pluses and minuses?
2. Or should I just start using them, and find a verbal way to imply certain weapons are having trouble, and let them work out the details for themselves? (As you might do in life or a video game.)

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[squeen]

Cute clip.

When I say my DM was an iconoclast, I was referring to how he lived nearly all of his (short) life, not necessarily as a DM. He was a strong advocate of mind over muscle (liking the original Star Trek far more than the original Star Wars), so yes...he did want us to be intelligent (while giving the token appearance of rooting for the monsters), but it was never about "beating" him. What he wanted to do most, it seemed, was laugh himself silly at our crazy hi-jinks.

Also, there was no "minigame" of guessing. The players just had to fiddle with things to learn what they did...or else blissfully ignore the often two-edged magics and get by via more mundane (and reliable) methods. At its best, you knew what you'd know---requests for out-of-game knowledge reveals were usually met with the reply "How would you know?".

Not to be my usual argumentative self (as I have a feeling I could learn a lot from how you play), but you did gloss over the key point I was trying to make in that by exposing the (essentially simple) mechanics of play so transparently, it does "flatten" the game a bit. Potentially reducing it to, "So THAT'S all that's going on? Just a X probability of (this) or (that)? Rinse and repeat?". For those seeking to suspend disbelief, you are potentially making that immersion a bit more difficult. Agreed?

There is a wonderful quote in Blaylock's "The Elfin Ship" when the elves reluctantly show the "scientist-type" the cockpit of their flying ship. He see the vision he was expecting of many gyroscopic-ally whirling parts and asks them "How many gears are there in there?". The pilot replys, "As many as you like."

To me, that's the DM's illusion---one of a far more elaborate simulation. And because there is a real Ghost In the D&D Machine (the DM), the system is actually far more robust than the rules alone might suggest.

That said, your emphasis on time-pressure is brilliant and probably not emphasized enough.

 

[squeen]

Every game requires constants to unlock the variables. It's all math; it's all algebra in narrative drag, even if never acknowledged. What is the variable the group has the most fun unlocking? I find the most fun for what I'm looking for out of the game is unlocked by making some mundane game mechanic risk constants known. Your group preferred the constant of getting by via more mundane/reliable methods and bypassing *magic* that often enough couldn't be reasonably determined to be helpful or harmful to your overall goal.

I think I understand what you are getting at. You feel it's counterproductive (i.e. less fun) to obscure certain routine mechanics because it slows down getting to your "meat"---that being tactics/strategy/resource-management. I find that totally legitimate. In contrast, I think I lean a bit more towards exploration of the unknown. All in al,l it's a neat tirade of classifications. Thanks for that.

With regard to how we (as players) reacted to the wild-cards in the environment (e.g. magic), it's not the case that it was avoided. Quite the opposite. We'd routinely uncork the genie from its bottle whenever a) our backs were up against the wall, b) we felt like fiddling with new stuff, or c) out of a devilish desire to unleash some "crazy". Not very strategic, I'll admit---but still lots of fun.

Also, since found magic tended to be hit-or-miss, I (as a magic-user PC) was very motivated to try to create new spells and magic items (potions mostly) since those were easier to control. The game does internally re-balance itself to a certain degree.

My DM's world and dungeons were vast---much bigger than and nearly oblivious to the PCs (by default, although you could start the dominoes falling if you managed to get enough leverage). For the most part, after nearly a decade of play, we barely scratched the surface. The notion of "winning" was quite vague. Instead it was Rogue-like in that you wondered how far you might get before (by pushing your luck) something inevitably "got" you. What was fun was seeing how big a splash you could make in the pond on your way out. Through interacting with folk like yourself, I am trying to get a sense of if that style of play is atypical or not. In the past, when I've sat at stranger's tables (e.g. GenCon), their D&D felt like wearing a pair of shoes a size or so too small. I'm not sure if that's a feeling that would disappear with familiarity or not.

Cheers.

 

[Beoric]

I see two clear votes for weapons vs. AC, and now I'm curious enough to try adding it.

Gah! If you mean AD&D weapons vs AC tables, here is a strong vote against.

Also, AD&D segment based order of attacks can die a fiery death, especially in connection with weapon speed factor.

Both of these options add complexity and slow combat based largely on out of combat equipment decisions. Moreover, they aren't interesting decisions, they are simple math decisions. WvAC tables in particular are a case of character optimization without interesting trade-offs - some weapons are clearly better against heavy armor, and some are clearly better against light armor, so you always take one of each. I'm pretty sure the statistically optimized weapons are a solved problem.

I am relatively sure that, given DM and players of equal familiarity with their respective systems, I can run a 4e combat at least as quickly as most can run a strictly by the book 1e combat using equivalent PCs and monsters. I'm absolutely positive I can make it feel faster, especially if I am using a VTT.

 

[squeen]

Alright. I give. My research has failed. What is a VTT?

Also, I do kinda like 10 segments/round. Not so slow IMO.

...but I am still a crap DM when it comes to resolving movement.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

although it doesn't have WvAC embedded because of how much processing power it would take to check each token for a specific armor type, if there were a bunch of tokens on the screen.

Yeesh, if your system is so convoluted that even computers have a hard time calculating it, then it's not an ideal system.

 

[Slick]

Wait what? I'm not a programming expert but I'm familiar enough, and there's no way that would be anywhere close to a high load for any computer built after 1995. It's adding one step to the process, and you would only run the WvAC function when an attack is made. There are full first person shooters that run in-browser that run fine and they have more complex calculations going on every frame. I don't buy that excuse at all.

EDIT: If it's an issue with the VTT's coding specifically that makes sense.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Back to one of my favorite topics - armor class adjustments for weapons.

"Any possibility of adding attack modifiers based on AC to weapons? I mean, I know it's doable manually (just like with pen and paper), but it's one aspect of 1e that could definitely benefit from better automation (not to mention being one of only two things I prefer in 1e over 2e)."

I'm glad to see others also value those modifiers from 1e. Indeed, as mentioned, 2e did have a version of those mods, but it got them wrong. Only 1e mods showed the wisdom (and historical truth) of using halberds, hammers, and picks against armor. In a perverse misinterpretation of D&D "magic sword" logic, 2e mods favored swords! Anyway, here again, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is the winner. That game succeeded with a brief, but historically accurate set of armor class adjustments for weapons. 1e had been accurate, but long. 2e had been brief, but inaccurate. 5e just ran from the whole matter.

 

[squeen]

A multiply or add in a computer typically runs less than 5 nanosecs (200 million a sec). They must have seriously borked their programming model if that's an issue. Probably a data-entry PITA or just an object-oriented logistically nightmare (e.g. Java).

Where does one get a VTT?

 

[squeen]

Thanks EOTB. Great info.

 

[Beoric]

Yes but where there are ties (17% of the time), speed factor plays a big role. Consider this gem from DMG p. 66:

When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first
in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to
multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.

Note this means in a tie, someone with a dagger gets to attack a guy with a longsword twice before the guy with the longsword gets to attack, even though the guy with the longsword has reach, and daggerman has to get past the point of the longsword in order to make those attacks.

And it is not accurate to suggest (as I think you are) that speed factor does not interact with spell casting time. Consider this quote from the same page:

The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) for the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic-user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1, the spell will be cast prior to the sword’s blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful “to hit” roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter)
there would be no chance for the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.

That's what I mean by "adding complexity". 2e's initiative (or was it an initiative variant?) where initiative order was established by rolling a d10 and adding the weapon speed or spell speed was at least simpler and more elegant, even if I strongly disagree with the way speed factors were assigned.

But 1e, with its pages of small text rules for determining attack order, is classified as OSR and "rules light" (except by 0e and B/X snobs), whereas 4e, where the rule can be stated in six words (roll d20 and add your initiative modifier) is classified as clunky and rules heavy.

As for decisions that are uninteresting simple math decisions - that applies equally to any decision a character could make that produces a modifier to a roll.

Not true. Conditional modifiers can occur in combat, and it is possible for there be a trade off associated with gaining a bonus or incurring a penalty, like charging, or keeping or breaking cover, or moving into a position to attack from the flank or rear.

 

[Beoric]

Each transaction may be short, if you have been playing for years and don't need to look anything up. But as you start piling on subsystem transactions, many of which have different mechanics, it all starts to pile up. And what do you get out of it? Simulationism? Balance for MUs? Even if I thought it accomplished those things, I just don't think its worth it.

For interest, here's what Gygax said about speed factor on Dragonsfoot:

As for weapon sped factor, I use it only when two closely matched opponents are in combat. In mass-melee situations the added calculation takes too much time, detracts from the action, for combat simulation is not featured in the LA game.

EDIT: Before that, in the same thread, he said this:

Aargh! Forget weapons speed factors. I must have been under the effect of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules

And here's what he said on Enworld about weapons vs. AC: "we never used the weapons vs. armor type adjustments."

Also, you have a 17% chance of rolling any particular number on a six-sided die. Two people don't have a 17% chance of rolling the same particular number on opposed six-sided die rolls. I'm not a mathematician but I'm sure one will be along shortly.

Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".

This does not change if we roll them at the same time.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Each transaction may be short, if you have been playing for years and don't need to look anything up. But as you start piling on subsystem transactions, many of which have different mechanics, it all starts to pile up. And what do you get out of it? Simulationism? Balance for MUs? Even if I thought it accomplished those things, I just don't think its worth it.

For interest, here's what Gygax said about speed factor on Dragonsfoot:

And here's what he said on Enworld about weapons vs. AC: "we never used the weapons vs. armor type adjustments."

Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".

This does not change if we roll them at the same time.

Gary's comments about weapon speed and armor class adjustments illustrate that 1e was an experiment evolving on the fly. He cooked up a lot of stuff in a hurry and slapped it in there waiting to see what might work, and what might not. The fact that he later reversed himself is interesting, but does not in itself invalidate those ideas. They were experiments to begin with and we are now drawing conclusions. Game designers do this all the time.

Nobody I knew back in the day ever used weapon vs. armor type adjustments either; at the time, it seemed too bulky. But after years of playing many games, in hindsight, I now value those adjustments as an important and accurate expression of differences between weapons. Without them, it's all about the damage die so players just pick the biggest one they can deliver with one hand (long sword) and the reality of the medieval arms race disappears.

We did use the weapon speed mechanics, including when dealing with spell casters. But after years of playing many games, in hindsight, I now realize the weapon speed mechanics misrepresent weapons and don't make sense for the reasons you cite. I too thought it silly that the dagger man could outdo the sword man; that's counter factual. And, the brain bending inversion math while doable was really overdone.

But this is all part of an evolving game and subject to personal preference. For a good compromise on armor type (class) adjustments I recommend Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

 

[squeen]

Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".

This does not change if we roll them at the same time.

The probability that you BOTH roll a 2 is P(A)*P(B) = (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36 (<2.8%).