|
On January 21 2015 04:52 Gahlo wrote:
Yeah, saying low level enemies in 5th don't do enough damage is bogus.
Not to high level PC's. When i say "lower leveled" i mean "lower level than the party". The point is that, sometimes you want to have a goblin horde to fight. Or if you're really high level, a troll horde to fight. And if you use actual goblins they're going to die in one hit (maybe two) and they're going to hit you 25 to 50% of the time for 5 damage apiece (2.5 damage/round!). And if you use actual trolls they're going to have 84 Hp to churn through and do maybe 14 damage/round. Neither of these fights is particularly fun for the players or the DM (especially the troll fight, so much record keeping).
Minion rules are basically this; Monsters have special HP, they die anytime they would take damage unless they make the corresponding save(I.E. they die if you hit them). They have AC and attack and damage comparable to a monster of roughly the same level. It means i can have 10+ enemies that aren't sacks of HP that are also threatening to the players. It lets me simulate the mooks that a bad guy throws at the heros without forcing you to eat through the 80 HP they have. And it keeps record keeping low because i don't have to bother with keeping track of the HP of some monsters.
Structurally its almost a 5e custom monster that has CR 0 defense and CR "Level" offense. Thematically they're mooks. Effectively it lets me design encounters in which the players feel like the "big damn heroes" without doing a bunch of record keeping. Incidentally it also allows players to take what otherwise would be sub-optimal actions but are "cool".
The player is unlikely to notice any of this unless they care a lot when they're level 15 and they one hit a troll and say "no it would take me at least 8 attacks to kill that troll, my belief in the fidelity of this fictional world is shattered". For the most part i haven't had players do this; instead they go "fuck yea, I am awesome, i just killed that troll in one hit by elbow dropping him"
|
Hmm, that's certainly a creative mechanic. I've never played or DMd a high level character, so I can't say I have perspective on either side.
|
United States47024 Posts
That's been the case with low-level D&D forever, not just in 5th.
It's also partly due to the nature of per-day and consumable resources at low levels--because there are so few of them, the change in a party's combat power due to them tends to be very large.
EDIT: lol posts in between the one I was responding to and mine.
On January 21 2015 05:14 Goumindong wrote:
The player is unlikely to notice any of this unless they care a lot when they're level 15 and they one hit a troll and say "no it would take me at least 8 attacks to kill that troll, my belief in the fidelity of this fictional world is shattered". For the most part i haven't had players do this; instead they go "fuck yea, I am awesome, i just killed that troll in one hit by elbow dropping him"
I mean, if the players properly understand the actual power level involved in a level 15 character, that should never really be an issue.
A 15th level Wizard can Control Weather and Reverse Gravity. But somehow a 15th level Fighter being able to drop a troll in a single blow is less believable?
|
On January 21 2015 05:27 TheYango wrote:That's been the case with low-level D&D forever, not just in 5th. It's also partly due to the nature of per-day and consumable resources at low levels--because there are so few of them, the change in a party's combat power due to them tends to be very large. EDIT: lol posts in between the one I was responding to and mine. Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 05:14 Goumindong wrote:
The player is unlikely to notice any of this unless they care a lot when they're level 15 and they one hit a troll and say "no it would take me at least 8 attacks to kill that troll, my belief in the fidelity of this fictional world is shattered". For the most part i haven't had players do this; instead they go "fuck yea, I am awesome, i just killed that troll in one hit by elbow dropping him" I mean, if the players properly understand the actual power level involved in a level 15 character, that should never really be an issue. A 15th level Wizard can Control Weather and Reverse Gravity. But somehow a 15th level Fighter being able to drop a troll in a single blow is less believable?
Yea, that is another thing it does. It brings the mechanics of the game in line with what we think the power of the characters should be
The downside is that a lot of players like, or at least think they like the simulation aspect of the system. There was a lot of complaining when DnD went to 4th edition that the world was no longer complete because they abandoned rules for working as well as disjointed the idea that a monster was a monster. The idea that a troll is a troll is a troll, no matter who is fighting it appeals to a sense of rationality. People when they read a system like that a lot, even if it doesn't work out as well for a narrative or encounter creation structure when you actually play it.
Similarly they like things that seem to tie the world together. While no level 15 fighter is ever going to spend a year as a smith for 5 copper/day profit having the rules makes people think the system is better set up even though no one will ever use them. Literally people complained that 4e was a worse system because it ignored rules for employment as a cook as if anyone was ever going to use DnD to roleplay being employed as a cook, and track their daily expenditures, and list their 10 gold income for the year they didn't adventure as if that wasn't an accounting error in their overall play.
Pulling the rationality axiom and the world fluff rules back into 5e is probably the largest thing that made people like it more than 4e. The core systems, with the exception of like two specific secondary classes, are pretty much the same. You use abilities you can use all the time, when available you use abilities which refresh on a short rest, every once and a while you use abilities which refresh on a long rest. Or you use at-will abilities, encounter powers when they're up, and every once and a while a daily ability. The fluff systems get ignored. You roll a d20 to hit and a d-other for damage a save is just the inverse of a defense, they're essentially the same. This is to say that 5e is, structurally, a lot closer to 4e than 3e but most people feel like its a lot closer to 3e than 4e. Because they're back on the rationality axiom.
The problem, and this is common to pretty much all games with power increases, is that there is a disjoint between a 1 level difference and a 5 level difference or a 10 level difference. Its really hard to reconcile those aspects of the game even if you have set the encounter math to be really tight. I have yet to see a system do it really well without abandoning the rationality axioms. 5e gets about as close as any and has pretty tight encounter math but obviously still fails because who the fuck wants to fight 10 trolls that have 840+ combined HP and do 14.5 damage/round? Its a really uninteresting fight and a pain to DM.
To me, as a DM, since the player never really sees what I am doing with monsters(reskins, turning one monster into three, turning three into one or whatever), i don't care. If I didn't tell you that i was using minions and then used them in a game you might not even notice unless i used them in a particularly egregious way or if you were thinking about the rationality of the system as a whole.
But I do love talking about this stuff.
Edit: Here is another example of how breaking the rationality system makes for a better game.
If you're traveling over the game world it usually takes more than 1 day. And usually you're going to set down and rest for 8 hours. And this constitutes a long rest and you get all your HP and HD and Spells back. And that is kind of dumb, because unless you're having a ridiculous amount of encounters. **Today we walked through the woods, we encountered an owl bear which we killed, a goblin patrol, two giant spiders, a ragamuffin, we scaled a cliff, and navigated the swamps of burnanage. We are setting down to rest and are about 2 weeks journey by land to the Shrine of the Fanta-tastics**. So "random" wilderness encounters only really make sense if, when traveling, you can't get a long rest in between them. Otherwise they would have to be hilariously strong to threaten a party that can dump all its long rest resources at them, or ridiculously packed into a day to do the same. Neither of which tend to feel right for the campaign
So when traveling, even if players get 8 hours of rest, i don't allow them long rests unless i want them to have one for some reason. They get short rests when stopping for the night (or really, in between encounters since i would rarely have an encounter a "day") and that is that. Its a disjoint because i will allow players long rests over 8 hours in dungeons. But its not like the floor of a dungeon is any more hospitable than the grass of a field.
I am also considering stealing a mechanic from Dungeon world where all dungeoneering items are common. You can buy up to 5 uses and when you want to use something you just say "oh yes, i totally have that in my pack" and scratch a use off. Saves players having to worry about whether or not they specifically brought pitons and rope or how many torches they recorded while also negating a lot of the need for carry weight rules but also prevents players from packratting everything they might possibly use into a dungeon.
|
I really just can't stand the way you look at the game dude. it takes all the mystery and exploration out of the world and makes it a math game or wow raid.. math games suck unless you are doing them by yourself. i dont want to play dnd by myself.
|
Yes PrinceXizor, i am fully aware how you want to be unaware that swords or other objects with sharp edges cut things. But designing the system to work better in ways that the DM can use and the players will never really see unless they purposefully pull back the veil doesn't pull the mystery or exploration out of the world unless the player wants it to be so.
edit: moreover, i am not sure how changing some of the math to be tighter and allow more varied encounters means that you are playing a math game anymore than you're playing a math game in normal DnD
|
right because thats what it means to have a well written world you play DnD in. whatever dude. whatever you need to tell yourself. go play your dice games. the dice and the math are the least important and least well conceived part of DnD. focusing on that part just makes the game dull.
|
DON'T FITE
IT'S NOT RITE
OR ELSE GET OUT OF MY SITE
|
On January 21 2015 06:57 PrinceXizor wrote:
right because thats what it means to have a well written world you play DnD in. whatever dude. whatever you need to tell yourself. go play your dice games. the dice and the math are the least important and least well conceived part of DnD. focusing on that part just makes the game dull.
calm your tits yo
I asked him what kinds of changes he had in mind. I'm also not really in agreement with his general thought process around it, but different people enjoy different things. If that's the game he runs, and his players enjoy it, then it's a perfectly viable way to do things.
|
If he wants to insult me i have no issues with calmly telling him off about it. he can be a condescending ass to his friends if he wants. not to me. maybe there is a reason he doesn't Dm anymore. i sure as hell wouldnt ever join one of his games, for multiple reasons, not just how he views DnD.
|
On January 21 2015 07:54 PrinceXizor wrote:
If he wants to insult me i have no issues with calmly telling him off about it. he can be a condescending ass to his friends if he wants. not to me. maybe there is a reason he doesn't Dm anymore. i sure as hell wouldnt ever join one of his games, for multiple reasons, not just how he views DnD.
He's been antagonized plenty in this thread (and I'm not innocent in that either). His condescending tone isn't surprising, but we're already aware of your feelings.
I share many of your opinions, but it doesn't mean I'm not interested in what he has to say. There are tons of ways to play the game, and I'm fascinated by the universe and the possibilities. There's no need to be so endlessly negative about it.
|
I am just unsure of what fixing some math has to do with "A well written world". Really I am unsure what any of what I have said in this thread has to do with the narrative potency of my games (besides suggesting that the system should get out of the way of the narrative, or support it)
|
this can only be solved by a duel
|
On January 21 2015 08:05 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 07:54 PrinceXizor wrote:
If he wants to insult me i have no issues with calmly telling him off about it. he can be a condescending ass to his friends if he wants. not to me. maybe there is a reason he doesn't Dm anymore. i sure as hell wouldnt ever join one of his games, for multiple reasons, not just how he views DnD. He's been antagonized plenty in this thread (and I'm not innocent in that either). His condescending tone isn't surprising, but we're already aware of your feelings. I share many of your opinions, but it doesn't mean I'm not interested in what he has to say. There are tons of ways to play the game, and I'm fascinated by the universe and the possibilities. There's no need to be so endlessly negative about it.
if he's being antagonized he shouldn't be antagonizing others. thats his own damn fault isn't it? if he can't talk to people without being condescending about it he doesn't have a leg to stand on about being antagonized. he doesn't get a free pass to be an asshole about everything because people disagree with him.
|
On January 21 2015 08:16 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 08:05 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 21 2015 07:54 PrinceXizor wrote:
If he wants to insult me i have no issues with calmly telling him off about it. he can be a condescending ass to his friends if he wants. not to me. maybe there is a reason he doesn't Dm anymore. i sure as hell wouldnt ever join one of his games, for multiple reasons, not just how he views DnD. He's been antagonized plenty in this thread (and I'm not innocent in that either). His condescending tone isn't surprising, but we're already aware of your feelings. I share many of your opinions, but it doesn't mean I'm not interested in what he has to say. There are tons of ways to play the game, and I'm fascinated by the universe and the possibilities. There's no need to be so endlessly negative about it. if he's being antagonized he shouldn't be antagonizing others. thats his own damn fault isn't it? if he can't talk to people without being condescending about it he doesn't have a leg to stand on about being antagonized. he doesn't get a free pass to be an asshole about everything because people disagree with him.
?
He's been talking just fine with me.
|
I was probably needlessly short with xizor when discussing how i feel "meta information" carries over into the world the meta information represents. But I don't really see a reasonable alternative to the solution I proposed.
Edit: there is also probably some different perspective since I have dm'd. When you're a player you get to focus on about two questions
1) is my character cool
2) does my character do what I want
With maybe a third of "does this break the play session?"
As a DM you have tho think of
1) does this conform to the theme of my world?
2) does this advance the plot? Will players pick up on it? Will players want to go in that direction?
3) does my encounter work? Will it be too hard or too easy?
4) how does it make my players feel?
The meat of what a DM will end up doing in prep is the third and fourth. One and two almost write themselves so long as you have an idea of what players want and what the world is. (So asmo will be doing more of this with his less defined world than I would be by borrowing Eberron).
Essentially that part at the end is "playing the math yourself" so that when your players get to it, it all works about right. Like writing a single player game part is writing the plot and part is making sure that the players have fun. Having DM'd it's hard to look at systems as anything other than a toolset for doing the second part. Improving the toolset means that you can do things faster and easier and get better results. But it doesn't have much bearing on the first parts of designing the world and the plot except insomuch as the toolset gets in the way (but it shouldn't if you're improving it).
|
It just seems that you're mindset is always about maximizing certain things. Which is fine; but personally, as a player, I enjoy playing a character to a flavor, even if it ends up being "sub optimal" numbers wise. I think that's where a lot of the discordance comes from.
I use mostly the 5e base rule set when I DM, with some modifications here and there. The DMG has tons of good ways to alter stuff. I find your escalation die solution to be interesting, but I don't know if it's good or bad, as I've never experienced it.
|
In terms of thinking about the system, absolutely. In terms of playing the game, no. I didn't maximize my character for this game (and probably wouldn't have since i don't think the feel of shields is right for this guy) and don't maximize NPC's or anything like that (it wouldn't even make sense).
edit: Its from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Age which does a lot of things right(and 5e cribs a lot from it) but many players have a hard time getting into because of the free form way world creation is done.
|
All of that being said. Its 10 minutes to game time right?
edit: NM, missed the time change
|
I am going to be yawning like mad tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
