Like, 5e is a good tool for telling stories, I believe. But is it a good game as in a challenge where skill impacts the outcome? I feel like the fact that many DMs fudge dice or adjust monster stats to avoid negative story outcomes like TPKs suggests that there are limits to its gameyness. If it were really a game, cheating would not be as tolerated.
In order to be a better game, it would need things such as a better CR system. Not only should there be clear guidelines on how to make a balanced combat that's challenging but not an excessively high TPK risk, but they should easily adaptable for player count and skill level. Another thing that would be nice to have would be rules or guidelines for "soft failure" built into the system. For example, maybe if you reduce a monster to half hp, it loses its will to fight somewhat. It will stand its ground if you continue to attack, but if you flee, it won't pursue. So there are tiers of winning this fight. Reduce all enemies to 0 hp: full victory and your objectives are accomplished; reduce all enemies to half hp, and you survive but your goal is not accomplished.
Are there other game systems that do this better? Despite dedicating a good bit of its rulebook to combat, 5e seems to be motivated by simulation in a lot of its rule choices more than creating a balanced game. Maybe for 6e they can do better? I know Wizards of the Coast has employees who can make a game that is pretty well balanced even in the face of almost infinitely combinable creatures, because they make Magic the Gathering. Couldn't they create a set of RPG combat rules and an accompanying monster manual in a way so that if the DM constructs any "legal" "hand" of monsters for a given level of adventuring party, it is automatically a pretty well-balanced fight and not a shutout?
If you're using the practice of _some_ DMs to fudge dice as a way to question whether D&D 5e is a "good game" you're asking the same question of the entire TTRPG hobby. "Fudging dice" has never been discussed as an exclusive need or remedy for 5e but is rather a practice many (but not all) game masters (DMs, GMs, etc) across the TTRPG hobby engage in.
Encounter design, or more broadly, challenge design, in all ttrpg is both an art and a science. Folks who want ironclad CR systems miss that combo and think it should be strictly a science. TTRPGs unlike any other game have a higher potential for "going off script" that makes locked in challenge assessments sort of moot, which is why 5e and many many other ttrpg give the DM/GM a lot of latitude in terms of running the game.
This is why reasonable people when discussing any TTRPG will talk more about playstyle than orthodoxy litmus tests.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The problem with 5e and other TTRPGs is the dice. So long as you can fail 5 times in a row without it being extraordinary or succeed 5 times in a row, then a game which has an encounter that only lasts around 5 rounds will have massive swings. That randomness just makes predicting a finely tuned encounter almost impossible. As a result, you have to adapt on the fly if you want a given encounter to be challenging but not impossible (unless the dice gods play ball for you).
Either the dice have to be less influential, more likely to actually hit or have a lot more rounds to allow the law of averages to play out. Having an encounter based on rolls that are close to 50% chance of succeeding that only play out for a small handful of rolls is going to be very swingy and hence you can't predict it mechanically.
That's before you get to builds etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Long answer: Before we can answer your question we must first determine what you mean by "skill" and "outcome". All games require skill. Video games require hand-eye coordination, chess requires spatial awareness and tactical planning, curling requires... I don't know... maple syrup? The difficulty in answering your question comes from the fact that 5e is not just one monolithic game. It is a framework that requires each of us to create our own games. Yes, all those games will share basic mechanics like dice rolls, and ability scores, etc. But the game provides enough flexibility that each table can custom tailor their own game to their own desires. And each table will be striving for a different outcome, thus each table will require players to bring different skills to bear to achieve those outcomes.
Some tables will strive for verisimilitude, carefully tracking each hit, each injury, each hour or day of rest, each pound of encumbrance, each arrow in the ranger's inventory, each ration in your pack. So that table's game will require players to exercise the skills of careful planning, scrupulous tracking of supplies, and patience in healing from wounds. And that's fine! If those players are having fun, they have accomplished their outcome.
Another table may be more interested in telling a compelling story fraught with tragedy, tension, and farce. They may spend more time engaging NPCs in deep philosophical deliberation than in swinging axes at orcs. So those players will rely on the skills of dialectics, logic, and improv acting. And that's fine! If those players are having fun, they have accomplished their outcome.
In either case, the skill of the players has a direct impact on the outcome. Because... what is the outcome we are all searching for?? D&D is a game. It's fantasy. We PLAY this GAME for one reason - to have fun. The quandary arises when someone confuses "player outcome" with "character outcome". We, as players, want to have fun. That is the goal. Use whatever skills you can muster, as long as you're having fun you're winning. "Character outcome" is something completely different. Sure, we may want our characters to succeed in their endeavors, but we need to learn to accept the fact that that won't always happen. We've all had characters fail, and even die. Learning to accept that, and even to treasure the moment of their downfall, is an integral step in maturing, both as players and as people.
As far as the math goes - HP, AC, CR, SA, DC, attack mods, saving throws, etc - those are just tools at your disposal to help you tell a compelling story. We don't need rules written in $50 books to tell you that a severely injured monster may choose to run away rather than fight to the death. That's basic survival instinct. We don't need rules hidden behind electronic paywalls to tell you that a BBEG who "could" TPK the party with one more Fireball might find those characters to be more useful if kept alive and used as spies or defenders. That's not mercy, that's pragmatism.
Previous incarnations of D&D required that the party kill monsters outright to earn the XP for defeating them. But previous incarnations utterly FAILED to account for the fact that success is measured in so many more complex ways than mere HP attrition. That is what makes 5e so much better than earlier versions. With Milestone Leveling we (the DMs) can banish the limitations of XP and actually reward players for the things that truly matter - Did they make a good plan? Did they coordinate and cooperate? Did they show mercy when appropriate? Did they establish a new bond with an NPC or faction? Did they develop their character's personality or backstory? Did they move the plot forward? And most importantly - did they have fun?
THESE are the things that really matter! 5e grants the DM the power and the flexibility to craft a compelling story, and it provides as much or as little structure as each DM may want or need in order to share in helping their players to tell a compelling story that everyone will enjoy participating in. That is the beauty of 5e's design. That is why we don't need a 6e. You already have at your fingertips everything you need. You have the power to modify anything in your game world. Do it! 5e is a box of LEGO. One table may build one thing, another may build something totally different. And that's okay. That's better than okay, that's the goal! That's the purpose!
THESE are the things that really matter! 5e grants the DM the power and the flexibility to craft a compelling story, and it provides as much or as little structure as each DM may want or need in order to share in helping their players to tell a compelling story that everyone will enjoy participating in. That is the beauty of 5e's design. That is why we don't need a 6e. You already have at your fingertips everything you need. You have the power to modify anything in your game world. Do it! 5e is a box of LEGO. One table may build one thing, another may build something totally different. And that's okay. That's better than okay, that's the goal! That's the purpose!
That's a good analogy. But Lego does print a set of instructions for how to build the standard model. And a lot of us like to follow those instructions while we're learning, because we aren't confident our beginner homebrew won't go totally off the rails. At the same time, I'd like to do some homebrewing. All the rules in D&D are guidelines. I just wish they'd provide a few more guidelines. It would also just make it less work for me. Maybe I'm slowly getting enough experience designing combats that I can create an exciting combat that won't TPK the players, but if there was a reliable and simple worksheet I could do to check if my combat was tipping toward a TPK, then I could focus more on the narrative.
But the danger of creating "more guidelines" is that at some point those guidelines become rules. A guideline can be tweaked and massaged to help you arrive at a more desired outcome. A rule cannot. Violating a rule carries with it the intrinsic threat of a penalty. A guideline cannot be violated, and thus carries no such threat.
As far as the matter of designing encounters of an appropriate CR to challenge but not wipe a party is more art than science. It's not something that can be defined by a rule. There are so many factors that are often not considered when determining the CR of an encounter. Because the CR assigned to each monster does not take into account who will be fighting it. An undead encounter might be super easy for a party of clerics and paladins, but nearly fatal for others. Also, a monster that can attack while flying will easily wipe a party of melee characters, but may be an easy kill for a party of wizards and archers.
We all need to accept that the very notion of "Challenge Rating" is itself nothing more than a general guideline. It's not a rule. Each DM has to design their encounters for their players, taking into account the party's capabilities and hindrances. And yes, it does take a good deal of time to develop the experience to confidently make those adjustments. And yes, a character or two may die in the process. But as long as you make that death memorable it can still be part of an enjoyable story, and may provide greater motivation for the rest of the party on their quest. But it's okay to make little mistakes. We all do. Nobody ever gets everything right the first time. Don't fear the learning curve, revel in it. Play with it. Laugh at it. It's just a game. There is nothing you can do so wrongly in your D&D game that will cause any real damage to the world outside your window.
And the little mistakes we make along the path of learning often provide some of the funniest memories of the game!
I mentioned this in another topic, that 5e is much less a game and more a collaborative storytelling vehicle. Games have rules, set and fixed and one must abide these rules to play (or be cheating) and offer a chance to "win" through following the rules and at times, getting lucky. 5e has adjusted and tweaked things so often and to such an extent that there isn't a fixed set of rules any more, for pretty much anything. Your token now (Character) is simply that, a token you assign points to, then choose if it's blue or green or whatever. Gone are the days of picking a character "race" for a purpose, or to make the most of it, since now every character is at it's core, equal. No viable benefit for choosing an Orc over an Elf for your brawny Barbarian, nobody cares that the Wizard is carrying 2 backpacks and 3 pouches loaded with stuff (most seem to ignore encumbrance rules) and the locked door has about 15 different ways to be opened, as opposed to a single challenge that needs to be solved by doing X Y then F.
Now, don't misunderstand, as I personally feel this enhances D&D to be MORE enjoyable for many and offers such a myriad of options and possibilities that creativity and imagination take front row. This, to ME, at least, is a great thing for this hobby, BUT, it certainly hacks away most of what makes a game a game, which is fairly strict rules to follow and benefits and penalties for the choices we make. Now, there are no penalties allowed, for fear of hurting a feeling somewhere. Again, GREAT mindset for a hobby to bring people together for fun, but not so much for a challenge or actual game.
Like anything, there are opinions and that's mine. I am sure others will disagree and that's fine as well, because the best part of the hobby is how so many diverse opinions on HOW to play are out there and every last one is valid, even if it's at only one table in the entire world. That would mean it's perfect for THAT group and there are few other hobbies or games with that level of flexibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
If your goal is a tactical wargame, 5e is... okay, but not super sophisticated. However, fudging to prevent a TPK is just an indication that players don't actually want a game, because a game, run as a game, is working correctly when there's a TPK every couple sessions.
If your goal is a tactical wargame, 5e is... okay, but not super sophisticated. However, fudging to prevent a TPK is just an indication that players don't actually want a game, because a game, run as a game, is working correctly when there's a TPK every couple sessions.
I think some groups want a game and a story. TPK is satisfying for a game as it makes the victory sweeter when you don't TPK, but it's incredibly unsatisfying in a storytelling setting for the campaign to get cut off halfway. If you're invested in the story, you'll have plot threads you want to pay off, and it will be unsatisfying if you don't at least pay off some of them. That's where you can have a game and a story. Failure means you fail to achieve at least one of your objectives. But there might be others. The outcome of a combat might be delay an objective or make its achievement more complex or have worse odds. But it doesn't have to be de facto failure of all objectives because your character ceases to exist and the story of that world is over.
The definition of "Game" is problematic in that it can refer to a variety of endeavors. One of the challenges of creating RPG's is to ensure that it is accessible and enjoyable. A game where there are TPK's every few sessions may be "fun" for some but not others. It's one of the tricks with designing a coop board game: How often do you want the players to fail and say "well we lost"?
Take the game Black Orchestra, a dark board game of collecting the elements you need to fuel the plots you draw randomly to assassinate Hitler. The game is designed with difficulty levels that affect how overall easy or hard the game is. It's got some randomness to it, but the idea is that clever game play and good choices can mitigate some of that randomness. It's also a very emotionally difficult game to lose, due to it's theme. You want to win. He's gotta die.
So let's look at the plain text:
"a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
Generally the outcome of DND is not decided by Strength. It clearly is a form of play however and its outcome is decided by skill or luck. Now, play:
"activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation, especially by children."
First, let's ditch the children part. That's just ageist.
Enjoyment and recreation. So let's modify the definition of game to incorporate the definition of play to get:
"An activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation played according to rules and decided by skill or luck"
Now comes the big question: Is fudging dice, modifying encounters, working the scene and all that stuff part of the deciding by luck? Is the game one of skill, where the "better player" is more likely to win? I say, those are still the wrong questions.
If, as the DM, I modify an encounter on the fly so that the party has fun, cheers, laughs, and says "that was EPIC!", then it doesn't matter what the dice said. My SKILL as the DM decided the outcome which was not that the party defeated the demigorgon, it was that they had fun. That they ENJOYED the experience. If a player makes a sub-optimal choice that entertains the table, gives everyone a solid groan, or makes them look back in an hour and go "I hated that you had to flirt with the king but man did that set off an amazing sub plot", then the SKILL of the player to tell a good story brought ENJOYMENT.
The idea that a "game" requires winners, losers, and outcomes that are not enjoyable for the context is a rigid one. DND is a perfectly fine "game" as it uses luck, skill, rules and can be engaged in for enjoyment.
Yes, it is a good game, as long the DM acts with common sense. Fudging rolls and adjusting enemy stats is not cheating, the rules cleary say that the DM is always right. Adjusting rolls and stats so they fit the narrative is not only a DMs right, it's a DM responsibility to make a difference between a narrative roleplaying game and a mere tactical simulation. If a DM allows player characters to die for no other reasons than bad rolls, he should better not be a DM at all.
The 5th Edition has without a doubt far better balancing than any edition before (as long as you stick to point buy only characters). The rules are easier to learn than other RPG rules and the classes, spells and feats give players enough material to create a large variety of characters, at least within a typical fantasy setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
It looks like you are thinking along the lines of Warhammer 40k tabletop. There are no core rules for handling stuff like that.
There are many variables that influence how the DM should build encounters. The big ones that I can think of being:
The skill of the DM (can they make the "optimum" decision for the monsters if needed)
The skill of the players (can they make the optimum decision for their characters if needed)
What tone of game the players want (grimdark / super-lethal, heroic fantasy, narrative only, etc)
That said, there are mechanics like that, especially in the Adventurer's League modules, that do handle those situations, as those modules are intended to be played by a wide variety of skill in their players.
They will have the DM calculate a rating for their party based on the level and number of players. Encounters will then list how to change them based on that rating to get the intended challenge.
From a design theory perspective, it sounds like your assuming a definition of 'game' that is not entirely applicable to D&D. Mark Rosewater (lead designed for Magic the Gathering) has a very good set of criteria for what makes up a game in this article, which I'll summarise here:
Goals or Motivation: the players need something to work towards.
Restrictions: there need to be limitations as to what the players can do, it can't be entirely freeform.
Agency: player decisions need to matter on the outcome of the game
Lacks real-world relevance: a game is something you opt into for the experience, rather than being tied to real world consequences, needs, or goals*
If we look at these fairly solid criteria, we can evaluate D&D as a game:
Does it have goals or motivation? Yeah, I think we can say it does. You don't necessarily 'win' D&D, but characters can have goals that motivate the players to play, be it saving the world, resolving a backstory, or exploring a region.
Does it have restrictions? This is what distinguishes D&D from freeform roleplay; there are restrictions in the form of the mechanics. You can only make your character a certain way, you can only cast certain spells, you can only do what your ability scores and the role of the dice allows.
Do the players have agency? In tabletop roleplaying games (not just D&D), the players probably have more agency than in many other types of game. You can do almost anything and it will matter
Does it lack real world consequence? There's a reason I put an asterisk next to this one, as it's important to distinguish between the intent of how D&D is played, and how some people actually play it. If we look at the intent, D&D is pure escapism, there are no real world consequences, so it checks this box. But we can't discount that some people do play it in such a way that has real consequences; intense social bonds can be made and broken, people monetise the hobby through streaming, paid DM'ing, or making merchandise, and it would be wholly bereft of me to not mention the social impact of representation and inclusivity and the effect that has
So looking through this high level checklist, I think we can solidly say D&D is game. If we look at how well it checks these items off, I think it's fair to say it is a 'good' game. There are goals, and they are not only solid, but diverse; there's more than one way to succeed at D&D. There are plenty of restrictions in the form of the mechanics that can be adjusted and fine tuned to whatever degree of 'crunch' the table works. There is agency by the bucketload and the consequences for play are, under intended and ideal circumstances, limited to play.
You can look at other forms of analysis for what quantifies a game and in all of them, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) meet those criteria well.
But there's another facet to what makes a 'good' game; understanding what you want from a game. If you want tight, balanced combat with rigid rules for building opposing sides, D&D fifth edition is probably not the game for you and you'd want something like a tabletop wargame. If you want a complex rules interaction based competitive game, maybe you want a trading card game instead. If you want a contained game experience with a defined start and end condition and win/loss scenarios, a boardgame would be more suitable. The point is that if you're asking if anything is a good game, you must define what 'good' actually means. What metric do you use? Whose metric do you use? This leads down a rabbit hole where sometimes the only conclusion becomes "Well, do I like D&D?"
Because if you do, it doesn't matter if it's "good" or not.
Like, 5e is a good tool for telling stories, I believe. But is it a good game as in a challenge where skill impacts the outcome? I feel like the fact that many DMs fudge dice or adjust monster stats to avoid negative story outcomes like TPKs suggests that there are limits to its gameyness. If it were really a game, cheating would not be as tolerated.
In order to be a better game, it would need things such as a better CR system. Not only should there be clear guidelines on how to make a balanced combat that's challenging but not an excessively high TPK risk, but they should easily adaptable for player count and skill level. Another thing that would be nice to have would be rules or guidelines for "soft failure" built into the system. For example, maybe if you reduce a monster to half hp, it loses its will to fight somewhat. It will stand its ground if you continue to attack, but if you flee, it won't pursue. So there are tiers of winning this fight. Reduce all enemies to 0 hp: full victory and your objectives are accomplished; reduce all enemies to half hp, and you survive but your goal is not accomplished.
In 5e, skill very much impacts the outcome. Just because one roll is fudged, doesn't mean that D&D suddenly becomes a game of luck. One roll is not massive in the overall picture of things, and even for DM's who fudge dice rolls, the players still can fail, die, and suffer defeats.
Also, if you don't want to play with a DM who fudges die rolls to avoid "negative story outcomes", then you don't have to. Just join a group where the DM doesn't like fudged rolls and have agreed not to do that.
Fudging rolls isn't "cheating," since the DM is the ref and it's a known strategy, it's just a different style of play.
Yes, the CR system is flawed, but they still have one that works fairly well, and if you want a better CR system, you can always create your own.
You mention "soft failures" and monsters at half HP not chasing the enemy, however, you can add that to your encounter. You don't have to be dissapointed about that not being a rule, if you like it and your players don't dislike it, I don't see what's wrong with implementing that into your games. It can't be a universal rule since some encounters might be different, for example, if you have a monster with an intelligence and wisdom score of 1 that only want's to feed, it will probably chase after the characters no matter how much HP it has.
Again, D&D is a flexible game, if you don't like something in it and you're the DM, or work with the DM and explain what you don't want in your campaigns, then you can do things differently.
DnD has never been a balanced game, and there is little hope for it ever being. I still think it's asking the best TTRPG offerings out the, especially mechanically, but the design team (and honestly probably many of the players) *want* the game to be broken
You simply cannot have a banded game that allows characters to hand out Aoe 10 turn stuns in fights. As someone who plays plenty of computer rpg games, often a single turn single enemy stun is incredibly strong in these games. A 10 turn aoe stun would be unthinkable, and DnD hands these out like candy.
Imagine if basketball let players use tanks and machine guns. There isn't a real way to make a balanced and interesting competition so long as those exist.
DnD has never been a balanced game, and there is little hope for it ever being. I still think it's asking the best TTRPG offerings out the, especially mechanically, but the design team (and honestly probably many of the players) *want* the game to be broken
You simply cannot have a banded game that allows characters to hand out Aoe 10 turn stuns in fights. As someone who plays plenty of computer rpg games, often a single turn single enemy stun is incredibly strong in these games. A 10 turn aoe stun would be unthinkable, and DnD hands these out like candy.
Imagine if basketball let players use tanks and machine guns. There isn't a real way to make a balanced and interesting competition so long as those exist.
What spells abilities are you using that routinely cause 10 turns of stun to an area of enemies?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What spells abilities are you using that routinely cause 10 turns of stun to an area of enemies?
I think he's using 'stun' as a more general term for incapacitating crowd control effects, which means Hypnotic Pattern would qualify.
The only edition that made a serious effort at being a balanced tactical wargame was 4e, and the way it did so caused people to say that it didn't feel like 'real' D&D.
I would say the game is about creating story and 5e qualifies as a good one because it is possible to improve your ability to contribute to the group's story from both the DM and the Player side of the equation.
Like, 5e is a good tool for telling stories, I believe. But is it a good game as in a challenge where skill impacts the outcome? I feel like the fact that many DMs fudge dice or adjust monster stats to avoid negative story outcomes like TPKs suggests that there are limits to its gameyness. If it were really a game, cheating would not be as tolerated.
In order to be a better game, it would need things such as a better CR system. Not only should there be clear guidelines on how to make a balanced combat that's challenging but not an excessively high TPK risk, but they should easily adaptable for player count and skill level. Another thing that would be nice to have would be rules or guidelines for "soft failure" built into the system. For example, maybe if you reduce a monster to half hp, it loses its will to fight somewhat. It will stand its ground if you continue to attack, but if you flee, it won't pursue. So there are tiers of winning this fight. Reduce all enemies to 0 hp: full victory and your objectives are accomplished; reduce all enemies to half hp, and you survive but your goal is not accomplished.
Are there other game systems that do this better? Despite dedicating a good bit of its rulebook to combat, 5e seems to be motivated by simulation in a lot of its rule choices more than creating a balanced game. Maybe for 6e they can do better? I know Wizards of the Coast has employees who can make a game that is pretty well balanced even in the face of almost infinitely combinable creatures, because they make Magic the Gathering. Couldn't they create a set of RPG combat rules and an accompanying monster manual in a way so that if the DM constructs any "legal" "hand" of monsters for a given level of adventuring party, it is automatically a pretty well-balanced fight and not a shutout?
If you're using the practice of _some_ DMs to fudge dice as a way to question whether D&D 5e is a "good game" you're asking the same question of the entire TTRPG hobby. "Fudging dice" has never been discussed as an exclusive need or remedy for 5e but is rather a practice many (but not all) game masters (DMs, GMs, etc) across the TTRPG hobby engage in.
Encounter design, or more broadly, challenge design, in all ttrpg is both an art and a science. Folks who want ironclad CR systems miss that combo and think it should be strictly a science. TTRPGs unlike any other game have a higher potential for "going off script" that makes locked in challenge assessments sort of moot, which is why 5e and many many other ttrpg give the DM/GM a lot of latitude in terms of running the game.
This is why reasonable people when discussing any TTRPG will talk more about playstyle than orthodoxy litmus tests.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The problem with 5e and other TTRPGs is the dice. So long as you can fail 5 times in a row without it being extraordinary or succeed 5 times in a row, then a game which has an encounter that only lasts around 5 rounds will have massive swings. That randomness just makes predicting a finely tuned encounter almost impossible. As a result, you have to adapt on the fly if you want a given encounter to be challenging but not impossible (unless the dice gods play ball for you).
Either the dice have to be less influential, more likely to actually hit or have a lot more rounds to allow the law of averages to play out. Having an encounter based on rolls that are close to 50% chance of succeeding that only play out for a small handful of rolls is going to be very swingy and hence you can't predict it mechanically.
That's before you get to builds etc.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Short answer: "YES!"
Long answer: Before we can answer your question we must first determine what you mean by "skill" and "outcome". All games require skill. Video games require hand-eye coordination, chess requires spatial awareness and tactical planning, curling requires... I don't know... maple syrup? The difficulty in answering your question comes from the fact that 5e is not just one monolithic game. It is a framework that requires each of us to create our own games. Yes, all those games will share basic mechanics like dice rolls, and ability scores, etc. But the game provides enough flexibility that each table can custom tailor their own game to their own desires. And each table will be striving for a different outcome, thus each table will require players to bring different skills to bear to achieve those outcomes.
Some tables will strive for verisimilitude, carefully tracking each hit, each injury, each hour or day of rest, each pound of encumbrance, each arrow in the ranger's inventory, each ration in your pack. So that table's game will require players to exercise the skills of careful planning, scrupulous tracking of supplies, and patience in healing from wounds. And that's fine! If those players are having fun, they have accomplished their outcome.
Another table may be more interested in telling a compelling story fraught with tragedy, tension, and farce. They may spend more time engaging NPCs in deep philosophical deliberation than in swinging axes at orcs. So those players will rely on the skills of dialectics, logic, and improv acting. And that's fine! If those players are having fun, they have accomplished their outcome.
In either case, the skill of the players has a direct impact on the outcome. Because... what is the outcome we are all searching for?? D&D is a game. It's fantasy. We PLAY this GAME for one reason - to have fun. The quandary arises when someone confuses "player outcome" with "character outcome". We, as players, want to have fun. That is the goal. Use whatever skills you can muster, as long as you're having fun you're winning. "Character outcome" is something completely different. Sure, we may want our characters to succeed in their endeavors, but we need to learn to accept the fact that that won't always happen. We've all had characters fail, and even die. Learning to accept that, and even to treasure the moment of their downfall, is an integral step in maturing, both as players and as people.
As far as the math goes - HP, AC, CR, SA, DC, attack mods, saving throws, etc - those are just tools at your disposal to help you tell a compelling story. We don't need rules written in $50 books to tell you that a severely injured monster may choose to run away rather than fight to the death. That's basic survival instinct. We don't need rules hidden behind electronic paywalls to tell you that a BBEG who "could" TPK the party with one more Fireball might find those characters to be more useful if kept alive and used as spies or defenders. That's not mercy, that's pragmatism.
Previous incarnations of D&D required that the party kill monsters outright to earn the XP for defeating them. But previous incarnations utterly FAILED to account for the fact that success is measured in so many more complex ways than mere HP attrition. That is what makes 5e so much better than earlier versions. With Milestone Leveling we (the DMs) can banish the limitations of XP and actually reward players for the things that truly matter - Did they make a good plan? Did they coordinate and cooperate? Did they show mercy when appropriate? Did they establish a new bond with an NPC or faction? Did they develop their character's personality or backstory? Did they move the plot forward? And most importantly - did they have fun?
THESE are the things that really matter! 5e grants the DM the power and the flexibility to craft a compelling story, and it provides as much or as little structure as each DM may want or need in order to share in helping their players to tell a compelling story that everyone will enjoy participating in. That is the beauty of 5e's design. That is why we don't need a 6e. You already have at your fingertips everything you need. You have the power to modify anything in your game world. Do it! 5e is a box of LEGO. One table may build one thing, another may build something totally different. And that's okay. That's better than okay, that's the goal! That's the purpose!
That's the beauty of 5e.
Play. Have fun.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
That's a good analogy. But Lego does print a set of instructions for how to build the standard model. And a lot of us like to follow those instructions while we're learning, because we aren't confident our beginner homebrew won't go totally off the rails. At the same time, I'd like to do some homebrewing. All the rules in D&D are guidelines. I just wish they'd provide a few more guidelines. It would also just make it less work for me. Maybe I'm slowly getting enough experience designing combats that I can create an exciting combat that won't TPK the players, but if there was a reliable and simple worksheet I could do to check if my combat was tipping toward a TPK, then I could focus more on the narrative.
But the danger of creating "more guidelines" is that at some point those guidelines become rules. A guideline can be tweaked and massaged to help you arrive at a more desired outcome. A rule cannot. Violating a rule carries with it the intrinsic threat of a penalty. A guideline cannot be violated, and thus carries no such threat.
As far as the matter of designing encounters of an appropriate CR to challenge but not wipe a party is more art than science. It's not something that can be defined by a rule. There are so many factors that are often not considered when determining the CR of an encounter. Because the CR assigned to each monster does not take into account who will be fighting it. An undead encounter might be super easy for a party of clerics and paladins, but nearly fatal for others. Also, a monster that can attack while flying will easily wipe a party of melee characters, but may be an easy kill for a party of wizards and archers.
We all need to accept that the very notion of "Challenge Rating" is itself nothing more than a general guideline. It's not a rule. Each DM has to design their encounters for their players, taking into account the party's capabilities and hindrances. And yes, it does take a good deal of time to develop the experience to confidently make those adjustments. And yes, a character or two may die in the process. But as long as you make that death memorable it can still be part of an enjoyable story, and may provide greater motivation for the rest of the party on their quest. But it's okay to make little mistakes. We all do. Nobody ever gets everything right the first time. Don't fear the learning curve, revel in it. Play with it. Laugh at it. It's just a game. There is nothing you can do so wrongly in your D&D game that will cause any real damage to the world outside your window.
And the little mistakes we make along the path of learning often provide some of the funniest memories of the game!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
What kind of skill do you mean? As in two people can be given the same character sheet and the "more skilled" one will have better outcomes?
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I mentioned this in another topic, that 5e is much less a game and more a collaborative storytelling vehicle. Games have rules, set and fixed and one must abide these rules to play (or be cheating) and offer a chance to "win" through following the rules and at times, getting lucky. 5e has adjusted and tweaked things so often and to such an extent that there isn't a fixed set of rules any more, for pretty much anything. Your token now (Character) is simply that, a token you assign points to, then choose if it's blue or green or whatever. Gone are the days of picking a character "race" for a purpose, or to make the most of it, since now every character is at it's core, equal. No viable benefit for choosing an Orc over an Elf for your brawny Barbarian, nobody cares that the Wizard is carrying 2 backpacks and 3 pouches loaded with stuff (most seem to ignore encumbrance rules) and the locked door has about 15 different ways to be opened, as opposed to a single challenge that needs to be solved by doing X Y then F.
Now, don't misunderstand, as I personally feel this enhances D&D to be MORE enjoyable for many and offers such a myriad of options and possibilities that creativity and imagination take front row. This, to ME, at least, is a great thing for this hobby, BUT, it certainly hacks away most of what makes a game a game, which is fairly strict rules to follow and benefits and penalties for the choices we make. Now, there are no penalties allowed, for fear of hurting a feeling somewhere. Again, GREAT mindset for a hobby to bring people together for fun, but not so much for a challenge or actual game.
Like anything, there are opinions and that's mine. I am sure others will disagree and that's fine as well, because the best part of the hobby is how so many diverse opinions on HOW to play are out there and every last one is valid, even if it's at only one table in the entire world. That would mean it's perfect for THAT group and there are few other hobbies or games with that level of flexibility.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
If your goal is a tactical wargame, 5e is... okay, but not super sophisticated. However, fudging to prevent a TPK is just an indication that players don't actually want a game, because a game, run as a game, is working correctly when there's a TPK every couple sessions.
I think some groups want a game and a story. TPK is satisfying for a game as it makes the victory sweeter when you don't TPK, but it's incredibly unsatisfying in a storytelling setting for the campaign to get cut off halfway. If you're invested in the story, you'll have plot threads you want to pay off, and it will be unsatisfying if you don't at least pay off some of them. That's where you can have a game and a story. Failure means you fail to achieve at least one of your objectives. But there might be others. The outcome of a combat might be delay an objective or make its achievement more complex or have worse odds. But it doesn't have to be de facto failure of all objectives because your character ceases to exist and the story of that world is over.
The definition of "Game" is problematic in that it can refer to a variety of endeavors. One of the challenges of creating RPG's is to ensure that it is accessible and enjoyable. A game where there are TPK's every few sessions may be "fun" for some but not others. It's one of the tricks with designing a coop board game: How often do you want the players to fail and say "well we lost"?
Take the game Black Orchestra, a dark board game of collecting the elements you need to fuel the plots you draw randomly to assassinate Hitler. The game is designed with difficulty levels that affect how overall easy or hard the game is. It's got some randomness to it, but the idea is that clever game play and good choices can mitigate some of that randomness. It's also a very emotionally difficult game to lose, due to it's theme. You want to win. He's gotta die.
So let's look at the plain text:
"a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
Generally the outcome of DND is not decided by Strength. It clearly is a form of play however and its outcome is decided by skill or luck. Now, play:
"activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation, especially by children."
First, let's ditch the children part. That's just ageist.
Enjoyment and recreation. So let's modify the definition of game to incorporate the definition of play to get:
"An activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation played according to rules and decided by skill or luck"
Now comes the big question: Is fudging dice, modifying encounters, working the scene and all that stuff part of the deciding by luck? Is the game one of skill, where the "better player" is more likely to win? I say, those are still the wrong questions.
If, as the DM, I modify an encounter on the fly so that the party has fun, cheers, laughs, and says "that was EPIC!", then it doesn't matter what the dice said. My SKILL as the DM decided the outcome which was not that the party defeated the demigorgon, it was that they had fun. That they ENJOYED the experience. If a player makes a sub-optimal choice that entertains the table, gives everyone a solid groan, or makes them look back in an hour and go "I hated that you had to flirt with the king but man did that set off an amazing sub plot", then the SKILL of the player to tell a good story brought ENJOYMENT.
The idea that a "game" requires winners, losers, and outcomes that are not enjoyable for the context is a rigid one. DND is a perfectly fine "game" as it uses luck, skill, rules and can be engaged in for enjoyment.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
Yes, it is a good game, as long the DM acts with common sense. Fudging rolls and adjusting enemy stats is not cheating, the rules cleary say that the DM is always right. Adjusting rolls and stats so they fit the narrative is not only a DMs right, it's a DM responsibility to make a difference between a narrative roleplaying game and a mere tactical simulation. If a DM allows player characters to die for no other reasons than bad rolls, he should better not be a DM at all.
The 5th Edition has without a doubt far better balancing than any edition before (as long as you stick to point buy only characters). The rules are easier to learn than other RPG rules and the classes, spells and feats give players enough material to create a large variety of characters, at least within a typical fantasy setting.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
It looks like you are thinking along the lines of Warhammer 40k tabletop. There are no core rules for handling stuff like that.
There are many variables that influence how the DM should build encounters. The big ones that I can think of being:
That said, there are mechanics like that, especially in the Adventurer's League modules, that do handle those situations, as those modules are intended to be played by a wide variety of skill in their players.
They will have the DM calculate a rating for their party based on the level and number of players. Encounters will then list how to change them based on that rating to get the intended challenge.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
From a design theory perspective, it sounds like your assuming a definition of 'game' that is not entirely applicable to D&D. Mark Rosewater (lead designed for Magic the Gathering) has a very good set of criteria for what makes up a game in this article, which I'll summarise here:
If we look at these fairly solid criteria, we can evaluate D&D as a game:
So looking through this high level checklist, I think we can solidly say D&D is game. If we look at how well it checks these items off, I think it's fair to say it is a 'good' game. There are goals, and they are not only solid, but diverse; there's more than one way to succeed at D&D. There are plenty of restrictions in the form of the mechanics that can be adjusted and fine tuned to whatever degree of 'crunch' the table works. There is agency by the bucketload and the consequences for play are, under intended and ideal circumstances, limited to play.
You can look at other forms of analysis for what quantifies a game and in all of them, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) meet those criteria well.
But there's another facet to what makes a 'good' game; understanding what you want from a game. If you want tight, balanced combat with rigid rules for building opposing sides, D&D fifth edition is probably not the game for you and you'd want something like a tabletop wargame. If you want a complex rules interaction based competitive game, maybe you want a trading card game instead. If you want a contained game experience with a defined start and end condition and win/loss scenarios, a boardgame would be more suitable. The point is that if you're asking if anything is a good game, you must define what 'good' actually means. What metric do you use? Whose metric do you use? This leads down a rabbit hole where sometimes the only conclusion becomes "Well, do I like D&D?"
Because if you do, it doesn't matter if it's "good" or not.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Again, D&D is a flexible game, if you don't like something in it and you're the DM, or work with the DM and explain what you don't want in your campaigns, then you can do things differently.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.DnD has never been a balanced game, and there is little hope for it ever being. I still think it's asking the best TTRPG offerings out the, especially mechanically, but the design team (and honestly probably many of the players) *want* the game to be broken
You simply cannot have a banded game that allows characters to hand out Aoe 10 turn stuns in fights. As someone who plays plenty of computer rpg games, often a single turn single enemy stun is incredibly strong in these games. A 10 turn aoe stun would be unthinkable, and DnD hands these out like candy.
Imagine if basketball let players use tanks and machine guns. There isn't a real way to make a balanced and interesting competition so long as those exist.
What spells abilities are you using that routinely cause 10 turns of stun to an area of enemies?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think he's using 'stun' as a more general term for incapacitating crowd control effects, which means Hypnotic Pattern would qualify.
The only edition that made a serious effort at being a balanced tactical wargame was 4e, and the way it did so caused people to say that it didn't feel like 'real' D&D.
I would say the game is about creating story and 5e qualifies as a good one because it is possible to improve your ability to contribute to the group's story from both the DM and the Player side of the equation.
Yes it is to me!