The Gaming Den

Aryxbez wrote:I'm a fan of Rick & Morty, though I don't "relate to" characters in media, moreso I'm interested in finding them entertaining/funny/interesting. Which point Rick & Morty has been interesting, much like Season 3+ Bojack, Golden-Ages Simpsons, 90's Family Guy, Durarara!, and so forth.

That's odd. Part of sympathetic characters is making the audience relate to them. And I want to be clear, I'm not talking about otherkinism "I'M BOJACK IN A HUMAN BODY!" I'm talking about "Oh. Oh, that depressed, socially broken horseman... that hits really close to home."

Prak wrote:The one absolute good thing about 5e is that it has brought a lot of people to the hobby that were previously turned off by the toxic elements of the player base. This is variously attributable to 5e's progressive social attitudes, and the fact that it's extremely light rules facilitate more social play that's closer to forum RP with a bare framework than incredibly granular hack and slash.

I do question the veracity of this statement, as it's marketed that a lot more people have started playing, but we don't know how many, and the Actual number still seems implied to be low, despite what WoTC? would want us to think. Unless of course I missed some vital data-points on this topic in the last several years, which case a refresher would be appreciated.

It's purely anecdotal, but I have seen a lot of people get into 5e, preferring it to Pathfinder or older editions of D&D.

Could you indicate what these "toxic elements" were, and/or what people were saying it was? Additionally, isn't 5e rules-lite, but not "lite" enough you can play it casually/drunk, but lacks depth to really want to dive into it, plus it breaks too easily?

Iunno. Looking up what ability a task is covered by, arguing about advantage or disadvantage, and then rolling some number of d20s and adding a relatively small number seems within the realm of drunk play. It's mostly when you have a systemhead like me that the more complicated stuff comes out.

The toxic elements mostly being the oldschool Grognards like Shadzar. Or predatory shits like Zak.

Prak wrote: The one absolute good thing about 5e is that it has brought a lot of people to the hobby that were previously turned off by the toxic elements of the player base. This is variously attributable to 5e's progressive social attitudes, and the fact that it's extremely light rules facilitate more social play that's closer to forum RP with a bare framework than incredibly granular hack and slash.

Bullshit. Absolute nonsense bullshit. Toxic people absolutely still play D&D5, and in fact the system encourages toxic GM-player power dynamics. The GM already has disproportionately more power in a game by the social factor of there being more demand for GMs than for players. A given player can easily be replaced, but a GM leaving means the game ends. Add onto this D&D's long history of GMs having total control over every aspect of the game except the PCs actions, and D&D5s additional fellating in the form of "GM empowerment", and you've got a flame for power hungry moths. The skill system having no defined outputs (thereby allowing a GM to set DC fuckhuge if a player succeeding on a given roll would disturb their precious wank session plot) and adv/disadv being mostly handed out on the basis of GM toe-sucking don't help either.

It's only rules-incomplete* when interacting with the world in any way other than trying to stab it. As soon as that combat music starts it becomes much more rules-heavy as it shifts to grid-based tactical combat. And if you genuinely believe D&D5 combat works as Theater-of-the-Mind, I have bridge to sell you. You could maybe make shit up with D&D5 as an inspiration that works as TotM, but you could do that without buying 900 pages of book too, and probably have more fun doing it.

*I say rules-incomplete rather than rules-lite, because of the skills. A rules lite would have a system here that actually allows you to do things, if it had one at all rather than leaving things as MTP. As-written, the skill system of 5e currently fails to accomplish literally anything by virtue of having no outputs. Skills don't allow you to do anything. At the most charitable, they allow the GM to decide on an arbitrary whim whether or not you can do something. But that's worse than just MTP because at least in MTP the players get a say.

Prak wrote:It's purely anecdotal, but I have seen a lot of people get into 5e, preferring it to Pathfinder or older editions of D&D.

Here's my anecdote: Every person I've seen start playing RPGs with 5e are either shitters who fail at every aspect of RPGing or they quit.

Suzerain wrote:Bullshit. Absolute nonsense bullshit. Toxic people absolutely still play D&D5, and in fact the system encourages toxic GM-player power dynamics.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:Here's my anecdote: Every person I've seen start playing RPGs with 5e are either shitters who fail at every aspect of RPGing or they quit.

Insert obligatory Zak S/Mike Mearls friendship joke here

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:

Prak wrote:It's purely anecdotal, but I have seen a lot of people get into 5e, preferring it to Pathfinder or older editions of D&D.

Here's my anecdote: Every person I've seen start playing RPGs with 5e are either shitters who fail at every aspect of RPGing or they quit.

If I said those kinds of people don't play 5e, I misspoke. Sure, they're out there. Sure, they're a persistent problem. But I have seen a lot of people coming to the hobby who otherwise wouldn't have, back when the rules were more rigid and exacting, like 3.X.

Oh, they play 5e for a while. They just get bored.

A good friend has his kids (eldest 9 and 10) playing 5e as their first DnD since that’s what had new books available. I started mine (same ages) on 3e.

Setting up for the future.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:

Prak wrote:It's purely anecdotal, but I have seen a lot of people get into 5e, preferring it to Pathfinder or older editions of D&D.

Here's my anecdote: Every person I've seen start playing RPGs with 5e are either shitters who fail at every aspect of RPGing or they quit.

I didn't run much 5e until I started GMing professionally, which means my perspective on 5e players skews towards those willing to pay for a consistent game. So it's not surprising that players who aren't sure if they really want to play D&D never end up at my table. On the other hand, though, there are 5e players who are sufficiently certain about wanting to be in the hobby that they'll pay for the guarantee of a GM who will keep running 'till the campaign's end, and enough of them that my schedule is pretty constantly full with fairly minimal advertising.

Chamomile wrote:On the other hand, though, there are 5e players who are sufficiently certain about wanting to be in the hobby that they'll pay for the guarantee of a GM who will keep running 'till the campaign's end, and enough of them that my schedule is pretty constantly full with fairly minimal advertising.

What the fuck? You mean paying someone cash money to GM for you?

Every game of 5e I've played in or do play in is just MTP bullshit (which is fun, but it's all asspulls and every character sucks at everything) and horrible combats and then everyone gets bored and the campaign fizzles out.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: What the fuck? You mean paying someone cash money to GM for you?

I mean that other people pay me cash money to GM for them. I've had the link in my sig for like a year and a half, man.

Chamomile wrote:I mean that other people pay me cash money to GM for them. I've had the link in my sig for like a year and a half, man.

Yeah, but I thought it was a joke on consumerism and the modern tendency to pay for something you can get for free. I didn't realize it was legit!

Almanac, Paid GMs are a long time thing.

the modern tendency to pay for something you can get for free.

think of them as the Escorts of tabletop gaming.
You pay someone to do it so you can guarantee it will be fun for you.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: Yeah, but I thought it was a joke on consumerism and the modern tendency to pay for something you can get for free. I didn't realize it was legit!

You can't get reliability for free. And also I probably put in more effort than most GMs, but I'm pretty sure my main selling point is that two months in when the bloom has come off the rose and I'd rather replay Okami, I'm still going to show up and run the game, because I've got an obligation. Of course, you can find free GMs who'll do that, too, but it'll take forever and will require a lot of false starts, so really people are paying me in order to skip the search.

Trill wrote:think of them as the Escorts of tabletop gaming.
You pay someone to do it so you can guarantee it will be fun for you.

Uh... it's not really a guarantee. Some people can't even enjoy hookers, but I'm just quibbling.

There is plenty to shit on with 5e. However, it also isn't worth anybody's time to be full of shit about the status of 5e.

The game is not dying, it appears to be growing. The game has been introducing more people to rpgs than 4e for certain. It is doing a better job than pathfinder, OsR, Fantasy Flight, COC, or shadowrun. It is doing better than any of the indy darlings.

I don't have any hard info on player retention but Adventurer's league is larger than it has ever been. The game gets good exposure and has a ton of name recognition.

That doesn't make it a great or even necessarily good game. However, it is clearly a satisfactory game. The game is not a true rules light game, but its combination of rules and system complexity seems to be about right for most casual players.

Having played the stupid thing it works about as well as any other edition of D&D for levels 1-12. Which are the only levels that D&D typically works at in any edition.

That said, whoever commented that the game does not work ToTM style has a point. The rules are written to avoid needing a chessex mat but to many things are based around absolute distance and nothing was written with TOTM in mind. The game didn't have a purpose for gold until Xanthars. The game could use an official source with between 3 and 5 dozen feats. The skill rules work for basic things only.

So lets just be real. People are playing 5e and it functions for basically playing heroes who go into dungeons and fight dragons.

Rick Sanchez is the quintessential murderhobo, which basically also makes him the perfect posterboy for dnd... which pisses all Tolkien fanboys to no end.

Still, I have zero need for a book for which both target demos will fail to get the point that they're meant to enjoy the book's Gygaxian overtones ironically.

souran wrote: That doesn't make it a great or even necessarily good game. However, it is clearly a satisfactory game. The game is not a true rules light game, but its combination of rules and system complexity seems to be about right for most casual players.

Having played the stupid thing it works about as well as any other edition of D&D for levels 1-12. Which are the only levels that D&D typically works at in any edition.

That said, whoever commented that the game does not work ToTM style has a point. The rules are written to avoid needing a chessex mat but to many things are based around absolute distance and nothing was written with TOTM in mind. The game didn't have a purpose for gold until Xanthars. The game could use an official source with between 3 and 5 dozen feats. The skill rules work for basic things only.

So lets just be real. People are playing 5e and it functions for basically playing heroes who go into dungeons and fight dragons.

5e's rules fucking suck for heroes who go into dungeons to fight dragons. The combat is boring and takes forever. It works, but most systems work. Even if players are taking their turns quickly (and they should, there isn't a whole lot to think about) the combats are grindy and boring.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: 5e's rules fucking suck for heroes who go into dungeons to fight dragons. The combat is boring and takes forever. It works, but most systems work. Even if players are taking their turns quickly (and they should, there isn't a whole lot to think about) the combats are grindy and boring.

5e is similar levels of grindy as 3.x is if you actually fight monsters and try and reduce their hp to zero. The thing that most people hate the most about 3.x is how spells/saves or sucks interact with combat.

The thing is, that pathfinder, 4e, and 5e have all tried to figure out how to re-orient the focus of fighting monsters on reducing hp to zero. Everything that takes out action denial/instant death makes "tough" monsters a grind.

I think that the underlying issue is the Hp/AC system in the first place. A naval combat game NEEDS to be a bit grindy. Ships do take a bunch of hits and keep fighting. I am guessing that game also had rules for ships taking hits that caused them to lose their rudder or damage masts in a way that limited movement.

This is combined with D&Ds traditionally shit damage scaling to make it so that higher level guys require 10 or more successful hits to bring down. Hp growth should exceed damage growth so that you do get to where heroes can take more hits than they could at level 1, but instead of laughing at Rob Heinsoo damage values they should have been embraced.

souran wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: 5e's rules fucking suck for heroes who go into dungeons to fight dragons. The combat is boring and takes forever. It works, but most systems work. Even if players are taking their turns quickly (and they should, there isn't a whole lot to think about) the combats are grindy and boring.

5e is similar levels of grindy as 3.x is if you actually fight monsters and try and reduce their hp to zero. The thing that most people hate the most about 3.x is how spells/saves or sucks interact with combat.

The thing is, that pathfinder, 4e, and 5e have all tried to figure out how to re-orient the focus of fighting monsters on reducing hp to zero. Everything that takes out action denial/instant death makes "tough" monsters a grind.

I think that the underlying issue is the Hp/AC system in the first place. A naval combat game NEEDS to be a bit grindy. Ships do take a bunch of hits and keep fighting. I am guessing that game also had rules for ships taking hits that caused them to lose their rudder or damage masts in a way that limited movement.

This is combined with D&Ds traditionally shit damage scaling to make it so that higher level guys require 10 or more successful hits to bring down. Hp growth should exceed damage growth so that you do get to where heroes can take more hits than they could at level 1, but instead of laughing at Rob Heinsoo damage values they should have been embraced.

Fucking what? Let's compare hobgoblins, the CR1/2 3.5e hobgoblin vs the CR1/2 5e hobgoblin. Well shit, that 3.5e hobgoblin is going down in one hit from most level 1 characters. Even the wizard with a crossbow might kill it with one hit (but probably not). It's also pretty easy to hit with its AC of 15, at least when compared with the AC18 of the 5e hobgoblin. Level 1 characters in 5e generally have +6 to hit at best (4 for stat, 2 for being proficient). Level 1 characters in 3.5 should have +4 or +5 (3 or 4 for stat, 1 or 0 for BAB), and a default "fighter with longsword" is swinging for 1d8+3 or 1d8+4 damage. They are going to waste the hobgoblin in one hit almost every time. 5e characters are very rarely going to be able to take down a hobgoblin in one hit, and the Wizard never can (outside of using a spell slot) because cantrips don't get stat to damage.

It gets worse the further you go. Ghasts? CR2 in Pathfinder and 5e, but the 5e one has 36 HP vs Pathfinder's 17. Ogres? CR3 in Pathfinder with 30 HP. CR2 in 5e with 59 HP. The CR3 Owlbear in 5e has 59 health. CR4 Owlbear in Pathfinder has 47.

5e monsters are giant sacks of HP compared to 3.x and the characters don't do increased damage to compensate, making fights grindy.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:5e monsters are giant sacks of HP compared to 3.x

And weren't 3e monsters also giant sacks of HP, compared to 1e/2e monsters?

Prak wrote:Yes, relating to Rick is a sign that there is something wrong. Just like relating to Bojack Horseman. Because the entire point of both shows is that the protagonist is horrible, broken and selfish. The difference, however, is that Bojack Horseman conveys quite well that Bojack's behavior is bad, where as Rick and Morty has a hard time committing to that.

I think the intent of the R&M writers is to help the people who relate to Rick realize something is wrong and they need to work on that. I also think that if that is in fact the intent, they are failing at it.

Yeah, this video explains that topic quite well.

https://youtu.be/X-8ICfWsUVw

Renegade Cut is good.

The current state of the hobby and how it pretends to be "thriving" reminds me of that episode of the PvP webcomic where they hire "someone hip" to revamp the magazine's site, and the "hip guy" turns out to be some suit that turns the site into a Wired-caliber garbage fire.

GnomeWorks wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:5e monsters are giant sacks of HP compared to 3.x

And weren't 3e monsters also giant sacks of HP, compared to 1e/2e monsters?

Well. I have studied this particular topic. Most 3e monsters weren't, Dragons and Giants were, when compared to what PC damage output could do.

Gygax in OD&D set up fighters sort of formulaically, and they just did what they did and it was a bit pants, but hey, at the least the dice rolling was fun. If your L12 Fighter had 5 rounds to take down some Ogres or Hill Giants, well, you'd take out one Ogre.

By 1st edition, your L12 fighter had some more attacks for more damage, but also the monsters had a few more HPs. Still better, a L12 Fighter would take out 4 Ogres or 2 Hill Giants in five rounds. Gary's mods to 1e intended to double fighter damage and also double the hit points of basic brute monsters (but not spell-casting ones).

In 2nd edition, only the mods to Fighter damage made it, in the first splatbook for the game, and the brutes only got a little tougher, so your basic L12 Fighter could take out 3 Hill Giants or 8 Ogres in 5 rounds. They compensated by removing XP for treasure, which was about 80% of it, so you had to kill thousands of them to level.

3rd edition consulted EGG about what the fuck was up with that, bought up the smaller monsters, gave way more XP for them, but then made giants into giant balls of hps, but not impossibly big. An early 3e L12 Fighter will lazily kill a Hill Giant in 3 rounds, and maintain better than 1 Ogre per round.

4th edition is an abomination. Officially your 21st level Fighter (rough equivalent), once they're out of their encounter powers, will take 8 rounds to kill an Ogre massively lower level than him (thus, mook Ogres with 1 hp exist), and well over 10 to kill a Hill Giant. With your powers, you'll spend them all and still be fighting him, because some of them missed.

In 5th edition the numbers are better than 4th, but in five rounds, your basic L12 Fighter will only manage 1 Hill Giant or 2 Ogres, because he'll miss so often. With advantage, you'll get a 3rd Ogre.

--

So what was intended, and what we got, over the years, differed.

The average is basically 1st edition. From there, 2nd edition let you kill 1.5x to 2x as many monsters, 3rd edition was similar to 1st, but giants and dragons in particular were at least twice as tough. 4th edition takes EIGHT TIMES as long to kill everything, once the dailies and encounter powers are gone, so you best have them doing some crazy damage multipliers.

Now, compared to 4th edition, 5th edition is less bad. It's still roughly taking twice as long to kill monsters as earlier editions. You could half their hp and it would feel much more like 1st or 3rd edition. It's basically half way between 4th and everything else. To some extent, it's very like a 4th on maximum cheese and ignoring all the errata nerfs.