Fair.
I wrote the post as I did because I don't want to hear arguments in favour of 5e. Ever. In my mind, the subject is closed. The books, the rules, the methodology closed it ~ not you, dear reader.
The best way that I have to make this blog more popular would be to rescind that opinion, study and reproduce the annals of 5e as faithfully as possible, cease to discuss any house rules, tout the books, purchase and then praise the various adventures put out by the company and, overall, never again write a negative word about the company. Logically, at this point, I should begin by purging this blog of any and all contrary content. In fact, it would be easier to abandon the blog, produce another one, write under a pseudonym and move forward with a clean slate. I could then begin writing modules instead of trying to teach, which I could then sell through Patreon, along with maps that I'm able to draw both online and by hand (I spent twenty years drawing pencil maps before moving to a computer).
I could approach this whole subject just like a job. Oh, some of my readers might recognize my writing style, but probably not many. I would lose my Patreon supporters, of course. I could not expect any of you to support me if I sold out. And yes, it would be a bitterly, mean thing for me to do. But instead of 47 unbelievably supportive followers, who give me an average of about $8 a person, I'd pick up 470 non-caring louts who would give me $1 each. And more louts besides.
Now, why am I going down this road?
There is no way to support a bad thing "a little bit" without compromising one's principles. If I'm going to continue to compromise with 5th Edition, and consider it D&D, then I might just as well burn down all that I've done and join the gawddamn circus, along with Tenkar, Timothy Brannan, Sly Flourish and all the rest. There's more money in it, there's more likes in it, there's more comments in it and overall, there are more opportunities.
I write this stuff, on this blog, because this is what I like to write. And as long as I'm going to be honest, I'm going to call shit, "shit." I would rather not be put in a position of decrying that which has launched a resurgence of interest in role-playing games ... but despite the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winners, the so-called removal of sexism from the game, plus a host of other articles flooding out of the gates, I've been here since nearly the beginning of this game and I can smell feces when I'm in the room with it. Whatever this thing is that the world has suddenly decided makes it worth their attention, the world is glomming onto a cheap, shitty fad that is going to evaporate ~ because there is nothing there. It may be "cool" enough to get millions interested, but it isn't cool enough to keep them. It's just toilet water.
So I'm coming out on the subject, and hard. There are only 47 people listening (beautiful, smart people); enough for me but not enough for a revolution. I don't believe this is a "resurgence." I think this is the company's last gasp.
But I'll still be designing and playing; and as long as I am, I'll encourage my readers to burn their 5e habits and go back to the versions that will last. Game stores with hundreds of players are just brick and mortar shacks desperate to stay alive in the age of Amazon. You and I will both live to see the last of them die.
I thought about commenting, but I had nothing to add. I agree with everything your last 2 posts declared. I did have a question from a few posts ago about the lack of XP taking away player agency. In my experience I have never found that to be true. I feel like it has the opposite effect. If my players aren't worried about XP then they seem to seem to concentrate more on what they want to do, or better yet what their players want to do. I'm sorry I can't seem to find the words I'm referring to. Maybe you meant the way XP is distributed
ReplyDeleteNot too harsh. But I suppose the last post did hit me a bit close to home. Because you are absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteI've been running a D&D campaign using 5e for about a year now. I chose the system as a compromise of sorts. I had a table of 6 players, who I've played with for years. Four of those players really didn't care much about what system I used, because they were confident in me as a DM to em run a good game. Two of them were more picky.
With those two, one favored tactical combat over basically any other part of the game. The other was concerned with having robust character building options, as those were a feature of the other games she had played. My main concern was having an easy to use system with fantasy dressing and defined classes. The tactical guy kinda pushed 5e, as he had multiple books, and resources, and was currently playing in another 5e game as well, so, I bit.
It's not been my first rodeo with 5e. For the most part, things work. When they don't, I have the experience to reference other games and systems, and find a solution that does work.
But what I've found is that most of my players seem fundamentally uninterested in their character sheet. They don't much care for their abilities and spells and powers. They use what they can remember, usually in the most basic way possible. They are all more interested in the character that they've made, than how that character is represented by the rules.
Tactical guy is no longer at the table. The character build player is still kinda frustrated at the limitations on her character. We are all playing a game that none of us really like, because of inertia.
I've thought about changing systems before, but it will take effort, there will be friction, and I am sure there will be things my players just won't really want to give up about 5e.
So, I hear you telling me "That shit is killing you!" and I completely agree! I'm dying over here! Now I just gotta work up the will to tell my players that.
So, I know I don't give much. I may not be showing up to class or to the workshops, but that's just because I'm a bad student, not because you're a bad teacher. I know I don't have to tell you, but keep doing what you're doing. Some of us just need to read your lectures every now and again to keep us on the right path.
I play 4e, it works just fine. I tried to get my players to switch to AD&D, it failed. I just house-rule it to hell. I don't like 4e, but the system is so light on non-combat material that there is plenty of space to make your own.
ReplyDeleteI could draw a line in the sand, and risk a 5+ year campaign by demanding to switch systems. But I just don't consider the risk worth it in this instance.
I just didn't have a chance to post my reply to the earlier post. But then, I'm kind of in the same camp as you (and I think you know that)...I am sick to death of 5E, its proponents, and its apologists.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I also feel tired of yelling at people and their particular brand of fun. Especially when it doesn't effect change. It reminds me of my poor, demented brother, who I love dearly but who continues to stay on a path of self-destruction, despite loving support from his family and plenty of admonitions to "give up the bottle" and get help (he's currently homeless somewhere in the Portland area). At some point you have to move on.
[hmm...I write that and then think "Should we just accept the current state of our world? Of our political leadership? Etc." Maybe I'm being disingenuous...apologies]
Despite my efforts, I've been unable to curb my bile for 5E, here and on my own blog, and its probably cost me more than a few readers. But that's fine. These days I feel I'm mostly just blogging for myself, much as it would be nice to "set the world afire" or something. I'm going through a phase of introspection at this point, rather than one of proselytizing (and I'm digging on my ruminations)...maybe you're headed there yourself?
I will say that the image posted here made me laugh out loud, and if you DID write some sort of adventure module (hopefully with tongue fully in cheek) I would certainly buy it, just to see how much snark you could get into print.
; )
YOU make me laugh out loud, JB.
ReplyDeleteWhen Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," he wasn't just speaking in black and white terms. Every crusader gets tired. Every campaigner begins to think after a time that they've done the best they could and that maybe it's time to retire. Every reformer loses heart. It is part of the gig.
But is there still evil? Does evil get tired? And on those lines, has evil been blunted? Yes it has. Blunted and beaten back and bettered, because we're not still burning witches and shipping Africans in to be slaves.
I'm tired, too. But I don't believe it doesn't effect change. And neither do you, because you can see the change everywhere. I was six years old when Stonewall happened. And look at us now. Look at us. Change happens.
It takes time. So when you get tired, dig in. Maybe you can't help your brother, but there are tens of thousands of alcoholics who are pulled up from the depths every year. They were poor and demented and on a path of destruction, too. I don't say that to send you off to save your brother. Gawd knows, I can't save my prick of a brother. But brothers are being saved. So your brother isn't evidence that change doesn't happen.
If I did a snark dungeon, it would probably start off with a big yellow neon sign above a cave that read "DUNGEON" in 8-foot tall letters, with a doorgiant, probably stone, a red carpet and a velvet rope.
You know, JB, you keep telling me to do what I do. And plainly there are two people in the comments here who are having less fun than they might, because of the particular brand they're stuck with. So I think I'm hitting my target.
Matt, James,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing so hard in the world as to start over at something you've been doing for a long time.
Not harsh at all but then again, I've been ragging on the state of the game since . . . for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI'm answering now because I forgot to earlier. I'm one of the dumbfucks still playing 5e and don't plan to stop, but I am trying to build on the system. I love your blog and your blunt nature. But I'm trying to use your posts to make myself improve. I'm not an endless consumer by the way. I own the basic books and I think that's it for me. D&D has a draw other RPGs don't seem to have but I'm not perpetually buying books.
ReplyDeleteCall a spade a spade. it is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThrow your ethics and join the herd, the new world order despises the individual.
There is a right choice.
I do wonder how long it will be until the masses realize that one cannot be sustained by candy.
I do also wonder about the very common lament, "my players want". I'm the DM. I'm doing all the fucking work. We are going to what I declare, please masturbate prior to arriving at my table. Placating the ego of the player seems to be the hallmark of corporate RPGs.
5e is a dumbfuck game and people need to be educated to escape the pit.
I have been thinking about your last post. Harsh and uncompromising tone, perhaps. It certainly was a shock that caused me to think critically, which I think is a positive result. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteMy silence doesn't mean I'm not listening, I just don't always feel I have value to add to the discussion. I encourage you to keep writing what you want. If you have to write stuff you don't like to pay your bills... well, do it if necessary.
I've mentally examined my limited experience with 5E(five sessions as a player), and can't find anything to recommend it above playing another game system. I dislike that systems the game used to have in prior editions are now missing. I dislike not rolling my base stats or my hit points. That gold and money in general, as written, doesn't seem to do anything mechanically do anything but take up space frustrates me. I can only see negatives in the system itself. Harsh? Perhaps.
But I prefer to continue working on my own homebrew game system and intend to continue making/running the game that I would love to be a player in. 5E isn't it. 5E, like 4E before it(and a variety of other systems outside of DnD), will go away eventually, along with all the hangers on riding the wave of "popularity". I'll still be in my house with my tattered 1st edition and 3.5 edition rulebooks, my laptop, and my friends that like playing my game.
If WotC as a company dies at some point well... so it goes. It doesn't mean that D&D as a game need be dead for those that love it. I wouldn't mind it being a bit less popular and widespread. I've run into a repeat issue over the past decade where I tell people, usually at brick and mortar gamestores, "I run D&D" and they say "Oh, I play/run D&D too!", and they start talking about the game, and it feels like we're from entirely different cultures due to our wildly different concepts of the game. The RPGA, like Camelot, is a silly place to me, and I'd rather not go.
Well said, Stealth. Fully in agreement.
ReplyDeleteBut let me add that I sometimes write a second post on a subject to "shake the trees," so that I'll get people like you to write comments like you've just written. Worked for you, worked for Matt, worked for Johnny and Haggis and Nate and James. JB did write on the last post, so I can't say I shook him loose and Oz and I are talking all the time.
Concerning 5e, I play in a game at the moment and every session I hate the system more. There is no challenge. Everything is meaningless. But the group consists of old friends, friends that I love seeing, so I would rather try to make them play something else. That however, is the difficult part. They have watched Critical Role and all that youtube garbage Advebturer's League and have understood that that is how the game is supposed to be played. It seems so ingrained in them that a better system alone is not enough to show them something better. I believe it would take a great experienced DM running a meaningful game. But one obviously doesn't become that without lots of games and devoted players. This is truly the poison of the popularity of 5e.
ReplyDeleteSo what might one do to break the dependence?
ReplyDeleteOk, you roosted me out.
ReplyDeleteThere's little that I cannot agree with, where we differ is on shading, whereas you go all-in with the cancer analogy, I'll just say that copping to fifth has all the charm and appeal of venereal disease; rocks off, itch on.
I've been going over the AD&D ruleset and it seems such a better place to build upon.
Sebastian, that is very nearly my exact experience. I was introduced to the game through 5e, and so my extended friend group is very Critical Role and AL minded. Gradually, however, I grew dissatisfied with the emptiness of 5e, which eventually led me here. But I'm the only one of that group to have had that resolution so far.
ReplyDeleteWas about to comment but didn't know how to put it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your views on 5e wholeheartedly. And I don't think the post was too harsh at all, posts like that are some of the best you do. Because it's so good to hear (read) those thoughts spoken. Your post named Cacophony is what sold me and I have been a daily reader of yours since.
Shelby,
ReplyDeleteJudging from the comments here, I would think that saying to the players, "We're going to play 1st edition now," would be a disaster. Sebastian's last comment, along with the general sentiment, shows that players would rebel; they'd have to be weened.
So ... I'd recommend a slow adjustment to the worst elements of the game. Adjust the experience system first. Explain that people will be rolling for their stats. Then, adjust either the spell system or the stats bonuses. Gently. One session at a time. Ease them into new rules. Tell them you want to "try it." Don't tell them where the rules are coming from. Explain that you're "unhappy with the challenge."
You're the DM. As Johnny above says, you're doing all the work. You have the right to "tweak" your game system, and if you do it gently, and you don't rapidly take away the character's powers, or destroy the characters altogether, they ought to reasonably go along.
If that causes an insurrection, then seriously, you should ask for a few months to review your game, explaining that it's not satisfying YOU. Play up your work, your investment and your unhappiness, in straight terms.
If they care about you so little that they treat you like a utility, and won't change, why in the name of heaven would you want to run these people?
There are a lot of holes in AD&D, but there are 40 years of rule-sets that can be used to fill in things AD&D failed to consider, or mistakenly proposed. Obviously, I don't run AD&D. But the game challenge was real in the original systems ~ and it is the challenge that has been gutted with each progressive edition.
ReplyDeleteCritical Role is the propaganda they feed the masses on. Mercer is "so cool" and "so hip" and makes it look "so easy" that it's convinced many that they should do it the same way.
ReplyDeleteBut Critical Role is reality television. I'd lay money that there are scripts, that the players know what's coming and that each are getting cues from off-camera. Because reality television isn't reality. And we have sold an entire game system on this lie.
Concerning reality TV:
ReplyDeleteI knew one of the semi-finalists for the original Survivor ~ though perhaps the term is incorrect ~ he auditioned for the show and it came down to him or Richard Hatch. They chose Hatch because he fit the demographic they needed.
Regardless, when the guy returned to my town (he was a music teacher at my high school), we heard some stories about the behind-the-scenes sort of thing that goes on with those shows. Granted, Survivor was one of the earliest reality shows and it certainly pushed the envelope ~ but what I've read in the years since, leads me to believe that Alexis is not far off with his assessment.
If CR wasn't scripted at the beginning, it probably became scripted (or guided by key plotting elements) as it became more popular.
Regardless, even if we acknowledge that Mercer doesn't fudge his rolls or that his players are always following the rules of his table ~ which is a stretch, I admit ~ even if we accept that claim, it's still painfully apparent, from personal testimony alone, that content like CR has an overall negative effect on the game's ability to progress in a meaningful manner.
(and that's putting it mildly . . .)
If there are people unaware of the creepiness of reality TV, I recommend the following British episode, featuring the genius who would become the god behind Black Mirror, Charlie Brooker:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKQoNIxRo-Y
Your second article definitely shook me out of the trees. I am one of those newbie DMs who has played 5e my entire career and have been painfully trying to mold it into something that creates meaningful and satisfying challenges. Your words struck a chord, but I found myself thinking... But then what do I do? Where do I turn? I was shown a dead end but not the path to escape it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that can come with research, time, patience, and communication with my players. But none of those warranted commenting on the article, so I remained silent.
However, on this article I felt compelled to agree: I don't want to compromise on principles. I want to run better games, and the system I use is holding me back. Somehow, this article was more inspiring than the last. Whereas the previous article pointed out my flaws, this one gave me the hope of escape. So, thank you. My process of research and redemption, I feel, is starting.
It's a minister's trick, Jon.
ReplyDeleteFirst you preach fire and brimstone, then you preach redemption.
To those wondering how to move away from 5e. Try other game systems, or alternatively, begin rewriting or adding rules till your game system is made into something you love to play.
ReplyDeleteIf you are stuck in the RPGA or adventurers league where no change to rules is allowed. Well. Leave. Take your friends with you. That s what I did.
It strikes me as interesting that so many people say, "5e is both old and new school." Clearly, that's BS on the basis that the distinction is entirely manufactured . . . but assuming there's any truth to it, wouldn't a series outlining the conversion process be of some benefit to an audience looking to make the transition?
ReplyDeleteI would tackle it myself but I don't know enough (or care to know) about 5e to make it work . . .
That would seem rational, Ozymandias ... but I'm no great expert in 5e either. It is plain that the main problems are: 1) too much power at the beginning of the game; 2) too little distance between levels to make them meaningful; 3) too little gained at each level compared with initial power to make the level gain meaningful; 4) too many special skills/abilities/benefits that empower the players, so that they aren't required to solve dangerous situations with innovation.
ReplyDelete5) Too few concrete rules creating boundaries to player behaviour or capacity to influence their world. 6) Too much opportunity and capacity to innovate to effect social change, manipulate other persons, evade uncomfortable situations or suffer sincere consequences to status.
These have been further influenced by philosophies such as "story is more important than game" and "player fantasy fulfillment is more important than structure, setting or consequence." This has led to justifications for fudging dice to ensure the story is sustained, and fudging dice to ensure the player fantasy fulfillment is satisfied.
Effectively, this has reworked Dungeons and Dragons into a sort of "Playing House" for adults, which is EXACTLY what we were laughed at and accused of doing when we first started playing the game in the 1970s. We were vilified because it was SILLY and did not conform ~ in the minds of the non-participants ~ to the more familiar fixed rules of card games or sports, which is what adults played at that time. Adults could not imagine "pretending" to be wizards and warriors, because that sounded stupidly masturbatory and the sort of ridiculous thing that children do when they pretend to be characters in a television show and point fake guns at each other.
The end result has been to prove the naysayers of that time RIGHT, and deliberately gut every part of the game that gave it legitimacy, in order to satisfy a group of namby-pamby whiners who did not like how long it took to go up a level or that their character died. The makers of D&D looked at Tom Hanks' performance in Mazes & Monsters and decided the solution was to make sure NOTHING BAD EVER HAPPENED during game play.
Gawd. It's a wonder I'm not blowing their fucking houses up. Booger was right about that.
To Ozymandias: Maybe. I know that in the case of the rules I've constructed over time, those that gain the most benefit are at my gaming table and also had a hand in the development of those rules. I doubt other DMs or players would agree that my changes are best for them, or the "game" at large. I don't wish to be the one to try and tell "the 5E crowd", or any other crowd of strangers how to improve their play.
ReplyDeleteI am not super comfortable getting up on the soapbox to preach. I only speak up here because it is a safe environment for debate and discussion. Any harsh criticism felt here has been constructive and clearly intended for my betterment. I also do not think I grasp the "New school Old school" thing. I feel like it's BS and lines drawn arbitrarily in sand. Why are we splitting into Old and New School camps? What is being argued about? Does either group have a concrete agenda or identity, outside of preference for "older" and "newer" game systems?
My hope is that those wishing to improve their game systems will do their own groundwork to fix and improve their rule system of choice, rather than leaning on yet another person, with yet another product line, to come to the rescue. Or if currently playing with a system that seems beyond fixing, they'll hop to some other rule set, or make up their own. I do not care enough about 5E, or it's playerbase in abstract, to try to fix their rules system out of the kindness of my heart. Such a project, especially against the constant barrage of official supplemental content being released for 5E, would be an uphill battle... Until 6E, or whatever is next happens and the hype train carries the crowds away.
To Alexis: Your most recent comment dropped while I was typing this one. I still think fudging dice/rolling things in secret is a consistent way to ruin a game group, due to the opportunity it opens for distrust and suspicion to grow. Nothing to add that you haven't already said beyond that. I'm looking forward to your next posts. Curious about where you're going with the "first brimstone, then redemption" idea.
Stealth,
ReplyDeleteThis post and the one before it are all rarr, rarr, growl, snort. I'm struggling to find the redemption. This post is a little more redemptive than the last one, because it does suggest some sort of hope is possible.
I agree completely with your points and I am GRATIFIED in the extreme that someone thinks this is a safe space. I think it is because the conversation is less likely to be derailed by chest pounding and emotional pleas for compromise.
My hope is to help those wishing to improve their game systems ~ but my recent effort at a workshop ran straight into a brick wall of blinking, uncomprehending readers. Experience? Number of swings? Huh? "Gaining levels aren't even important in my game." And such like.
I can't address DMs wishing to improve their presentation of a game that is not a "game" in any legitimate sense. Where do I start?
Alexis,
ReplyDeleteI seem to have exceeded the character limit with my attempted response. May I link externally to my personal blog so that I needn't cut short my reply? I felt it would be rude to do so without asking permission. I recall someone else doing this in the past... but am unsure if that was an exception for a particular person, or the normal, expected behavior.
I suppose I could also use pastebin or a similar service, or email you. Email would be least preferred, as I'd like to keep the discussion open for everyone else to read.
Alexis, this is the second (third?) time I've seen the comment about required experience and "number of swings." I've been dabbling with a damage-per-round calculations, as a metric for evaluating character power by level and a baseline challenge rating system. I assume this is what you're referring to, after a fashion?
ReplyDeleteStealth,
ReplyDeleteAlways feel free to take any discussion elsewhere and write a blog post. I never hesitate to do so with other blogs, since I know linking something here will drive traffic to them.
Let me know when you've posted, please.
After a fashion, Ozymandias. Crunching numbers using combat simulations improves your perception the same way that watching hundreds of hours of pitchers pitching or batters batting helps improve your skills. We underestimate the importance of this kind of hands on, immediate research, which takes nothing more than time to juggle odds, play out sequences and become familiar with outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAlexis,
ReplyDeleteMy response can be found here: https://stealthsdndcorner.blogspot.com/2019/04/response-to-tao-of-dnd-comment-chain.html
Hope the html tag for that hyperlink works. My browser seems to be interacting poorly with the "preview comment" button.
Hm. Link isn't working. Let me set it up for other readers:
ReplyDeletehttps://stealthsdndcorner.blogspot.com/2019/04/response-to-tao-of-dnd-comment-chain.html
I suppose I will provide a voice of dissent. While I agree wholeheartedly with you in regards to the community and practices that have grown up around 5e, I find the system of mechanics itself to be generally good. I find much of it to be a correction back towards first and second editions, correcting many (although not yet all) of the errors introduced in the third and fourth editions. My biggest frustration is that the company has therefore made little to no net progress in decades. I have quite enjoyed your deconstruction of 5th edition, and have been looking forward to your thoughts on the actual meat of the system as opposed to the idiocy of its presentation.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for 2nd Edition, which I thought was crap when it was released, an opinion I have not yet changed. It is lumped in with 1st edition because, for most people, they are so far back together in history that they seem linked. They are definitely not.
ReplyDelete5th Edition is a correction in skin only. It is plainly nothing like 1st Edition, and as I've already stated in a comment, it weakens solid game play and promotes philosophies that justify that weakening.
I'm sorry that I cannot be bothered to deconstruct the "actual meat" of the system at this time. Perhaps another time. Judging from the manner of play that I have witnessed and seen presented, however, I wouldn't count on my being impressed.