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

[squeen]

This is just such a funky D&D mindset:

How to have enemies that use tactics while also making sure that the encounter is fun for all players?

I am currently running a 5e game for a party of 5 players (level 3). I tend to make my enemies use tactics. My encounters involving a large number of low-CR enemies tend to have roles (so a tank, s...

rpg.stackexchange.com

 

[The1True]

All I'm thinking is why doesn't the party have a tank to lock down the mobs and keep them off the squishies in the back...

The referenced 'My Guy' article is pretty fun too.

I assume you're arching an eyebrow at later edition, set-piece combat?

 

[PrinceofNothing]

The disdain for set piece combat comes mainly from overuse I think. Earlier AD&D has plentiful examples of both set piece combat (WG5 is a FINE example, and what of Borshak's Lair) and of course complicated orders of battle, which are fairly similar. The point is that if everything is set piece combat, you end up with a lobotomized, inorganic arena-fighting mess of a game, as opposed to a more fluid, combat-as-war type of game that rewards strategy, lateral thinking, clever use of abilities etc. etc.

 

[squeen]

All I'm thinking is why doesn't the party have a tank to lock down the mobs and keep them off the squishies in the back...

The referenced 'My Guy' article is pretty fun too.

I assume you're arching an eyebrow at later edition, set-piece combat?

What seemed alien to me was the DM-guilt and odd conclusion. "Oh no! The magic-user keeps getting killed, I should stop using tactics!" It seemed like a bizarre molly-coddling mentality that goes against a challenge-based game.

Before you react badly to my apparent hard-liner stance, I will soften it a bit. I do understand "this scenario was too hard for the party", or "these monsters are too tough", or even "these are inexperienced players, I'll put on the kid-gloves". That's normal to me.

What one would hope would happen is that the (experienced) PLAYERS would wake up and stop charging in like idiots---and starting using their own counter-tactics.

To me D&D is niche because it plays to a theoretically small group of people. Those that like challenging, mentally taxing, number-crunchy, war-gamey activities AND are interested in faeries and the like.

Posts like the one I linked always throw me for a loop because is see how the game is being changed to appeal to a wider demographic.

The 'My Guy' article (also funny) was another perfect example of "new think" in RPGs --- when the party wanted to avoid winning the easy-way (blow up the ship from outside) in favor of a more dramatic story where they could have an "awesome light-sabre duel with the Big Bad in his lair". I mean WTF dudes? --- These are games you imagine in your heads! If you want to imagine an awesome "movie moment" in your mind's eye...do that while your lying in bed on the weekend! Why are you even there? Do you have to drag your friends through acting out your private fantasies? Yuk!

All I'm saying is that's a completely different audience demographic, and DM's-role-as-courtious-host than what I grew up with.

That said, I also understand a much larger percentage of girls/women are now playing the game. Traditionally, it been very difficult for boys/men to be tough or impartial with members of the opposite sex (i.e. it's not very chivalrous to keep killing off a lady's PC---even if she keeps repeating the same mistake). I could see why there might be social pressure to gentrify in mixed-company...even if the gals might not asking for (or even wanting) any quarter.

 

[The1True]

Before you react badly

Nah man, we're good. See 'protect the squishies' above. If the players can't adapt, fuck'em. The caveat to that though is if you are a 'my guy' DM who's metagaming optimized tactics into every fight then maybe it is time to dial it back. Like Prince said above, the old school had its set-pieces as well, but they were the exception, not the rule.

The upvoted reply to the My Guy thread was pretty good imo. We're at the table to have a good time, not be shitheads to each other. D&D is not supposed to be an ordeal to the players. If you're pickpocketing my character because 'my guy would do that', fuck you m'man. Go play with your own troll-kind. Similarly, if the DM is grinding his players and they're obviously miserable, 'but that's what's written in the adventure' is a stupid excuse. Your friends are going to go find another game.

I gotcha. You think that whole 'let's write a story together' thing is feeble and though I don't agree, I don't think you're wrong. Let's not resurrect the 'it's just a game, not a story' argument. Both are reasonable ways to play, if that's what makes the group happy. What's key though, is figuring out and managing the expectations of your players. If you as the DM don't give a shit about what they're envisioning as a player and as a character then you don't deserve your place at the head of the table. That doesn't mean you have to let them play whatever class/race they want and stomp all over your campaign for the sake of keeping things easy and non-confrontational.

That said, I also understand a much larger percentage of girls/women

oh sweet jesus... Wait, doesn't your daughter play in your game?

 

[Beoric]

What seemed alien to me was the DM-guilt and odd conclusion. "Oh no! The magic-user keeps getting killed, I should stop using tactics!" It seemed like a bizarre molly-coddling mentality that goes against a challenge-based game.

Before you react badly to my apparent hard-liner stance, I will soften it a bit. I do understand "this scenario was too hard for the party", or "these monsters are too tough", or even "these are inexperienced players, I'll put on the kid-gloves". That's normal to me.

What one would hope would happen is that the (experienced) PLAYERS would wake up and stop charging in like idiots---and starting using their own counter-tactics.

To me D&D is niche because it plays to a theoretically small group of people. Those that like challenging, mentally taxing, number-crunchy, war-gamey activities AND are interested in faeries and the like.

Posts like the one I linked always throw me for a loop because is see how the game is being changed to appeal to a wider demographic.

The 'My Guy' article (also funny) was another perfect example of "new think" in RPGs --- when the party wanted to avoid winning the easy-way (blow up the ship from outside) in favor of a more dramatic story where they could have an "awesome light-sabre duel with the Big Bad in his lair". I mean WTF dudes? --- These are games you imagine in your heads! If you want to imagine an awesome "movie moment" in your mind's eye...do that while your lying in bed on the weekend! Why are you even there? Do you have to drag your friends through acting out your private fantasies? Yuk!

All I'm saying is that's a completely different audience demographic, and DM's-role-as-courtious-host than what I grew up with.

That said, I also understand a much larger percentage of girls/women are now playing the game. Traditionally, it been very difficult for boys/men to be tough or impartial with members of the opposite sex (i.e. it's not very chivalrous to keep killing off a lady's PC---even if she keeps repeating the same mistake). I could see why there might be social pressure to gentrify in mixed-company...even if the gals might not asking for (or even wanting) any quarter.

Totally agree, it is up to the players to adapt their tactics. I would think, at the very least, they should be learning to do to team monster what team monster is doing to them. If the players are stuck in a rut because of some perception of how battles should be run, the DM can point out that they, too can use tactics. Starting with getting the wizard out of his robes and pointy hat; it should take at least a round to determine who is the wizard, or even that a wizard is present. Plus, some effective locking down of enemy movement, and screening the wizard from attacks.

Plus, henchmen and hirelings. I have mentioned before that I walk tactical circles around some of my players; they make up for that by having tons of characters present.

One caveat, I seriously doubt this is a girl thing, or a guys being soft on girls thing. From what I am seeing, the petulant whining over character death seems to come from guys; I only see women complaining when their characters are singled out for (generally sexual) abuse. The "DM's girlfriend" trope may be a real thing, but I doubt those games and/or relationships last and doubt they are a large contributing factor.

 

[squeen]

oh sweet jesus... Wait, doesn't your daughter play in your game?

Yes both of them. But I'm their Dad --- it's a very different dynamics than I'm a peer or a semi-stranger. Their father or husband is not going to "Will Smith" me, for example. (Hi Prince! )

What I was trying to be careful in saying was not that women have to be handled delicately, or that women even want that --- only that there are established social taboos between the sexes that may get in the way and lead to a softer overall game.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

What I was trying to be careful in saying was not that women have to be handled delicately, or that women even want that --- only that there are established social taboos between the sexes that may get in the way and lead to a softer overall game.

Just look at the type of games women and men tend to prefer and you immediately see immense differences in amount of investment, preferred challenge curve, type of game etc. etc. etc. Look at what gender is most likely to have obsessive or deep interests. This is not socially constructed. There are differences in mindset stemming from different evolutionary selection pressures, hormone levels, behavioural genetics located on the X and Y chromosomes etc etc. I don't know if stating scientific fact is considered unpalatable in the current year but there you have it.

 

[squeen]

Look at what gender is most likely to have obsessive or deep interests.
...
I don't know if stating scientific fact is considered unpalatable in the current year but there you have it.

Emphasis mine. The cultural sea-change is that you can no longer publically generalize. Like it or not, if even only one in a million falls outside of these parameters, it is now considered prejudicial and discriminatory to make the statement.

Suspending any personal judgement, I think that's a fair accessment of the state of the world.

 

[Beoric]

Just look at the type of games women and men tend to prefer and you immediately see immense differences in amount of investment, preferred challenge curve, type of game etc. etc. etc. Look at what gender is most likely to have obsessive or deep interests. This is not socially constructed. There are differences in mindset stemming from different evolutionary selection pressures, hormone levels, behavioural genetics located on the X and Y chromosomes etc etc. I don't know if stating scientific fact is considered unpalatable in the current year but there you have it.

I would love to see your science on the types of games men and women prefer. I don't know about @squeen's kids, but my daughter seems to prefer a gonzo classic/OSR style game. It is still early but years of Pokemon seem to be influencing my son to lean toward a very social game. But maybe I am misunderstanding your assumptions about the games different genders prefer?

EDIT: I'm thinking about this more. I don't have a ton of experience playing with women who are not my kids; I have run games for a few, and never been in a game with a woman unless I was running it. I have spent a certain amount of time interacting IRL and on line with women who play, and I know a couple of them fairly well. But in my limited experience, the women I have interacted with seem very interested in a game where they have a lot of agency. Many have had quite negative experiences with male DMs who run Trad games where the women don't have a lot of control over what it going on. I think you could really sell a playstyle that had a neutral DM, broad agency, and a strict rule against explicit or implied sexual violence.

About all you have to give up is your rapey orcs, which you will note @squeen has done. I will say that in my game world there is no sexual violence, despite the presence of slavery. That is because demihumans and humanoids are made up creatures so I can omit those inclinations without affecting "realism". As for humans, there is a lot of socialization against it; first of all because of interaction with demihumans, who won't stand for it, as a result of which there are very strict laws which are actually enforced, and divination magic will be employed in these cases; and secondly because in late edition D&D, where combat can key off of stats other than strength, the women are likely to be as tough as the men; getting handsy with a rogue, wizard, cleric or dex-based ranger is unwise. A corollary of that is women are as likely to be in positions of power as men, so there is essentially no gender-based power imbalance in my game.

 

[squeen]

There is zero mention of sex in my D&D. Never with my kids, and never even when we played as teenagers and young 20-something adults. It was well understood the two don't mix. No half-orcs! (OD&D)

For that matter, there was no sex in comic books and/or sci fi movies in my youth either!

There is also no need to go to the bathroom because human are 100% efficient at turning food into energy.

There were, incidentally, no mosquitoes either (because I hate them)...until I needed a disease vector for a haunted moathouse that looked different inside if you were feverish with plague.

Back to the topic at hand...

In the early 90's my DM and I spent a summer in San Diego and he ran a newspaper ad for D&D players. One person who answered the ad was a gal. Never had an issue. Heck, my DM even ran a second (parallel) group circa 1979, while still in high school and again later college---both had female members.

So in retrospective, all I can say is the when it was an all boys group it used to be more every-man-for-himself and less co-operative (and less polite). But that's a pretty small sample-size to draw any conclusions.

I was originally just speculating of the nature of social norms which goes far beyond D&D, not really about game content...or "player agency". I think you misunderstood me there. I was talking social tendencies as a subconscious bias affecting a DM. I have come to see the fair sex as a civilizing influence on the adolescent male, and wonder if that results in a kinder, gentler D&D automatically. It's hard to imagine it does not. My son plays a more ruthless game than my daughters---that much I see first hand.

I was also alluding to the presence or absence of obsessive, fiddly, rules-oriented, abstracted warfare, and other boring mechanical details that one typically associates with male nerds. I think that's where Prince was going too, "the average male" (if such an animal still exists) versus a (possibly outdated) notion of the "average female". My wife is an amazing, intelligent, beautiful, and strong-willed lady who is the undisputed head of our household. Former electrical engineer. MBA. etc. She would whole heartily agree with Prince---men and women are just different. Exactly how & why we'll probably be debating forever. But it think it wold be a duller, grayer world if the differences between the sexes ever completely disappeared.

One fella I knew in the 1990's told me 20th century Communist China worked at suppressing the differences between the sexes---I don't know if that's true.

There are also probably a whole slew of male dominance cues and the like that would only happen between same-sex peers.

Ultimately, it not important because every group finds it's own social equilibrium. (and I'm probably drifting into politics again)

 

[Beoric]

There is zero mention of sex in my D&D. Never with my kids, and never even when we played as teenagers and young 20-something adults. It was well understood the two don't mix. No half-orcs! (OD&D)

For that matter, there was no sex in comic books and/or sci fi movies in my youth either!

There is also no need to go to the bathroom because human are 100% efficient at turning food into energy.

There were, incidentally, no mosquitoes either (because I hate them)...until I needed a disease vector for a haunted moathouse that looked different inside if you were feverish with plague.

Back to the topic at hand...

In the early 90's my DM and I spent a summer in San Diego and he ran a newspaper ad for D&D players. One person who answered the ad was a gal. Never had an issue. Heck, my DM even ran a second (parallel) group circa 1979, while still in high school and again later college---both had female members.

So in retrospective, all I can say is the when it was an all boys group it used to be more every-man-for-himself and less co-operative (and less polite). But that's a pretty small sample-size to draw any conclusions.

I was originally just speculating of the nature of social norms which goes far beyond D&D, not really about game content...or "player agency". I think you misunderstood me there. I was talking social tendencies as a subconscious bias affecting a DM. I have come to see the fair sex as a civilizing influence on the adolescent male, and wonder if that results in a kinder, gentler D&D automatically. It's hard to imagine it does not. My son plays a more ruthless game than my daughters---that much I see first hand.

I was also alluding to the presence or absence of obsessive, fiddly, rules-oriented, abstracted warfare, and other boring mechanical details that one typically associates with male nerds. I think that's where Prince was going too, "the average male" (if such an animal still exists) versus a (possibly outdated) notion of the "average female". My wife is an amazing, intelligent, beautiful, and strong-willed lady who is the undisputed head of our household. Former electrical engineer. MBA. etc. She would whole heartily agree with Prince---men and women are just different. Exactly how & why we'll probably be debating forever. But it think it wold be a duller, grayer world if the differences between the sexes ever completely disappeared.

One fella I knew in the 1990's told me 20th century Communist China worked at suppressing the differences between the sexes---I don't know if that's true.

There are also probably a whole slew of male dominance cues and the like that would only happen between same-sex peers.

Ultimately, it not important because every group finds it's own social equilibrium. (and I'm probably drifting into politics again)

I was replying more to @PrinceofNothing's comment on "the type of games women and men tend to prefer" and what he appeared to be implying about women preferring a less challenging/dangerous game, or that they don't get as invested in it. I just don't see it.

I would agree that men and women are different but think we are lousy at understanding how they are different.

I would also agree that the presence of women can make some men act less like idiots. Except when it makes them act more like idiots.

 

[The1True]

Except when it makes them act more like idiots.

Ha!

There is also no need to go to the bathroom because human are 100% efficient at turning food into energy.

Probably another thread, but seriously, I'm beating my self up about being inconsistent about drawing privies into my maps. Your average dungeon is utterly without them unless it's fun to set up one yucky bog-hole leading down to the ubiquitous otyugh and a special treasure for that one really obsessive completist PC. They were all over Xyntilan and I appreciated the simulationism, but it is a real pain in the ass trying to remember to draw crappers into your castles and dungeons.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I would love to see your science on the types of games men and women prefer. I don't know about @squeen's kids, but my daughter seems to prefer a gonzo classic/OSR style game. It is still early but years of Pokemon seem to be influencing my son to lean toward a very social game. But maybe I am misunderstanding your assumptions about the games different genders prefer?

I think you sort of get it. Note that NOT socially constructed does not mean therefore 'biologically fixed.'

We can quibble over exactly what causes what or what the differences are but I don't feel like digging through the internet for five thousand references. I hope this will do. The rationale for my way of thinking is as follows:

* There is a difference in hormonal levels across the population like testosterone and androgens which have direct effects on aggressive behavior, competetiveness etc. etc (can be found very easily with little google fu). I can try digging for a difference in threat avoidance or more specific problems but most of it makes sense if you consider that in early hunter-gathered societies, the two sexes would have had different roles and pursued different strategies for based on the amount of time/resources are invested and the sexual di-morphism of the species. TLDR the behavior that will allow a male to reproduce more effectively is not the same as that of the female (in the purely darwinian sense, promiscuity for a man that invests no great deal of resources in his offspring is perfect, whereas a woman who does the same is going to find herself preggers without a person to provide for the offspring while she is vulnerable for a long period, and must invest time rearing and feeding the child afterwards. I'm sure Darwin will be banned at some point but you can most certainly find gene-driven behavioral (or even cognitive) differences between the sexes (there is a 4:1 - 3:1 difference in the ratio of autism for example).

*There is similarly a difference in Spatial Ability, as well as a preference (if not a difference in ability, depending on who you ask or when you measure it or how) for mathematics which is going to drive how well a population performs at certain games, and what games they prefer.

* There is already a difference in the ratio of women that play various games, and the motivation for playing them. The difference between the sexes and the root cause is less interesting to the discussion then the differences between the preferences of various genres.

Critical bit:


All of which states exactly nothing about your son and daughter, because this is data that describes average trends in a population, so the individual variance of your son's genes as well as the specific environment in which you reared him is likely to be of much greater weight then the average sexual differences. The key to understanding the thing is that you have a set of instincts, survival strategies, behavioral tendencies and so forth, and then you have an environment that determines how that behavior is expressed/channelled or how it develops.

The key to a sane perspective is to appreciate the two genders are not, effectively, playing the same game nor are they the same pieces, therefore treating them identical is idiotic, while allowing for variance at the individual level (i.e. Girls tend to be kind but Christy is a cold hard bitch) is a neccessary adjuct.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

About all you have to give up is your rapey orcs, which you will note @squeen has done. I will say that in my game world there is no sexual violence, despite the presence of slavery. That is because demihumans and humanoids are made up creatures so I can omit those inclinations without affecting "realism". As for humans, there is a lot of socialization against it; first of all because of interaction with demihumans, who won't stand for it, as a result of which there are very strict laws which are actually enforced, and divination magic will be employed in these cases; and secondly because in late edition D&D, where combat can key off of stats other than strength, the women are likely to be as tough as the men; getting handsy with a rogue, wizard, cleric or dex-based ranger is unwise. A corollary of that is women are as likely to be in positions of power as men, so there is essentially no gender-based power imbalance in my game.

B/X has no half-orcs so I don't include them. If they were included, this would imply sexual violence, but there is a huge difference between having a world where this happens (which I assume is true, since the main inhabitants are human beings at the iron age level), and having a game where it happens. I don't see any greatly added value to the portrayal of sexual violence in my game so the topic does not come up, I managed to get through Carcosa without any overt depictions of it for example. The point is that since the game does not revolve around it I aim for something that does not break the versimilitude so I can just keep stealing from my assumptions about medieval human beings.

Likewise, I assume adventurers are extraordinary examples of humanity and as such I don't get greatly concerned with a woman who can deck an orc with a single haymaker punch or a wide-hipped amazonian warrior queen who leads her troops from the front and defeats her enemies with witch-craft and a blade of purest adamantium longer then she is tall. That is fine. Legend and Fantasy are made of such examples.

I assume that on the population level, the society vaguely conforms to medieval standards (with some slap-dashes of other influences) and the differences in ability are in force as most characters will not have class levels nor will they be extraordinary. That means arranged marriages, reasonably strict gender roles (less so in the frontier, where everyone is short of people), standing armies that are drafted from the male population, occasional female rulers are possible but not as common (again, history is reasonably flexible) with adventurers breaking the mould of society (as is proper). Anything that involves extremely dangerous violence in exchange for exorbitant reward is going to be a rewarding prospect for desperate men, but occasionally the odd runaway nobleman's daughter, desperate street-waif, mildly unhinged elf-lady, sultry-eyed thief-acrobat or kind-hearted Sister of the Flame is going to be found among them.

 

[The1True]

B/X has no half-orcs so I don't include them. If they were included, this would imply sexual violence

I don't know, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that humans will fuck just about anything. To say that half-orcs imply sexual violence implies that half-elves/dwarves/giants etc. do as well. Might as well slot the half orcs in with all the other happy mutts and continue to disregard the unpleasant stuff if it doesn't fit with your group dynamic.

damn dude, you are going to make me buy Carcossa one of these days. Wish it was a little better supported.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I don't know, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that humans will fuck just about anything. To say that half-orcs imply sexual violence implies that half-elves/dwarves/giants etc. do as well. Might as well slot the half orcs in with all the other happy mutts and continue to disregard the unpleasant stuff if it doesn't fit with your group dynamic.

That's fair, I had not accounted for extremely degenerate humans. You might even consider some scenario where a ruthless sorceress offers herself to the Chieftain in exchange for help in fighting off a rival fe. The point is that Orcs are barbaric and evil and generally considered monstrous so any sort of liason between the two species is going to be, uh, complicated

damn dude, you are going to make me buy Carcossa one of these days. Wish it was a little better supported.

There are two considerations. One is the Ick! factor which is going to pose a considerable hindrance for some. The second is that you have to love it and do some work to make it run for your campaign. I ended up homebrewing a bunch of shit for it but that was kind of the idea.

 

[squeen]

Complete tangent: here's a biblical name for your campaign

Keren-happuch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Her name means "horn of eye-makeup". This is because, despite her great beauty, she over-indulged in mascara and like so many modern-day Hollywood starlets would have looked far better without it.

Sad really.

Happy April Fool's Day.

 

[Beoric]

Critical bit:
View attachment 1222

That bit is really interesting, both in that the differences are not that great for most motivations, but also in where the differences lie. Higher investment in completion has implications for dungeon play, and higher investment in exploring other worlds leans toward Classic/OSR and away from Trad/Neotrad (some might say investment in immersion leans the other way, but I don't agree). The "expressing themselves" part of design points to agency, also keeping in mind that in video games there are very limited opportunities to express yourself outside of character design. Less interest in competition is a benefit in D&D, which favours cooperation. Given that this was for video games, I'm not sure whether the de-emphasis of challenge carries over, since the challenges are very different.

Also, to be clear, I didn't necessarily mean your rapey orcs. I have, however, been in a few internet conversations with guys who were adamant that their orcs needed to be rapey.

 

[squeen]

Also, to be clear, I didn't necessarily mean your rapey orcs. I have, however, been in a few internet conversations with guys who were adamant that their orcs needed to be rapey.