5E combat is not boring in itself - it is just very dependant on the abilities of the players and DM to be imaginative, inovative and "at ease" with the possibility to "ask for a ruling" on what they can imagine. So, depending on who you are playing with, it can be great memorable fun or a boring repetitive event. That's the problem when you call for improvization / imagination rather than rules : the results depend on the persons you play with, and may vary a lot.
By contrast, 4E powers (and monster abilities) were meant to guide players and DMs by giving them often flashy tactical choices, even when you lacked imagination. Maybe it even was too much "guiding", to the point of "killing" imagination for some players, or making them feel they weren't "free" enough to improvize.
That resumes it really well kaliban7 and you sir diserves a
I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.
Well, I do because "boring" wasn't quantified. One can't just drop "Game is boring" without saying WHY. As a playtester, one has to identify what the problem is. This isn't regular boards "that's my opinion" stuff here. It's to help make the game better.
"Boring" doesn't cut it here. Again, WHY was it boring?
This is a legitimate question ... for those who have not played in combat allow me to give you a "barbarian flowchart" of how all combats function. Granted you GM/DM will add flavor to make descriptions but the core point is at a certain poitn if combat is "flip a coin ... if heads then win and move to next scene" you have a core design issue where.
GAME = player making meaningful choices ...
5E COMBAT FLOWCHART
IF Melee player AND hostile is melee THEN ready action to attack if they close to buy time for range to whittle them down
IF Melee player AND hostile is ranged THEN walk past all other monsters (they cant stop you) and stand next to target to give them disadvantage
IF Ranged player AND hostile is melee THEN walk to mx range and snipe
IF Ranged player AND hostile is ranged THEN walk to cover, shoot, and hide in cover
Thats it ... all 40 combats ... same for all 3 levels of the characters with no variation.
GAMES are fun based on players making meaningful choices. If you know that all combat choices are NOT maningful because by design in order to simpliy the game to play without a grid the design teamremoved all complications then it ceases to be as good a game.
Its like comparing TIC TAC TOE or CHECKERS to a game with more meaningful choices like CHESS or GO.
Another way to think about it is that several decades ago we had a game called PAC MAN. It was loved and super popular. Today if PAC MAN released it would be a complete non event as games have evolved to the point that it is no longer compatitive in that environment.
So far that is 5E .... rolling back every editions improvement in combat to get back to a gameplay design that may appeal to the nostalgia in original players but at a cost of all the innovations that game made in 2E, 3E, and 4E.
I haven't played the playtest yet, but I will definitely keep this in mind. Thanks a lot, seems like good feedback for the DEV-team.
5E combat is not boring in itself - it is just very dependant on the abilities of the players and DM to be imaginative, inovative and "at ease" with the possibility to "ask for a ruling" on what they can imagine. So, depending on who you are playing with, it can be great memorable fun or a boring repetitive event. That's the problem when you call for improvization / imagination rather than rules : the results depend on the persons you play with, and may vary a lot.
By contrast, 4E powers (and monster abilities) were meant to guide players and DMs by giving them often flashy tactical choices, even when you lacked imagination. Maybe it even was too much "guiding", to the point of "killing" imagination for some players, or making them feel they weren't "free" enough to improvize.
That resumes it really well kaliban7 and you sir diserves a
I think this is where many disagree, specially 4e and old-school fans.
As a 4e fan I'd say the game should always provide you with rules if you want to get creative, improvise, try something unexpected. But the game can't rely on that, that's bad design. 4e players may forget to improvise or "not feel free" to do so, but that's their choice, the rules are there to support either play style. We've seen a lot of imaginative thinking in our 4e games, and they were often fantastic highlights in the adventures. Improvisation should be just that: natural, imaginative, unexpected. It should not be required at every turn simply to add variety. But I know this is a point of contention.
There is a difference between having a flexible well designed game system that gives the player many meaningful in game decisions and supports the player to be creative and to improvise to supplement these options, and the system (as it exists in the playtest material) that actively encourages improvisation as the game mechanics supportive of giving the players interesting and meaningful choices is virtual non-existent.
Feeling free and supported to improvise in the game system is good, feeling like you need to improvise every turn because the mechanical options given you are so mind numbly boring is not so good.
There is a difference between having a flexible well designed game system that gives the player many meaningful in game decisions and supports the player to be creative and to improvise to supplement these options, and the system (as it exists in the playtest material) that actively encourages improvisation as the game mechanics supportive of giving the players interesting and meaningful choices is virtual non-existent.
Feeling free and supported to improvise in the game system is good, feeling like you need to improvise every turn because the mechanical options given you are so mind numbly boring is not so good.
Couldn't have said it better.
I want improvisation to be like adding spice to an already decent dish to give it your own feeling and flavor, not cooking an entire meal because you're hungry.
Faster. Yes. So let's look at what that can give us in terms of a ROLE PLAYING GAME.
First and foremost, more story. More time to develop a story arc. More time to let your choices (and not just in combat) matter. I have a hard time understanding those that complain about non-meaningful choices. Choices are only meaningful if they can impact the gaming world you're playing in, via killing a bad guy to befriending a merchant. Less combat time equals more time to role play, and thus create meaningful choices for your character. Some may disagree, but I'll go under the assumption you get to play for 10 hours a session and play once or twice a week. If so, good for you. But for the majority of players I know, once a week for 2-4 hours is all we get. Hence, faster combat for us means more storyline accomplished.
Secondly, faster combat enables more opportunities for your player to shine. We had seven encounters and exploration and role play in three hours. And this was with a group that's never played together. Each combat lasted anywhere from 2 to 7 rounds. That's a lot of opportunities to "shine." When a turn is only 3 minutes, I don't need to shine each time.
Lastly, with fast combat comes the chance to experiment. And an experiment is just that. It may work. It may not. But, it's generally fun to try. In a system where a player only gets one chance per 20-30 minutes, they are more reluctant to experiment with equipment, environment, tactics, or crazy ideas.
I do not see how any of the above could equal boring. In my opinion (and many others I spoke to at con this weekend), it proved just the opposite.
I've played mostly fourth edition in the last few years, and very recently switched to first just for the novelty of it, and it appears to me that there is a fundimental shift in the player/DM relationship. Wheras in fourth, the DM had certain mechanics he could use to try to defeat the players (just like the ones they had for defeating him) in first edition, and now possibly fifth, the DM was more about orchestrating events impartially. Helping the players as much as hurting them.
For instance, a friend of mine was playing a gnome illusionist who used phantasmal force. He would describe the illusion he was creating, and it was up to the DM to determine who it affected and how much damage it would do. With so much control over a player's ability, a jerk of a DM could easily make this power more or less useless. But in first edition, the goal wasn't to screw over your players as much as you could. It was to facilitate the story in a way that was both challenging and rewarding.
In later editions, the relationship has become more competative, with the DM and the players both trying to defeat each other. And while I'm not entirely opposed to this approach, I think 5th edition will be moving away from it. Both players and DMs may have to rethink their playstyles and adjust them accordingly if they plan to play the new edition.
Also, with regards to Carldot's examples
"At one extreme, I played briefly with a DM who didn't want the players to have read any of the rules because that was his 'domain'. In a different game, we played in a weekly game for several months at level 1 because the DM felt that leveling up made the game too easy!!"
I'm all for allowing a variety of playstyles, but this is bad DMing, pure and simple. I realize there are some people who live in areas with less options for grouping up, but there's no excuse for this. Find a new group, online if you have to, or make one yourself. See if there is a local gaming or hobby store nearby, or checkout a site like Meetup.com and build your community.
This post was made kind of a while ago, but I just have to say that I find a lot of this crazy. The DM has never been trying to defeat the players. The DM has always had the role of challenging the players while rooting for and fully expecting them to defeat any monsters. The idea that the DM is trying to defeat the players is ridiculous just based on the fact that he could kill them at any time, or have them face an overwhelming encounter on a whim. There isn't any winning or losing in D&D, the DM and the players always win every time.
I've played mostly fourth edition in the last few years, and very recently switched to first just for the novelty of it, and it appears to me that there is a fundimental shift in the player/DM relationship. Wheras in fourth, the DM had certain mechanics he could use to try to defeat the players (just like the ones they had for defeating him) in first edition, and now possibly fifth, the DM was more about orchestrating events impartially. Helping the players as much as hurting them.
For instance, a friend of mine was playing a gnome illusionist who used phantasmal force. He would describe the illusion he was creating, and it was up to the DM to determine who it affected and how much damage it would do. With so much control over a player's ability, a jerk of a DM could easily make this power more or less useless. But in first edition, the goal wasn't to screw over your players as much as you could. It was to facilitate the story in a way that was both challenging and rewarding.
In later editions, the relationship has become more competative, with the DM and the players both trying to defeat each other. And while I'm not entirely opposed to this approach, I think 5th edition will be moving away from it. Both players and DMs may have to rethink their playstyles and adjust them accordingly if they plan to play the new edition.
Also, with regards to Carldot's examples
"At one extreme, I played briefly with a DM who didn't want the players to have read any of the rules because that was his 'domain'. In a different game, we played in a weekly game for several months at level 1 because the DM felt that leveling up made the game too easy!!"
I'm all for allowing a variety of playstyles, but this is bad DMing, pure and simple. I realize there are some people who live in areas with less options for grouping up, but there's no excuse for this. Find a new group, online if you have to, or make one yourself. See if there is a local gaming or hobby store nearby, or checkout a site like Meetup.com and build your community.
This post was made kind of a while ago, but I just have to say that I find a lot of this crazy. The DM has never been trying to defeat the players. The DM has always had the role of challenging the players while rooting for and fully expecting them to defeat any monsters. The idea that the DM is trying to defeat the players is ridiculous just based on the fact that he could kill them at any time, or have them face an overwhelming encounter on a whim. There isn't any winning or losing in D&D, the DM and the players always win every time.
I have been DMing and playing D&D since 1983. Never ever have I ran into a problem with a DM activly trying to kill off a character. Sure we DMs make it challenging, and from time to time characters die. But isn't that the fun of it? Isn't that the excitment of it all? For a player to know that at any turn of the hallway or over that next hill top... death could be waiting. If there is no challenge and risk, the game becomes borring and a waste of time.
Player 1 thinks... "well I am gonna jump on the back of the great wyrm and scale up his neack, and plung my sword in his ear. Don't worry mage... yes I know I have no chance, but it will work, the DM won't let our characters die"
Players must realize that characters die. Fate can be cruel (and so can the dice). Tactics can go wrong. You could have a Leroy Jenkins show up in your party (seen it happen). No DM (to include me) have ever tried to kill off a party that I have ever played with. I mean lets face it... a DM can do anything he/she wants to do. If he/she wanted to wipe the party he/she could do it at any point they wanted to . The player has no control over this.
Remember the #1 rule, first and formost... The DM has final say over all rules and the game. All rules are guidlines to assist the players and the DM. That being said if a DM wanted to he/she could just say something like... "The counsel of the gods decided they didn't like meddling mortals, and obliterates the party into nothingness." Ofcourse stuff like this would never happen. The game would be over and the players would never play together with that DM again.
Me personally I DM in the world I created 30 years ago. I stick to the guidlines set forth by the core books. Sometimes I have to make rules on the fly or amend certain rules to fit the world and or playstyle of the group. A good DM knows their players and what they are looking for in the game. D&D is not just about combat. It's about roll playing a character in a breathing living virtual world. I have had sessions that the party had no real combat for over 8 hours. They were too busy exploring a capital city and interacting with merchants, priests, peddlers, street performers etc. They told me it was one of the most fun sessions they ever had.
We created a few encounters with monsters presented in the playtest just to add to our game time. One encounter was in a common town (The Keep of course). The players used barrels, run away wagons, stampeding animal herds, and anything else to fight of the undead hoards. In the end we had a great time, but almost never used any of the characters abilities or mechanics to do anything really fun. All editions allow creative players to do creative things, but good RPGs have mechanics that contribute fun and creative situations. I would agree that the combat is very generic and every character just lacked anything really cool. In 4e they talked about trying to the sweet spot in hp, powers, and abilities. The play test is missing the sweet spot.
My problem with having the combat take so much improve to be interesting for me, is that it really doesn't change much. Basically, when you improvise, you either: 1) kill the enemies faster or 2) get advantage/give disadvantage. This is all well and good, but I am primarily the DM. I see behind curtains as a general rule on the player side, because that's what a DM does. So, I know, when it comes down to combat in 5e, it feels like 4 people are rolling d20s to reduce a pool of hit points to 0. Targetting doesn't matter; with little in the way of movement, a monster can take a fallen ally's place easy, and monsters are really similar. Movement has little impact, and generally, it comes down to killing stuff fast.
Now, I'm all for awesome descriptions, a fast pace, and general danger throughout the game. Just, they need to come with a choice in combat aside from "how I want to discribe this attack" or "how to do this while dying the least".
