Well, the title says it all: I played more D&D 5.5 ongoing last night, and while fun was had, I realize I've been avoiding combats, sometimes like, a lot. We have them; the game kicked off with an encounter between the group and a red hag, some millitaurs (both from Tome of Beasts), and a stone giant from the new Monster Manual. The fight was brief and while its "sort of fun" the combat wasn't terribly exciting for a group of level 6 PCs, nor was there much in terms of dynamic interaction......D&D 5.5 is basically a process of generating numbers (attack rolls and damage) to make other numbers (hit points) go down. Words are interspersed to imply something different is going on, but ultimately it is a very basic process.
I would argue this isn't entirely a D&D 5.5 issue, and not even really an issue; I may just have played this game for too long now, and its no longer as exciting. But there are some fingers that can be pointed: D&D 5.5, for example, has some big numbers being thrown around, and there's not a lot of nuance; the notion that someone might miss an attack isn't terribly common; its far more likely that the staying power of a monster isn't in resisting damage or avoiding it, but instead in being a bag of hit points. All of the older mechanics that let a monster bypass, ignore, or deflect damage are mostly gone these days. I was musing on the fact that the red hag, with her magic resistance, was still easily dropped by magic missiles in the final round (she was whittled down to a few HP left) because, unlike the original incarnation of magic resistance from long ago there's no possibility it would affect magic missiles.
The characters all have their cool attacks and abilities, but these are by and large the same abilities, used over and over again, because the game system has since at least 4th edition been trying to flatten out and remove all the bubbles or bloat in character options; the bygone era of 3rd edition where a PC could have too many choices to pick from in terms of actions and strategies are a thing of the past, for the large part. It all plays more or less the same.
So for me, this means I spend an inordinate amount of gameplay time focusing on the story, exploration, role play moments and mystery because that stuff is fun and doesn't get old. But for my players, some of them do look forward to those combat moments. It is hard for me to admit to them that....yeah....those combat moments are just not doing it for me. And for some of my players they aren't that excited anymore, either.
Last time we played Cypher System a couple of my players commented that it was really exciting to play a game where the combat/conflict was genuinely exciting and unpredictable, with a sense of tension. It is very, very hard to get that feeling in D&D 5E. This is, of course, why a lot of my recent posts are all about figuring out what game system I want to play next.
Heck, I feel like I would love to be playing this exact campaign I am in, right now, but with the Cypher System and Godforsaken fantasy book. That would be cool! And fun! And surprising. Maybe that will be what we do next.
Do you think you’d feel the same in vanilla 5e and/or Tales of the Valiant? Has 5e as a core system just overstayed its welcome?
ReplyDeleteI was wondering about that myself. I like Tales of the Valiant, and I have played in a game online that wa enjoyable, but at the end of the day it is still just a variant on the same old engine with the core conceit of bounded accuracy, hit points as the sole damage mechanic, and streamlined/simplified depth (a wide but very shallow pool of effects, essentially). TotV is the system I think I will return to after I give myself a much needed breather from D&D 5.5, but I think unfortunately it would "count" toward the system fatigue, and that I do think it has well and truly overstayed its welcome, at least inside my brain. I am really craving something where the players (and I as GM) need to think and exercise our creative sides more. At least....that's the working theory right now.
DeleteI started to run into this problem a few years ago with 5E. I think part of the problem is DnD trying to balance foes and fights. Straight 5E has x number of encounters per day to wittle down the PC's resources and that is not how I run games. It means I might run a fight every 2-3 sessions because if there is no real chance of danger what is the point of a fight?
ReplyDeleteI don't want to run balanced fights. I want to run challenging and fun fights. I don't want to have X number of monsters based on some formula. I want the number of monsters to work with my story or my Player's choices.
I don't know if my attitude is "old school" but 5.5 is just more of the same.
That is definitely part of it. A lot of it is that the game has slowly stripped out "major threats" from the game over time, to the extent that memories of tense and dangerous encounters back in the AD&D days still stand out to me, but the idea that, say, something as simple as a pack of ghouls could be a major problem for characters today seems silly. I was thinking of doing a post soon on the evolution of the mind flayer, from its 1E days up to present, to demonstrate just how severely monsters are handicapped by comparison to their original incarnations.
DeleteI forgot the name of the rule, but have you thought about trying escalating damage as the fight goes on? Double damage past round 3 and such.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that rule (will have to look in the old DMG), but I did run with gritty rules in the past and it made for a somewhat better experience.
DeleteIt's called Crimson Escalation by Venger.
DeleteIn Vampire the Masquerade, totally different system and opponents, they had a general suggestion that combat shouldn't go past three rounds. There was no mechanic for it, but it seems like a decent idea for most combats. There are other alternatives to one side massacring another in D&D combat to the last hit point.
I'll have to take a look at Venger's idea. On the World of Darkness games, that was a system which I never, ever found boring.
Delete