5E should not have balanced the game around a 5-6 encounter workday. [Archive]

Deathtongue

2017-03-10, 08:18 PM

As a player, I appreciate the game doing this. It makes things much easier than they should be. Why? Because the 5-6 encounter workday is not a thing that happens even in published content.

At its core, the 5-6 encounter workday is a conceit that violates genre. The trope of a team of action-adventure heroes fighting as a team through a gauntlet of enemies where they get gradually ground down and have to conserve resources does happen. But not only is it relatively rare outside of end-of-book climaxes, even with its most optimal structure 5-6 encounters are still way too much. Even when the story demands this sort of gauntlet, it's typically a chaff fight where the heroes make a dramatic entrance (with non-protagonist back-up optional), a slightly challenging fight that's mostly there to show the team functioning as a well-oiled machine, a battle against the BBEG's lieutenants, and then finally against the BBEG.

You know what's more common? The setup is that there's an opening fight that may or may not point towards the bigger storyline. Then, an investigation phase where heroes talk to people and visit locales and start traveling which takes a bare minimum of several hours and sometimes even several days. The heroes might get attacked by chaff mobs during the investigation second phase, but the team getting attacked more than twice never happens since it just slows things down and is bad writing. Third, there's a combat phase where things start to mesh together. Then finally the fourth phase: the big climax. Sometimes phase three and four are combined. It's also common to have ANOTHER investigation phase between the third and fourth phase. Note that both variations are still more common than the 'gauntlet of enemies'.

You know why I bring up such a specific example? Because I've played in a fair number of hardcover adventures and AL games, and the second structure fits my actual experiences much better than the 5-6 nonstop encounters. I have only once in about 20 AL/Hardcover games done the 'gauntlet of enemies' setup. And that was a mission in which we were on a strict time limit. And that mission topped out at FOUR encounters, not 5-6. I suppose that there'd be nothing structurally wrong with (the way the adventure was set-up) with adding more encounters, but the entire deal took 6 hours with a 30 minute break as it was. Yes, the other problem with this setup is that there is often just straight up not enough game time to do 5-6 encounters in a workday, and we're talking about a setup that has minimal roleplaying and continuity.

5E D&D should've realized that the 'you have a limited amount of time to complete your objectives, GO!' or the 'you're stuck in a dungeon and can't leave until you beat it, GO!' are the minority of action-adventure fantasy stories and balanced the game around 2-3 encounters in a workday. Not 5-6.

Tanarii

2017-03-10, 08:49 PM

I find 6-8 is far FAR too low for the average dungeon-based D&D game. It only works for mini-lairs & one-session mini-adventures like AL loves to run. That means I have to adjust the rest variants to account for the fact that the players will need a lot more than 6-8 combats before they can realistically spend a night resting.

For an classic-style D&D campaign, combat-as-war sandbox with non-level specific wilderness & level appropriate zones (aka Dungeons) I generally use:
Gritty Realism Variant (Urban / Civilized safe areas)
Normal rest rules (Frontier zones / relatively safe wilderness, small lairs)
Heroic Variant (Dangerous Wilderness & dungeons)

The alternative I eschewed would have been to just grant all the benefits of a short or long rest without actually mapping it to any in-game time. Given how abstract I'm already treating the system, it would have worked just as effectively. But I got the added benefit that it gives the players a clue as to the type of area they're in, so I'm sticking with it. Given most parties choose to adventure in dangerous wilderness or dungeons anyway, actual play time mostly sees the Heroic Variant rest.

Edit: It's worth noting that if you mix Medium & Hard encounters, the actual adventuring day is balanced around 4.5. Or 3 Deadly. The only way to get to 6-8 using the default adventuring day guidelines is to mix in a fair number of Easy encounters. And since Easy encounters are ones that don't use resources, but still provide a challenge to be overcome, that's exactly where most non-combat encounters land. In other words, it's balanced for something like 3 Medium/Hard combat encounters plus 3-5 Easy combat OR non-combat encounters. The latter could be a good mix of wandering monsters & puzzles for example.

Zene

2017-03-10, 08:59 PM

Bahamut7

2017-03-10, 09:13 PM

I might just be unfamiliar with the background, but what does "balancing around 5-6 encounters" actually mean in terms of the game? Is t just hat characters with long-rest-reset abilities are given enough of them to last through 5-6 encounters, and so if they face less per long rest they are overpowered?

That is what I was getting from the OP. I find the idea that a short rest has to be 1 hour kinda stupid. 15 minutes? Sure. 30 minutes, max. You do this and the encounters seem more fluid. Not to mention that a social encounter could also be counted as a short rest as you are just talking and walking.

Honestly, if you are playing in a module or some other format that does throw characters through more resource depleting encounters, the DMs should be adding in consumables to mitigate this (Potions of healing, mana, etc).

Tanarii

2017-03-10, 10:30 PM

Honestly, if you are playing in a module or some other format that does throw characters through more resource depleting encounters, the DMs should be adding in consumables to mitigate this (Potions of healing, mana, etc).I agree if you're just taking a few more than the assumed baseline for whatever rest variant you're using. But when the PCs might easily be facing 4-5 adventuring days worth of fights in a dungeon before they get out and can camp for an entire (in-game) night, using the Epic Heroism variant works very well. Of course, I've got some fairly non-standard assumptions IMC.

For AL games I've played, which I want to be clear does not include the adventure paths, normal resting seemed to work just fine for the most part.

Bahamut7

2017-03-10, 10:56 PM

I agree if you're just taking a few more than the assumed baseline for whatever rest variant you're using. But when the PCs might easily be facing 4-5 adventuring days worth of fights in a dungeon before they get out and can camp for an entire (in-game) night, using the Epic Heroism variant works very well. Of course, I've got some fairly non-standard assumptions IMC.

For AL games I've played, which I want to be clear does not include the adventure paths, normal resting seemed to work just fine for the most part.

Good to know, I will read into the Epic heroism later.

Mbarbs

2017-03-10, 11:10 PM

That is what I was getting from the OP. I find the idea that a short rest has to be 1 hour kinda stupid. 15 minutes? Sure. 30 minutes, max. You do this and the encounters seem more fluid. Not to mention that a social encounter could also be counted as a short rest as you are just talking and walking.

Honestly, if you are playing in a module or some other format that does throw characters through more resource depleting encounters, the DMs should be adding in consumables to mitigate this (Potions of healing, mana, etc).

During the development of the game, there seemed to be a lot of contention around short rests, with some people feeling that nothing at all should be tied to short rests ever and some people feeling that short rests should basically be things that happened between each combat encounter with little real trouble. The one-hour short rest feels like an ugly compromise solution that satisfies very few (although I'm sure by now it's grown on some people.) It's an extremely awkward length of time that's sometimes trivial to get between two encounters but often impossible to get without breaking the flow. It also creates awkward tensions when some party members have almost all of their mechanical stuff be short-rest-recharge and some have almost none of it.

When I DM, I pretty much just declare that a short rest has occurred at times when it's vaguely narratively sensible, regardless of the actual time frame. I'm willing to abandon that bit of simulationism for the sake of not making the Warlock character lousy during exciting, fast-paced bits of the campaign.

Zalabim

2017-03-11, 04:46 AM

it's typically [1]a chaff fight where the heroes make a dramatic entrance (with non-protagonist back-up optional), [2]a slightly challenging fight that's mostly there to show the team functioning as a well-oiled machine, [3]a battle against the BBEG's lieutenants[or more], and then finally [4]against the BBEG.
And the BBEG usually doesn't go down the first time they face him, so that's 5+. This fits in perfectly fine on the adventure day XP.

You know what's more common? The setup is that there's an opening fight that may or may not point towards the bigger storyline. Then, an investigation phase where heroes talk to people and visit locales and start traveling which takes a bare minimum of several hours and sometimes even several days. The heroes might get attacked by chaff mobs during the investigation second phase, but the team getting attacked more than twice never happens since it just slows things down and is bad writing. Third, there's a combat phase where things start to mesh together. Then finally the fourth phase: the big climax. Sometimes phase three and four are combined. It's also common to have ANOTHER investigation phase between the third and fourth phase. Note that both variations are still more common than the 'gauntlet of enemies'.
So there's a fight, then a period of mixed combat and non-combat scenes topped with an important battle, then a final battle with maybe a period of non-combat before it. How is that not an adventure split up by one or more short rests?

but the entire deal took 6 hours with a 30 minute break as it was. Yes, the other problem with this setup is that there is often just straight up not enough game time to do 5-6 encounters in a workday, and we're talking about a setup that has minimal roleplaying and continuity.
My group usually plays for 4 or 5 hours a week, and we typically only have one combat per session. We just put the game on pause until we come back next week instead of ending every session with a long rest.

JellyPooga

2017-03-11, 07:27 AM

5-6 Encounters =/= 5-6 Combat Encounters

You know what's more common? The setup is that there's an opening fight...Encounter 1
...that may or may not point towards the bigger storyline. Then, an investigation phase where heroes talk to people and visit locales...Encounters 2-4
...and start traveling which takes a bare minimum of several hours and sometimes even several days.Encounter 5+ and cut to travel montage/next adventure locale.

This applies wherever you are; down a dungeon, for example, you might have a work-day of;
1) Fight
2) Trap
- Short Rest
3) Search room for clue and decipher it
4) Explore and find secret tunel
5) Fight
- Short Rest
6) Big Fight
- Long Rest

Only about a third of encounters should be fights, on average. Any more than that and you're playing a high-octane "Action" game which breaks the "norm" of the design expectations.

Misterwhisper

2017-03-11, 07:34 AM

In my last campaign i was playing in, we had combat 6 times total from level 1 to 14, where dice hit the table.
3 of the six happened at level 1 and 2.
Only 1 fight lasted more than 2 rounds.
One 2 of the fights happend in the same session.

Technically you could call it 5 fights really.

The last fight we were in was the main villain and his army of goons and bodyguard.

As soon as the fight started the wizard in out group just force caged the main villain.
No save, no way out, just sat there for a hour while we killed his backup, then spent the other 58 mins going through loot, having a meal, and just one round killed him when it wore off.

mephnick

2017-03-11, 07:46 AM

5E D&D should've realized that the 'you have a limited amount of time to complete your objectives, GO!' or the 'you're stuck in a dungeon and can't leave until you beat it, GO!' are the minority of action-adventure fantasy stories

The minority of RPG sessions maybe, but traditionally that's all D&D has been about. Go to site, kill monsters at site, get loot. Use social skills to avoid monsters and get loot if needed.

D&D is not a system for investigation or intricately woven story-telling and it never has been. The problem is that even the managers of the brand are forgetting that now, so you get what the system is (fight/explore at adventure site) clashing with what WotC wants you to think it is (tell any story you want!: the RPG). The adventure day is fine, or even too little as Tanarii says, for what D&D is supposed to be about.

Specter

2017-03-11, 07:57 AM

I've never been in a campaign where there were six fights in a day spontaneously. This only happened on things like tournaments and contests, where we knew of the numerous fights ahead. I assume OP is right.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 08:37 AM

D&D is not a system for investigation or intricately woven story-telling and it never has been. The problem is that even the managers of the brand are forgetting that now, so you get what the system is (fight/explore at adventure site) clashing with what WotC wants you to think it is (tell any story you want!: the RPG). The adventure day is fine, or even too little as Tanarii says, for what D&D is supposed to be about.

The system is (in 5e at least) flexible enough to allow for non-fighty parts. I mean, yes the mechanics do still support dungeon crawling but that's not all they can be used for now.

I do agree with the thing about players not taking enough rests. I call it the Pillars of Eternity syndrome, where it seems like they take a long rest after every single fight (or diplomatic incident). I've put in a sort of time limit where they've got a fortnight till things get critical and I think that's encouraged them to push themselves harder.

Steampunkette

2017-03-11, 08:42 AM

In a book, having lots of fights takes up tons of pages, a limited resource. In a movie, lots of fights take up lots of time, a limited resource.

In a tabletop game? There's always next week to finish the game.

This is, primarily, an issue of expectations. You want the game to be a movie or book instead of a game. It can't be that while retaining the old school D&D feel.

Maybe check out Savage Worlds?

Deathtongue

2017-03-11, 08:47 AM

5-6 Encounters =/= 5-6 Combat Encounters
Are you sure about that? Non-combat encounters in the form of traps or obstacles tend to be distinctly non-resource draining. Unless it's ridiculous like a falling rock trap that does 20d10 damage, I don't even count non-combat encounters in terms of thinking about attrition.

Nonetheless, everything I've seen puts that the typical 5E D&D workday is supposed to be 5-6 encounters.

I might just be unfamiliar with the background, but what does "balancing around 5-6 encounters" actually mean in terms of the game? Is t just hat characters with long-rest-reset abilities are given enough of them to last through 5-6 encounters, and so if they face less per long rest they are overpowered?This is what I'm thinking.

D&D is not a system for investigation or intricately woven story-telling and it never has been. The problem is that even the managers of the brand are forgetting that now, so you get what the system is (fight/explore at adventure site) clashing with what WotC wants you to think it is (tell any story you want!: the RPG). The adventure day is fine, or even too little as Tanarii says, for what D&D is supposed to be about.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this logic even a little bit. If D&D has worked this way for at least 17 years then... the game is in fact a 'tell any story you want!: the RPG'. We can talk all day about how D&D fulfills that concept, but make no mistake, that's the game as she is played for at least two decades. The game you're describing is actually the anachronism, assuming D&D actually did work like that prior to 3rd. I haven't played much of 2E or earlier, but considering that there are 2E D&D books that tell you how to play as a Viking or Crusader I bet it goes back even longer than my conservative estimate.

If the people who produce source and genre material, let alone the people who put out similar TTRPG fantasy products, let alone let alone the actual D&D game designers think that the core conceit of D&D pacing should be ignored, why should 5E D&D keep it? There's no overriding marketing or creative reason for it. There's not even an abstract game balance reason for it, since you can just reduce the number of long-rest resources players get. It's just... there.

Deathtongue

2017-03-11, 09:02 AM

In a book, having lots of fights takes up tons of pages, a limited resource. In a movie, lots of fights take up lots of time, a limited resource.

In a tabletop game? There's always next week to finish the game.The atomic length of a D&D workday needing to be split across two real-world sessions it is a serious concern. Because, as much as D&D fans hate to admit it, tables are fragile beasts. People invite their girl/boyfriends for a session, people show up from out of town to sling dice, people show up on meetup.com to give the game a try, people can only meet once a month, etc.. It's a good idea for a possible D&D session with exposition / rising action / climax / denouement to be caught in 3-6 hours. This doesn't have to be a default or even a common assumption, but it needs to be possible. Which is possible to do with a 2-3 encounter workday, but not 5-6 without paring things down drastically or harming game balance.

But more abstractly than that, having lots of fights violates dramatic structure regardless of the feasibility of actually depicting them. You know what we call fights and episodes in television shows (especially anime) that just exist to take up running time and don't really advance the metaplot? Filler. They're looked down upon for a reason. And though content creators are aware of the problems of filler and do a lot of things to mitigate them (use the opportunity to do character development, try to tie loose ends into the metaplot, increase the humor/wackiness, etc.) it still remains a very naughty word in the context of serial fiction.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:06 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this logic even a little bit. If D&D has worked this way for at least 17 years then... the game is in fact a 'tell any story you want!: the RPG'. We can talk all day about how D&D fulfills that concept, but make no mistake, that's the game as she is played for at least two decades. The game you're describing is actually the anachronism, assuming D&D actually did work like that prior to 3rd. You're crazy. D&D has never been 'tell any story you want!: the RPG' and it still isn't. It is not a story-telling game, it is not a horror game, it is not a political game. What it is, is a game of wilderness and dungeon adventuring, with maybe the occasional urban adventure. Even modules are set up that way ... and I'll note modules often SUCK, usually when they think D&D is about telling stories.

I also missed you're making a mistake of assuming an adventuring day = a session. That right there is an anachronism. I've tried that, because I run a very grognard style of campaign using the 5e rule set, and even I couldn't make that happen. It takes a 4 hr session that's using a very fast-paced adventure written specifically to make an adventure that short for that happen, like AL expeditions adventures.

The problem here is system expectations. You're expecting D&D to be something it isn't, then complaining when it doesn't work the way you want.

Not only that, you clearly haven't even tried to make it work the way you want. If you had, you'd have done something like settled into rhythm of adventuring day = 2 Easy non-combat encounter, Deadly fight, 2 Easy non-combat encounters, Deady Fight.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:08 AM

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:15 AM

Maybe back in the old days, I don't know, but 5e does have provisions for a game that contains politics and horror in it.

(Though I do agree that it takes a fair bit of effort to incorporate those aspects and have it feel natural, it can be done)
No. It really doesn't. All it has is sanity. Sanity doesn't make a horror system. What it takes is the sure knowledge that you character is doomed no matter what. That eventually they will die and be lost forever. But you're going to struggle to win the fight anyway.

That flies in the face of too many built-in assumptions of D&D. Even in the character-tree grinding mill type of D&D, the assumption of D&D is if you are smart and careful, you will make it out alive.

About the closes you can come to proper horror genre with D&D is to bust out tomb of horrors with someone that's never played it before. And even then they'll probably just complain you're a bad-'instant kill with no warning'-DM

Edit: but this is all a side issue. As I said, it's entirely possible to set up an adventuring with 2 Deadly fights and 4 Easy (ie non-resource draining) non-combat encounters.

Deleted

2017-03-11, 09:18 AM

JellyPooga

2017-03-11, 09:19 AM

Are you sure about that? Non-combat encounters in the form of traps or obstacles tend to be distinctly non-resource draining. Unless it's ridiculous like a falling rock trap that does 20d10 damage, I don't even count non-combat encounters in terms of thinking about attrition.

Pretty sure. The very existence of spells like Knock, Charm Person and all the other utility/social spells confirms it. Likewise for abilities like Bardic Inspiration and some of the Cleric Domain abilities. Resources can and will be expended outside of combat encounters.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:20 AM

No. It really doesn't. All it has is sanity. Sanity doesn't make a horror system. What it takes is the sure knowledge that you character is doomed no matter what. That eventually they will die and be lost forever. But you're going to struggle to win the fight anyway.

That flies in the face of too many built-in assumptions of D&D. Even in the character-tree grinding mill type of D&D, the assumption of D&D is if you are smart and careful, you will make it out alive.

About the closes you can come to proper horror genre with D&D is to bust out tomb of horrors with someone that's never played it before. And even then they'll probably just complain you're a bad-'instant kill with no warning'-DM

Not mechanical horror obviously, this isn't call of Cthulu.
I mean the other kind of horror. Like, giant piles of corpses moving around or cannibal trolls or whatever the DM can make scary. If the DM is imaginitive enough even relatively mundane monsters can be made terrifying.

It's not a Minotaur, it's a "twisted abomination of writhing, corded muscle. Bones jut out that shouldn't be there and the horns of a giant bull that issue from its misshapen skull are garbed in tendrils of sinew and nerves"

Deleted

2017-03-11, 09:22 AM

Not mechanical horror obviously, this isn't call of Cthulu.
I mean the other kind of horror. Like, giant piles of corpses moving around or cannibal trolls or whatever the DM can make scary. If the DM is imaginitive enough even relatively mundane monsters can be made terrifying.

It's not a Minotaur, it's a "twisted abomination of writhing, corded muscle. Bones jut out that shouldn't be there and the horns of a giant bull that issue from its misshapen skull are garbed in tendrils of sinew and nerves"

D&D doesn't give you the resources to do this. The GM/Players do.

Square Peg (Horror) + Round Hole (D&D 5e) + Really Big Hammer (GM/Players) = 5e D&D Horror Game.

I'm starting to think that WotC/Hasbro wants to mold D&D into Gurps but doesn't understand how to do it.

Strill

2017-03-11, 09:23 AM

5-6 Encounters =/= 5-6 Combat Encounters

Encounter 1Encounters 2-4Encounter 5+ and cut to travel montage/next adventure locale.

This applies wherever you are; down a dungeon, for example, you might have a work-day of;
1) Fight
2) Trap
- Short Rest
3) Search room for clue and decipher it
4) Explore and find secret tunel
5) Fight
- Short Rest
6) Big Fight
- Long Rest

Only about a third of encounters should be fights, on average. Any more than that and you're playing a high-octane "Action" game which breaks the "norm" of the design expectations. The whole point of measuring an adventuring day in "Encounters" is the assumption that each encounter will drain some of the party's resources, either HP, Hit Dice, spells, etc... If you're looking at things that aren't draining any resources and calling them "encounters", then you're not using the system correct.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:25 AM

It's not an encounter if it doesn't drain any of the party's resources.
Easy encounters don't have to drain any significant resources.

That's why many non-combat encounters will often be Easy encounters.

DMG p82: "Easy. An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed."

Strill

2017-03-11, 09:25 AM

Easy encounters don't have to drain any significant resources.

That's why many non-combat encounters will often be Easy encounters.

They drain some of your hp.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:26 AM

They drain some of your hp.

That is not required.

Deleted

2017-03-11, 09:28 AM

The whole point of measuring an adventuring day in "Encounters" is the assumption that each encounter will drain some of the party's resources, either HP, Hit Dice, spells, etc... If you're looking at things that aren't draining any resources and calling them "encounters", then you're not using the system correct.

That doesnt sound right...

DM: There is a guard at the gate, you need to get to the other side...

Rogue: I used my expertise in persuasion to explain to the guard that he should let us pass...

- Not an encounter.

====

DM: There is a guard at the gate, you need to get to the other side...

Wizard: I cast suggestion on the guard.

- Encounter

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:28 AM

D&D doesn't give you the resources to do this. The GM/Players do.

Square Peg (Horror) + Round Hole (D&D 5e) + Really Big Hammer (GM/Players) = 5e D&D Horror Game.

They don't give you the resources but they do give you a flexible framework. I'm not expecting the game to GM for me. In fact, I find it less work to roleplay diplomatic stuff than flat out fights since I don't have to keep track of how many "cunning arguments" and "legendary puns" the various rulers and ambassadors can use.

What 5e does is be very rules light outside of combat and rules heavy within it. This means that when the situation is life and death players know the score, but when its not the game doesn't get bogged down. I find that duality if not intentional than at the very least a happy accident.

Strill

2017-03-11, 09:32 AM

Deleted

2017-03-11, 09:33 AM

They don't give you the resources but they do give you a flexible framework. I'm not expecting the game to GM for me. In fact, I find it less work to roleplay diplomatic stuff than flat out fights since I don't have to keep track of how many "cunning arguments" and "legendary puns" the various rulers and ambassadors can use.

What 5e does is be very rules light outside of combat and rules heavy within it. This means that when the situation is life and death players know the score, but when its not the game doesn't get bogged down. I find that duality if not intentional than at the very least a happy accident.

Not giving you something isn't the same as giving you something.

You can't say I feed you when all I give you is a picture of food. Sure you could eat the paper but that would probably make you sick.

Rules light isn't a bad thing but dont pretend that its giving you something that it isn't.

And really, 5e D&D may be rules lighter than previous editions but it is no means a rules lite game. The vastly different number of attacks you can do (weapon attack, spell attack, unarmed attack, improvised weapon attack, etc...) says otherwise.

Rules Lighter than 2e/3e/4e doesn't make the system rules light.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:33 AM

Not mechanical horror obviously, this isn't call of Cthulu.
I mean the other kind of horror. Like, giant piles of corpses moving around or cannibal trolls or whatever the DM can make scary. If the DM is imaginitive enough even relatively mundane monsters can be made terrifying.

It's not a Minotaur, it's a "twisted abomination of writhing, corded muscle. Bones jut out that shouldn't be there and the horns of a giant bull that issue from its misshapen skull are garbed in tendrils of sinew and nerves"
The only kind of terrifying I've found works against players in a D&D game is the thought you might take their stuff. :smallyuk:

Seriously though, players are never scared of descriptions of horrific things. Or disgusted. At best, they're worried they're facing something they can't win against in a straight fight. And that kind of ambiguity can be done with most any creature. With appropriate describing.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:35 AM

The onus is on the GM to make sure that the challenges that they face the party with are draining the party's resources.

To an extent, but it is to the party's credit if they are able to succeed without spending resources. Part of resource management is not spending them at every opportunity.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:41 AM

And really, 5e D&D may be rules lighter than previous editions but it is no means a rules lite game. The vastly different number of attacks you can do (weapon attack, spell attack, unarmed attack, improvised weapon attack, etc...) says otherwise.

Rules Lighter than 2e/3e/4e doesn't make the system rules light.

That's what I mean. It's rules heavy when it comes to combat, and rules light outside of it - did you even read my comment?

If DnD was billed as a diplomatic game where you had loads of different diplomatic systems I would like it less for that purpose than what you get in 5e since I find too many rules cumbersome in politics situations.

If DnD was billed as a rules-light game where every aspect of combat is roleplayed I would like it less since the heavy rules give combat context. The rules for combat are necessary, not cumbersome in my mind since that is when the stakes are highest and every decision must be weighed carefully.

It's this combination which I like. I haven't been given a picture of food, I've been given the courses I like and not the ones which I don't like.

Deleted

2017-03-11, 09:44 AM

The onus is on the GM to make sure that the challenges that they face the party with are draining the party's resources.

Except, expending reaources is a character choice. A DM can't force a player to expend a resource.

If the players go up against something deadly and all the Martials roll crits and kill it in one round... Was that not an encounter?

And yes, I've seen that happen on more than once. Many times since the 90's has a deadly monster been felled early by crits.

Also, you aren't running your game fairly. Saying you must expend something in order for it to be an encounter is punishing players for thinking outside their character sheets.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 09:50 AM

That's what I mean. It's rules heavy when it comes to combat, and rules light outside of it - did you even read my comment?You can't claim that it's a system of rules for a certain type of game because it doesn't really have any rules for them.

I mean ... you can and just did claim that. But it doesn't make much sense. :smallbiggrin:

Deathtongue

2017-03-11, 09:54 AM

You're crazy. D&D has never been 'tell any story you want!: the RPG' and it still isn't. It is not a story-telling game, it is not a horror game, it is not a political game. What it is, is a game of wilderness and dungeon adventuring, with maybe the occasional urban adventure.As an aside, I really hate how Storytelling Game references to a very specific playstyle and rules setup in the vein of Apocalypse World or Mouseguard, rather than just, 'we use the backdrop of rules and procedural generation to create stories'. Maybe that was the confusion?

Nonetheless, I don't believe this for one second. When people tell some other fantasy normie or interested nerd why they should play Dungeons and Dragons instead of, say, Final Fantasy or Dragon Age they almost never lead with a description of Gygaxian dungeon design. When they make the elevator pitch, it's almost always about the possibility of playing a fantasy hero whom acts and affects the story that isn't already written and that you can do anything in your abilities and blah de blah.

We can argue all day about how much 5E D&D, or any D&D, actually implements that sales pitch. It's one of my overriding areas of concern. But make no mistake, as IMO poorly as it implements that vision, D&D is a game to create stories. The D&D brand and experience, even though it has the word 'dungeons' in the name, can survive without dungeons. See: Planescape and Spelljammer. It can't survive without its storytelling elements. People would abandon it for Fantasy Mass Effect or whatever.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-11, 09:54 AM

You can't claim that it's a system of rules for a certain type of game because it doesn't really have any rules for them.

I mean ... you can and just did claim that. But it doesn't make much sense. :smallbiggrin:

Not having a rule for something can be as telling as having rules for it.

I'm not saying the kind of campaign I've been running (a weird sort of sandbox with politics, civil wars, and secret conspiracies) is what the system has been designed for, just that by either intention or accident it runs that sort of campaign really well.

That's what I'm claiming. DnD 5e has a lot more options than just the traditional dungeon crawling. Not to say I don't like the traditional dungeon crawl, I do, but I like some other things that it does really well as well.

Spiritchaser

2017-03-11, 09:56 AM

I personally don't like the feel and playstyle of the short rest/long rest resource management model, but I do have to admit it has one thing going for it: It's relatively simple from a book keeping point of view.

I'm far more partial to a number of points that regenerate over time, with full regeneration of most abilities after only a short rest. and with cooldowns for key powers, more akin to the systems in a modern MMO, but for the most part, that leads to an accounting nightmare.

I did try to come up with something once but dismissed it as too fussy, and it resulted in a lot of extra rules to prevent very high levels of healing.

That having been said: I'm currently running the warlock on a spell point system and that's working well with a few caveats. The next campaign I'm going to seriously consider running everyone that way, more or less.

I still WANT some kind of persistent, universal resource regeneration, but it just breaks too many things that I can't be bothered to fix.

Deathtongue

2017-03-11, 09:58 AM

Easy encounters don't have to drain any significant resources.

That's why many non-combat encounters will often be Easy encounters.

DMG p82: "Easy. An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed."Unless they're supposed to advance the plot or develop a character, these shouldn't exist at all. There's nothing wrong in abstract about an 'easy' encounter consisting of, say, a stray goblin patrol in the wrong place at the wrong time or zombies breaking out of their pens. But when the setup of the game encourages the DM to stick them in there to adhere to encounter guidelines, heedless of the overarching needs of the plot, it's a bad piece of game design.

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 09:58 AM

That doesnt sound right...

DM: There is a guard at the gate, you need to get to the other side...

Rogue: I used my expertise in persuasion to explain to the guard that he should let us pass...

- Not an encounter.

====

DM: There is a guard at the gate, you need to get to the other side...

Wizard: I cast suggestion on the guard.

- Encounter

Both are equally an encoutner.
In case #1 the character make use of abilities he choosed in order to succeed with minimal ressources expenditure (in this case 0, Yeah!). On a fail persuasion check, he would have to spend more ressources to get by the guard.

In case #2, the character decided to spend a ressource (1 spell slot) because he believe he had a better chance of success this way rather than using a persuasion check.

There could have been a case #3 where the character decide to knock the guard out, this could have led to a fight where the character, may have spent more ressources (HP, healing, etc.)

Steampunkette

2017-03-11, 10:01 AM

The atomic length of a D&D workday needing to be split across two real-world sessions it is a serious concern. Because, as much as D&D fans hate to admit it, tables are fragile beasts. People invite their girl/boyfriends for a session, people show up from out of town to sling dice, people show up on meetup.com to give the game a try, people can only meet once a month, etc.. It's a good idea for a possible D&D session with exposition / rising action / climax / denouement to be caught in 3-6 hours. This doesn't have to be a default or even a common assumption, but it needs to be possible. Which is possible to do with a 2-3 encounter workday, but not 5-6 without paring things down drastically or harming game balance.

But more abstractly than that, having lots of fights violates dramatic structure regardless of the feasibility of actually depicting them. You know what we call fights and episodes in television shows (especially anime) that just exist to take up running time and don't really advance the metaplot? Filler. They're looked down upon for a reason. And though content creators are aware of the problems of filler and do a lot of things to mitigate them (use the opportunity to do character development, try to tie loose ends into the metaplot, increase the humor/wackiness, etc.) it still remains a very naughty word in the context of serial fiction.

So... No. I disagree.

I've been running Storm King's Thunder for several months. Once a week, on Monday evenings. The core story for SKT has a clear progression of story in the dramatic structure you're referring to. Each "Day" of the adventure doesn't need that progression separately from the core story. It's got a pretty epic central storyline that holds well across multiple weeks of missed gaming and retains pretty strong feelings, at least in my group.

Can they have it? Sure. There's a Vampire in Womford that you can deal with as an interesting sidequest with the whole dramatic storytelling method. There's trolls raiding villages on the Evermoors. The Zhentarim have basically taken over one village gangland style. And each of these sidequests can be a part of the overarching story and their own self-contained adventures... Filler Episodes, as you put it. They fill out the world and give your players something to do for characters who won't be there, next week. Each with their own dramatic structure right out of a Textbook.

Or you can skip them and rush straight through the core story, with the rising action split out over several weeks and an ever growing sense of urgency rising through it all. Or you could Marathon the whole game over a week or two on Spring Break with your whole gaming group trading hosting duties every night by moving house-to-house for spending the nights.

There's different ways to play the game. Not all of them fit into the rigid narrative structure that works best for books and movies. Not all of them work at all tables or all the time. But they exist.

If you're looking for a game which has the strict narrative feel you're looking for, where the adventure itself maxes out at 2-3 encounters per day, I -HIGHLY RECOMMEND- Savage Worlds.

Hit points are limited, spellcasting ability is limited, healing takes time, and a single sword-stroke can end an encounter through exploding dice. Bennies aren't exactly plentiful, either.

It sounds like it would better conform to the type of narrative you're looking for, rather than endlessly arguing about how other people playing D&D without following your genre specific requirements is BadWrongFun.

Strill

2017-03-11, 10:02 AM

Except, expending reaources is a character choice. A DM can't force a player to expend a resource.Sure they can. If you don't spend a resource, and fail because of it, you're forced to spend some other resource. For example, if a player chooses not to cast Hypnotic Pattern, the party will lose more HP in the fight. If a player doesn't spend a spell slot to decipher the secret message, the walk into an ambush. If a player doesn't cast Pass Without Trace, and is noticed, the guards will be on alert, and future encounters will be more dangerous.

If the players go up against something deadly and all the Martials roll crits and kill it in one round... Was that not an encounter?

And yes, I've seen that happen on more than once. Many times since the 90's has a deadly monster been felled early by crits.

Also, you aren't running your game fairly. Saying you must expend something in order for it to be an encounter is punishing players for thinking outside their character sheets.

Random variance happens. The point is that there was at least the risk of spending resources.

I'm far more partial to a number of points that regenerate over time, with full regeneration of most abilities after only a short rest. and with cooldowns for key powers, more akin to the systems in a modern MMO

You just described D&D 4th edition.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 10:13 AM

heedless of the overarching needs of the plotRPGs aren't about telling stories. They are about players making decisions for their characters.

Edit: most RPGs. There are a few systems out there that label themself 'Roleplaying game' that are specifically designed to tell stories instead of being about players making decisions for their characters. But the majority of them aren't about that.

Random variance happens. The point is that there was at least the risk of spending resources.Except, as noted, for Easy encounters. Which means that non-combat encounters can easily be reward XP as the DMG encourages you to as Easy encounters, even if they aren't intended to cost resources.

Rhedyn

2017-03-11, 10:18 AM

This thread is based off a false assumption.

5e isn't balanced. It doesn't matter how many encounters per day you have.

EvilAnagram

2017-03-11, 10:23 AM

toapat

2017-03-11, 10:23 AM

It sounds like it would better conform to the type of narrative you're looking for, rather than endlessly arguing about how other people playing D&D without following your genre specific requirements is BadWrongFun.

i think an even better counterargument to Deathtongue's is this:

Samurai Jack mechanically in DnD terms is basically just a battlemaster Fighter with a Longsword. until the resurgence with Season 5 next week, Jack spent 52 episodes of combat encounters with threat ranging from Easy (Mecha-Scarabs vs the talking dogs) to Impossible (Well of Wishes Sentries), using unique combat styles with his limited kit (White Kimono, Hairpin, Holy Avenger) and minimal dialogue bordering on being virtually a Mute protagonist. if jack has more than 200 words of dialogue in the first 4 seasons id be surprised. The series is compelling based almost solely through being visually beautiful, extremely contrasting, and its a series almost entirely of Figurative Positioning for 2 minutes into nonstop action.

Now: Tanarii and Deleted:

what systems are required for a horror experience to be effective while neither being Sanity's Deathclock or bad DMing in forcibly splitting the party through contrivance or such? Id love if we got a mutations ruleset for Steven Lumpkin's idea of "the world is Chaos, and Civilization is order. To become more powerful is to become more worldly, and thus less civilized." that he implemented in the Roleplay: Westmarches oneshot series.

i wont say DnD 5th ed supports horror, but thats because well, the only really horrifying enemy is the Int Devourer, which attacks in a way the players can never be prepared for

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 10:25 AM

RPGs aren't about telling stories. They are about players making decisions for their characters.

Edit: most RPGs. There are a few systems out there that label themself 'Roleplaying game' that are specifically designed to tell stories instead of being about players making decisions for their characters. But the majority of them aren't about that.

I tend to disagree with you. One doesn't exclude another. When playing through a campaing, or a series of adventure, brings up character development, you create relationship with other characters and npc. So in the end you did tell a story. The difference is that is was more through actions and decision making, than through telling a narrative.

Strill

2017-03-11, 10:29 AM

This thread is based off a false assumption.

5e isn't balanced. It doesn't matter how many encounters per day you have.
A nihilistic attitude is not productive.

Deleted

2017-03-11, 10:32 AM

Both are equally an encoutner.
In case #1 the character make use of abilities he choosed in order to succeed with minimal ressources expenditure (in this case 0, Yeah!). On a fail persuasion check, he would have to spend more ressources to get by the guard.

In case #2, the character decided to spend a ressource (1 spell slot) because he believe he had a better chance of success this way rather than using a persuasion check.

There could have been a case #3 where the character decide to knock the guard out, this could have led to a fight where the character, may have spent more ressources (HP, healing, etc.)

Yeah, that's my point. They are all encounters.

Sure they can. If you don't spend a resource, and fail because of it, you're forced to spend some other resource. For example, if a player chooses not to cast Hypnotic Pattern, the party will lose more HP in the fight. If a player doesn't spend a spell slot to decipher the secret message, the walk into an ambush. If a player doesn't cast Pass Without Trace, and is noticed, the guards will be on alert, and future encounters will be more dangerous.

Random variance happens. The point is that there was at least the risk of spending resources.

You just described D&D 4th edition.

Failing an encounter doesn't stop it from being an encounter. That's circular logic bro.

As a DM, you can't force a player to chose to expend resources. If you do, you are a bad DM. Forcefully saying "your character extends a spell slot to cast fireball" or "your character takes 10 damage from the orf axe, the orc doesn't need an attack roll" are all signs of a bad DM.

You can lead a PC to water, but you can't make them cast cone of cold on the sahaugin.

This thread is based off a false assumption.

5e isn't balanced. It doesn't matter how many encounters per day you have.

Oh definitely. More balanced than core 3e, waaaay less balanced than tier 3 3e and 4e.

toapat

2017-03-11, 10:32 AM

I tend to disagree with you.

Tanarii is inelegantly wielding that sledgehammer, but if you think RPG's are about stories your actually looking too retrospectively at your experiences.

In Play there is only as much story as the DM has frameworked out, and the rest of the story is an emergent factor of the procession of encounters and interactions between the players as a whole.

Tapestry (Narative emergent from past sessions) > Weaving (Current session at the table) > Interaction Threads (Next session)

Oh definitely. More balanced than core 3e, waaaay less balanced than tier 3 3e and 4e.

3E is, except for druid, exactly as broken as 3.5 before you get into Suplemental Hax like Ice assassin

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 10:38 AM

I tend to disagree with you. One doesn't exclude another. When playing through a campaing, or a series of adventure, brings up character development, you create relationship with other characters and npc. So in the end you did tell a story. The difference is that is was more through actions and decision making, than through telling a narrative.Youre confusing taking something that has happened as a result of player decision making and making a story out of it, with telling a story during a game.

Now: Tanarii and Deleted:

what systems are required for a horror experience to be effective while neither being Sanity's Deathclock or bad DMing in forcibly splitting the party through contrivance or such? Id love if we got a mutations ruleset for Steven Lumpkin's idea of "the world is Chaos, and Civilization is order. To become more powerful is to become more worldly, and thus less civilized." that he implemented in the Roleplay: Westmarches oneshot series.http://theangrygm.com/driving-your-players-crazy/

Edit:

Tanarii is inelegantly wielding that sledgehammer, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

Strill

2017-03-11, 10:43 AM

As a DM, you can't force a player to chose to expend resources. If you do, you are a bad DM. Forcefully saying "your character extends a spell slot to cast fireball" or "your character takes 10 damage from the orf axe, the orc doesn't need an attack roll" are all signs of a bad DM.

I couldn't care less about individual rolls. They're completely irrelevant when you're talking about designing the adventuring day. What matters is the average result over the long term. Any situation where a monster is attacking you is one where you're losing resources in the long term, and the players cannot avoid that.

ad_hoc

2017-03-11, 10:46 AM

As a player, I appreciate the game doing this. It makes things much easier than they should be. Why? Because the 5-6 encounter workday is not a thing that happens even in published content.

I have played Lost Mines, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Out of the Abyss, and Curse of Strahd and they all follow these guidelines for most of their chapters.

I think it is just right.

Deleted

2017-03-11, 10:48 AM

Tanarii is inelegantly wielding that sledgehammer, but if you think RPG's are about stories your actually looking too retrospectively at your experiences.

In Play there is only as much story as the DM has frameworked out, and the rest of the story is an emergent factor of the procession of encounters and interactions between the players as a whole.

Tapestry (Narative emergent from past sessions) > Weaving (Current session at the table) > Interaction Threads (Next session)

3E is, except for druid, exactly as broken as 3.5 before you get into Suplemental Hax like Ice assassin

I dont know a single person who doesn't use the term 3e and 3.5 interchangeably as they are the same system but one updated the other. 3e stuff still works with the 3.5 rules if it didnt get addressed during the 3.5 rules (which is where some messed up stuff comes from because of the mixture of 3e and 3.5). They are, in essence, a single system.

Hell, for the most part you can put Pathfinder under that banner too.

Besides, for tier 3, the druid would never have been in the equation.

Edit====

I couldn't care less about individual rolls. They're completely irrelevant when you're talking about designing the adventuring day. What matters is the average result over the long term. Any situation where a monster is attacking you is one where you're losing resources in the long term, and the players cannot avoid that.

So an encounter is only an encounter when you use your circular logic to justify that its an encounter and you have no respect for the players of your game.

Ok, remind me to stay the hell away from your table because you make bashing my head into a wall sound more appealing dealing with your "me me me" style of DMing.

Steampunkette

2017-03-11, 10:49 AM

what systems are required for a horror experience to be effective while neither being Sanity's Deathclock or bad DMing in forcibly splitting the party through contrivance or such? Id love if we got a mutations ruleset for Steven Lumpkin's idea of "the world is Chaos, and Civilization is order. To become more powerful is to become more worldly, and thus less civilized." that he implemented in the Roleplay: Westmarches oneshot series.

i wont say DnD 5th ed supports horror, but thats because well, the only really horrifying enemy is the Int Devourer, which attacks in a way the players can never be prepared for

For my part: 5e works just fine for a Horror Game.

Because it's not just about what weapons you're wielding or whether or not they harm your enemies, it's about atmosphere and presentation, about narrative flow and generating fear.

That fear can be generated in multiple ways and HP loss is, perhaps, the weakest of those ways. Far better is the usurpation of normalcy, the slow grind of inevitability, and the rays of hope scattered to entice...

You can add all the "Horror Mechanics" you want to the game and it still won't be horror if you're fighting an orc in a 10ft by 10ft room for the Pie on the pedestal. True horror is so much more than mechanical considerations.

If you're looking for a campaign setting with amazing potential for horror through atmosphere and style, try Midnight. It's a world where the Evil God won and has banished the gods of good. Where evil people actively hunt those of good heart, where the populace is so terrified of the cruelty around them that they're more likely to turn you in than hide you in their barn for fear of torture.

It really creates a war-horror and specifically cold-war-horror feel. Who do you trust? How can you fight? With evil everywhere and seen as normal, how can any hero stand against the tide?

It's also great for games of intrigue and spywork, because you -know- everyone is evil, but you've gotta manipulate certain evil people to help you (whether willfully or not) to destroy a greater evil that threatens you both while managing to avoid getting stabbed in the back...

It's super depressing and paranoid type gaming!

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 10:56 AM

Youre confusing taking something that has happened as a result of player decision making and making a story out of it, with telling a story during a game.

As far as I'm consern, the storytelling aspect in RPGs is about building a story from your adventuring career. The story is always seen from a retrospective, and is not apparent when you are actually playing. Every action and decision you take contributes to the story, but you just don't how it will all turn out until the very end.

Now, people may have different interpretation of what storytelling is.

Strill

2017-03-11, 10:56 AM

So an encounter is only an encounter when you use your circular logic to justify that its an encounter and you have no respect for the players of your game.

Ok, remind me to stay the hell away from your table because you make bashing my head into a wall sound more appealing dealing with your "me me me" style of DMing.

It's an encounter when you lose resources on average.

If you think it's possible to play D&D in such a way that the players never use any resources, you're wrong. The players are caught in double-binds all the time where they must spend resources no matter their decisions.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 11:00 AM

As far as I'm consern, the storytelling aspect in RPGs is about building a story from your adventuring career. The story is always seen from a retrospective, and is not apparent when you are actually playing. Every action and decision you take contributes to the story, but you just don't how it will all turn out until the very end.
That's like saying the goal of living life is to tell a story at the end of it. :smallconfused:

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 11:03 AM

It's an encounter when you lose resources on average.

If you think it's possible to play D&D in such a way that the players never use any resources, you're wrong.

The key word is on average. If a party can deal with a series of encounter without expending any ressources, good for them, they were either lucky or used of good tactics. But on average, this won't happen often, and they will most of the time expend ressources and sometimes, more than they should have.
But saying that an encounter that don't use any ressources is not encounter is somehow misunderstanding what an encounter is.

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 11:06 AM

That's like saying the goal of living life is to tell a story at the end of it. :smallconfused:

In a sense, it is, but for most, you won't be able to enjoy it. While RPGs allow you to live many lives and you can enjoy retelling their story.

I'm curious, what would be your description of a storytelling game?

toapat

2017-03-11, 11:12 AM

You can add all the "Horror Mechanics" you want to the game and it still won't be horror if you're fighting an orc in a 10ft by 10ft room for the Pie on the pedestal. True horror is so much more than mechanical considerations.

If you're looking for a campaign setting with amazing potential for horror through atmosphere and style, try Midnight. It's a world where the Evil God won and has banished the gods of good. Where evil people actively hunt those of good heart, where the populace is so terrified of the cruelty around them that they're more likely to turn you in than hide you in their barn for fear of torture.

1: you got a bit preachy to a question i asked because the only horror mechanics i can think of are mutations and Sanity, and one of those is mechanical contrivance the other is a balance nightmare. I still prefer the idea of "Civilization vs the Primal world, and to fight the primal world you must become more like it and less like civilization.

2: Sounds like a great setting to go Knight-Templar on everyone's butts

Asmotherion

2017-03-11, 11:23 AM

Depends on the size of the encounters, the genre (in a hack and slash you expect much more encounters), and the DM specific rules.

The DMG gives us an example of 10 minute short rests and 1 hour long rests for more combat oriented scenarios, were you're expected to fight even more often than 6 encounters per day. On the other hand, as a DM you may want to force more realism: Go for 8 hour short rests, and a long rest takes a week. It all comes down to which aspect of D&D you want to focus on. If you expect heavy RP and optional encounters, or to emphasise the nececity of magical healing, go for the latter, if you want a more brutal scenario, go for the first.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 11:28 AM

In a sense, it is, but for most, you won't be able to enjoy it.That is quite insane.

While RPGs allow you to live many lives and you can enjoy retelling their story.There absolutely is a difference between life and an RPG game. Let me clear I don't thing they are the same thing, because that would also be insane.

So yeah, my comparison wasn't complete and there is some wiggle room, since you CAN make a story out of your adventures, after the fact.

I'm curious, what would be your description of a storytelling game?One in which the primary goal of the game sessions is to tell a story, not make decisions for character(s).

There are very few RPGs, even ones billed as 'storyteller' games, that actually meet that description.

Strill

2017-03-11, 11:48 AM

One in which the primary goal of the game sessions is to tell a story, not make decisions for character(s).

And what does that mean? I don't see any distinction.

toapat

2017-03-11, 12:02 PM

And what does that mean? I don't see any distinction.

Pendragon is lockstepped to the Authurian Mythology and you cant really do anything outside of it, as well of having a nasty habit of seizing control of a character from its player because of the player and not because of the DM being a raging ******* like CoC will.

Powered by the Apocalypse Bandwagoners also suffer from this, where Saga of the Icelanders doesnt even give the player paths of interaction without being certain builds

Steampunkette

2017-03-11, 12:05 PM

1: you got a bit preachy to a question i asked because the only horror mechanics i can think of are mutations and Sanity, and one of those is mechanical contrivance the other is a balance nightmare. I still prefer the idea of "Civilization vs the Primal world, and to fight the primal world you must become more like it and less like civilization.

2: Sounds like a great setting to go Knight-Templar on everyone's butts

I don't mean to get preachy. I just have this thing where I'm terrified that my point will get miscommunicated, especially online, so I tend to over-explain the crap out of any concept...

I'm sorry.

For mechanical fear, there is the Fear and Horror mechanics?

Any time someone is exposed to something that might be a Jump-Scare, or an enemy they know they can't defeats, they roll a wisdom save with a DC the DM sets or become frightened for 1 minute.

If they're exposed to something horrible, like soul-rending horror or anguish, they roll a charisma save or gain a madness.

It's, honestly, kind of dumb.

If I were to develop a fear-based system to mechanically reinforce the functions of horror I'd... well. I'll make a Homebrew forum thread for it.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518027-Horror-and-Fear-System&p=21796737#post21796737

Xetheral

2017-03-11, 12:07 PM

The problem here is system expectations. You're expecting D&D to be something it isn't, then complaining when it doesn't work the way you want.

Why do you assume that your expectations for what the system should be are more valid that anyone elses? Even if you were correct that D&D was historically limited to a very-specific niche, why do you assume that the modern iterations of the game aren't trying to evolve beyond those limitations? Doesn't the fact that so many people are trying to use D&D as a broadly-applicable tool, and are largely succeding in doing so, suggest that the system might be useful for a broader array of game types than you give it credit for?

Even if you do think D&D should remain confined to the niche you've identified, isn't it perfectly reasonable for people who disagree with you on that point to complain when specific aspects of the system aren't meeting their expectations? Why, as your argument suggests, should they only complain when the system doesn't meet your expectations?

Not only that, you clearly haven't even tried to make it work the way you want. If you had, you'd have done something like settled into rhythm of adventuring day = 2 Easy non-combat encounter, Deadly fight, 2 Easy non-combat encounters, Deady Fight.

That encounter structure still has balance problems. For example, with only two significant resource-expending encounters per day, Warlocks fall behind on spell slots.

When people tell some other fantasy normie or interested nerd why they should play Dungeons and Dragons instead of, say, Final Fantasy or Dragon Age they almost never lead with a description of Gygaxian dungeon design. When they make the elevator pitch, it's almost always about the possibility of playing a fantasy hero whom acts and affects the story that isn't already written and that you can do anything in your abilities and blah de blah.

Extremely insightful. Thank you.

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 12:20 PM

Why do you assume that your expectations for what the system should be are more valid that anyone elses? As usual, you're trying to put the cart before the horse, because you believe all opinions and expectations need to be considered valid, and reality needs to change to meet them. That is not the case. There is no should involved. I am talking about his expectations not matching what the system is. The system already meets my expectations for what the system is.

That encounter structure still has balance problems. For example, with only two significant resource-expending encounters per day, Warlocks fall behind on spell slots.I'd assume a DM would still want to get the Short rests in there, which would put the warlock in its normal (hotly debated) place.

But yes, stretching the system to the very edge of its design will stretch its resource management paradigm to the very edge. 3 Deadly fights in an adventuring day will play differently from 12 Easy combined combat / non-combat fights. And even though they're theoretically possible by the provided guidelines, it might break the system a little. Absolutely aren't a magical formula of 'this will always work'.

But if someone is not even going to try before complaining there is a problem, then the system can't be seen as the problem.

Pex

2017-03-11, 12:29 PM

Honestly, my players are almost always low on resources by the end of the day. There have been several dungeons in which theyou had to retreat because their resources had dried, or they faced the boss with two spell slots between them.

If your DM isn't balancing encounters around the assumptions of the system, that's on them.

That said, I think the official adventures don't do a great job meeting the encounter goals, though some are better than others.

If a significant number of DMs, accepting it is subjective on how many "significant number" is, aren't able to balance encounters around the assumptions of the system, then perhaps the problem is really the system working against the DMs because the assumptions are wrong.

pwykersotz

2017-03-11, 12:30 PM

One in which the primary goal of the game sessions is to tell a story, not make decisions for character(s).

That can be the GM's job and not the player's job. I'm running a game right now where the story is about a shadow fey that's messing with a village and his ultimate defeat as part of a larger story about a heroic legend. As such I've woven various scenarios together that illustrate what has happened and is happening. Within that are smaller stories about plights of the townsfolk.

The players, on the other hand, have complete freedom in how they approach the story or even if they engage at all. If they wander off to the next town, I won't stop them. Maybe they'll reform the fey. Maybe they'll kill him. Maybe they'll ignore him. I don't know, I don't write the end to these stories.

I'm telling a story, they're making decisions within a resolution framework. I think that qualifies as both types of system. Doesn't it?

Xetheral

2017-03-11, 01:08 PM

As usual, you're trying to put the cart before the horse, because you believe all opinions and expectations need to be considered valid, and reality needs to change to meet them. That is not the case. There is no should involved. I am talking about his expectations not matching what the system is. The system already meets my expectations for what the system is.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the question of "what the system is" is indeed a factual question about which someone can be correct or incorrect. Your reply implicitly claims that your understanding of "what the system is" is the correct one. What method do you propose we use to test that claim?

I posit that no such method exists. That isn't fatal to our original assumption that the question is factual, because there are plenty of factual questions which are not amenable to testing. But, if we can't test your claim, we cannot know whether it is correct or incorrect. In the absence of that knowledge, what reason is there to prefer your statement about "what the system is" over anyone elses?

I'd assume a DM would still want to get the Short rests in there, which would put the warlock in its normal (hotly debated) place.

If there are only two resource-depleting encounters in a day, then it doesn't matter if there is one short rest or twenty... the Warlock gets to replenish its spells only once.

joaber

2017-03-11, 01:22 PM

I never saw to much problem to balance that.
In my table, benefits for long or ahort rest are uncertain.
If party is travelling and doing like 2 encounter day, I use more DMG rule of day/week long and short rest. In a relly big dungeon, they can get shrines, potions or some for the benefit of long rest.
Player didn't like that random rest at beginig, they couldn't metagaming to use they resources. After 3 or 4 sessions they kind like enjoy how they start manager resources.
As DM you're free to adapt any thing to fit better in your campaing, just try to avoid like just one or two players shine all the time above the rest because you set one inflexible plan that benefit those two.

DanyBallon

2017-03-11, 01:22 PM

That is quite insane.

There absolutely is a difference between life and an RPG game. Let me clear I don't thing they are the same thing, because that would also be insane.

Why would that be insane? Can't you tell the story of those that came before you? Their life might not be made of epic stuff, but it's their story none the less.

One in which the primary goal of the game sessions is to tell a story, not make decisions for character(s).

There are very few RPGs, even ones billed as 'storyteller' games, that actually meet that description.

How can it be called a game if as a player you don't have any matter on character decision? :smallconfused: Isn't it like reading a book? Sincerely I have hard time figuring how it can be played :smallconfused:

Tanarii

2017-03-11, 02:15 PM

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the question of "what the system is" is indeed a factual question about which someone can be correct or incorrect. Your reply implicitly claims that your understanding of "what the system is" is the correct one. What method do you propose we use to test that claim?

I posit that no such method exists. That isn't fatal to our original assumption that the question is factual, because there are plenty of factual questions which are not amenable to testing. But, if we can't test your claim, we cannot know whether it is correct or incorrect. In the absence of that knowledge, what reason is there to prefer your statement about "what the system is" over anyone elses?To a degree, that's a fair point. (Also sorry if that was too personal. I got overly invested in my PoV.) I will have to think on that and come back at a later point, because coming up with something that is factual proof (that you will accept) will probably require researching Dev intent and D&D next play testing feedback. It's an interesting project though, so I'll keep it on my list of fun stuff to do.

But what I'm trying to stress is there's a difference between changing your expectations to meet what the system is (which I had to do a lot of for 5e, coming from 4e), and claiming that the system which was designed the way it was after extensive play testing and feedback needs to be changed to meet your personal expectations. (Or the OPs. Or 'You're' generically. Whatever)

If there are only two resource-depleting encounters in a day, then it doesn't matter if there is one short rest or twenty... the Warlock gets to replenish its spells only once.
It certainly doesn't matter if the players know. Certainly if you lock yourself into repetive play style the players will plan accordingly.

However, you got me dead to rights on the warlock side of thing, in that I can't claim that non-combat encounters can use resources too. So yeah, if the players get a short rest after the first deadly fight (at any point) then they have resources for the second. The warlock can't get another renewal unless it happens before he expends resources. The 'if the players know' only applies to Long Rest renewal. Hmmm...

Why would that be insane? Can't you tell the story of those that came before you? Their life might not be made of epic stuff, but it's their story none the less.Thats not the same thing as saying it is the purpose of living life while you live it.

How can it be called a game if as a player you don't have any matter on character decision? :smallconfused: Isn't it like reading a book? Sincerely I have hard time figuring how it can be played :smallconfused:Its effectively cooperative book writing. You don't decide what the character will do, you decide the scene, what is done, and what the result is, all based on the narrative requirements and furthering the plot. The focus is different. It's not my style of play typically but it can be a fun diversion even for me.

Steampunkette

2017-03-11, 03:40 PM

Thats not the same thing as saying it is the purpose of living life while you live it.

I've known a few people who live their lives with an eye on being amazing bar-stories and legends. :smallwink:

Deleted

2017-03-11, 03:43 PM

Why would that be insane? Can't you tell the story of those that came before you? Their life might not be made of epic stuff, but it's their story none the less.

How can it be called a game if as a player you don't have any matter on character decision? :smallconfused: Isn't it like reading a book? Sincerely I have hard time figuring how it can be played :smallconfused:

Not being able to distiguish between reality and fantasy is delusional and insanity.

Cybren

2017-03-11, 03:48 PM

I've known a few people who live their lives with an eye on being amazing bar-stories and legends. :smallwink:

George Washington was obsessed with posterity but to be fair that's because he kinda knew he would be a big deal. Towards the end of his life he went back and edited many of his personal letters.

Kurt Kurageous

2017-03-11, 04:48 PM

5-6 Encounters =/= 5-6 Combat Encounters

Pooga nails it here.

Instead of "encounter", try "scene." Each scene that has a possibility of failure is worth XP. Scenes advance the story (unless they are crappily designed scenes) and thus advance the characters.

Xetheral

2017-03-11, 07:12 PM

To a degree, that's a fair point. (Also sorry if that was too personal. I got overly invested in my PoV.) I will have to think on that and come back at a later point, because coming up with something that is factual proof (that you will accept) will probably require researching Dev intent and D&D next play testing feedback. It's an interesting project though, so I'll keep it on my list of fun stuff to do.

But what I'm trying to stress is there's a difference between changing your expectations to meet what the system is (which I had to do a lot of for 5e, coming from 4e), and claiming that the system which was designed the way it was after extensive play testing and feedback needs to be changed to meet your personal expectations. (Or the OPs. Or 'You're' generically. Whatever)

Thank you for the apology--it is appreciated.

If you do put together the evidence I'd be interested in seeing it. Fair warning though... as I'm sure doesn't surprise you, ultimately I don't agree with the for-sake-of-argument assumption that the question of "what the system is" is a factual one (largely because I don't think the question is well-defined), so convincing me may be tricky. On the other hand, putting together the evidence probably gives you a much better chance of convincing others to adopt your understanding of "what the system is". I see a reasoned argument that a particular problem is best solved by changing one's expectations entirely differently than a naked claim that others' expectations are incorrect.

Speaking of which, I do indeed agree that sometimes the best solution to a problem is to change the expectations that define the problem in the first place. But, for me, in such circumstances there is usually some other reason that makes other solutions unattractive. Changing one's expectations can be quite difficult. What led you to decide to change your expectations when you switched from 4e to 5e? If the new system didn't meet your original expectations to the degree you suggest, why did you decide to change your expectations and switch editions anyway?

EvilAnagram

2017-03-11, 09:52 PM

If a significant number of DMs, accepting it is subjective on how many "significant number" is, aren't able to balance encounters around the assumptions of the system, then perhaps the problem is really the system working against the DMs because the assumptions are wrong.

We have no means of ascertaining how widespread this problem is. All we have are occasional smatterings of forum complaints, and people tend to shout complaints and and sigh contentment, so complaints always sound louder. This doesn't mean the complaints are necessarily wrong, just that natural bias makes it difficult to figure out if there is a systemic problem.

Beelzebubba

2017-03-11, 10:29 PM

Pex

2017-03-12, 12:11 AM

Isn't the answer really 'well, 4e tried to solve the issue by moving everyone to a similar mechanic of expending scarce resources for big powers and everyone having access to unlimited bread-and-butter powers, but a lot of players rebelled against that, and so they rolled that back a bit and did the best they could to balance things, while embracing some of the mechanics that are problematic but ultimately feel a lot more like D&D has always felt'.

I mean, I've played these games for 30 years, and systems as complicated as Rolemaster, as exhaustive as GURPS, as narrative as FATE, as flexible as Champions, and as simple as Gumshoe. Many of them were made specifically to solve the 'problem' of AD&D. None of them ever got as popular.

It all comes back to Gygax really liking Jack Vance and the Dying Earth.

We're stuck with these compromises forever.

While the same resource management for all the classes was an issue of 4E, the "sameness" came from all the abilities among the classes be the same with just the number of dice increasing and severity of side effect worsening as the levels progress. Basically, almost every 4E power is X[W] damage of type (color) and {[side effect (if harmful, saves end) or [someone moves]}. Magic items were just dailies following the same pattern or allowed the player to change the color of his damage.

5E following 4E's resource management mechanic isn't a bad thing. Every class has a different mechanic so there's no sameness feel. Where 5E erred, in my opinion, was to make some classes focus heavily on short rests while others focus on long rests to get back their stuff. It would have been better to mirror 4E a little more for every class and archetype to get back good stuff on short rests and their big guns on long rests. Just make sure the good stuff and big guns are functionally and mechanically different among the classes to avoid sameness.

Zalabim

2017-03-12, 03:49 AM

You just described D&D 4th edition.
The upcoming edition war is your fault, you editionist.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the question of "what the system is" is indeed a factual question about which someone can be correct or incorrect. Your reply implicitly claims that your understanding of "what the system is" is the correct one. What method do you propose we use to test that claim?

I posit that no such method exists. That isn't fatal to our original assumption that the question is factual, because there are plenty of factual questions which are not amenable to testing. But, if we can't test your claim, we cannot know whether it is correct or incorrect. In the absence of that knowledge, what reason is there to prefer your statement about "what the system is" over anyone elses?
While I don't want to do much with this loaded argument, I will say when one side can provide supporting quotes from the book and the other side hasn't even read the book, I know who my opinion sides with.

If there are only two resource-depleting encounters in a day, then it doesn't matter if there is one short rest or twenty... the Warlock gets to replenish its spells only once.
This requires a load of shaky assumptions.
That the warlock won't spend spell slots during any of the day's four non-combat encounters. The warlock list has some non-combat spells.
That the long rest caster can spend their entire allotment of spell slots towards the day's two combat encounters. There's a limit to the number of buffs you can stack, assuming you get to prepare for the fight, and during the fight you can usually only spend one slot per round.
That the spells that either kind of caster uses during those two encounters are as effective per spell slot as they would be during a more drawn out day. Concentration spells usually have the biggest impact, then each slot after that is lower impact.

Rhedyn

2017-03-12, 08:29 AM

4e is similar to a game of just pathfinder 3/4ths BAB and 6th level casting classes in the sense that the classes were very different but have the same base underlining chassis.

5e appears balanced, until you realize that players are just overly strong. Thing that should challenge them don't. So we get this idea that we are suppose to throw endless waves of enemies at the party for "balance" reasons. It isn't balanced. It shows the only real challenge is resource management/accounting. If people aren't going full throttle every fight then you can pretend combat is challenging.

Tanarii

2017-03-12, 09:16 AM

5e appears balanced, until you realize that players are just overly strong. Thing that should challenge them don't. So we get this idea that we are suppose to throw endless waves of enemies at the party for "balance" reasons. It isn't balanced. It shows the only real challenge is resource management/accounting. If people aren't going full throttle every fight then you can pretend combat is challenging.
The alternative is for the players to risk significant chance of death in every encounter. If that happens they die a lot. Seriously. Those are your two options for designing a game.

Now, I run a game where if players aren't paying attention, they risk death in every encounter. Guess what happens? PCs die, and even TPKs are a regular occurrence, especially among new players who have never played CaW before. Players either accept thats part of the CaW style, learn to play the style, and keep coming back. Or they don't. But that's not for everyone by a long shot. And it's only possible in a sandbox or other non-linear campaign, and if the players are allowed to fail encounters, ie complete encounter. run away and live ,and even TPK, and the campaign continues.

And if you have a linear adventure or adventure arc, and/or PCs can't be replaced once dead, which is almost ALL official play, ie preplanned encounters the players must go through to proceed with a single group of heroes, then you flat out can't do that. If there is even a small but real statistical chance of PC death each encounter, then the compounded chance over an entire campaign guarantees that at least one PC, and probably the entire party, won't complete the adventure / adventure arc.

This requires a load of shaky assumptions.
That the warlock won't spend spell slots during any of the day's four non-combat encounters. The warlock list has some non-combat spells.
That the long rest caster can spend their entire allotment of spell slots towards the day's two combat encounters. There's a limit to the number of buffs you can stack, assuming you get to prepare for the fight, and during the fight you can usually only spend one slot per round.
That the spells that either kind of caster uses during those two encounters are as effective per spell slot as they would be during a more drawn out day. Concentration spells usually have the biggest impact, then each slot after that is lower impact.
Actually he was 100% right on the warlock side, because my example explicitly was that the non-combat encounters were Easy, ie didn't require any significant expenditure of resources. So the only place the warlock is expending resources was in the Deadly combat fights.
However yes it's possible a Spellcasting caster might not spend all his spells in the two fights, especially if he doesn't know there will be only two fights and therefore doesn't know he can safely dump all his spells in them.
But my example still changes the relationship regardless, because there is only a need for one Short Rest in it. No second short rest should be needed, because prior to the long rest there's only one resource draining encounter.

In other words, I found a technically correct (mathematically) adventuring day that still breaks the resource model paradigm.

djreynolds

2017-03-12, 10:12 AM

What is the issue? Is it that you have a mix of players with long and short rest dependent abilities?
2 solutions.
Go 4E and max short rest abilities... encounter abilities with no carry over. So every battle that 5th level monk has 5 ki points
Or simply times all short rest abilities by 3 and rechargeable only on a long rest. So that battlemaster has 12 SD for the day. That 5th level monk has 15 Ki for the day.
This works.
For hit die replenish I use a 5 min rule.

Strill

2017-03-13, 06:00 AM

It shows the only real challenge is resource management/accounting.
Duh. Was that supposed to be a surprise? The game is designed so that a single spell can trivialize an encounter, which is why you have many encounters so that the party is worn down through attrition. This is absolutely nothing new. Are you new to D&D?

Rhedyn

2017-03-13, 07:44 AM

Duh. Was that supposed to be a surprise? The game is designed so that a single spell can trivialize an encounter, which is why you have many encounters so that the party is worn down through attrition. This is absolutely nothing new. Are you new to D&D? someone plays with easy GMs.

Strill

2017-03-13, 07:47 AM

someone plays with easy GMs.

It's got nothing to do with that. You counterspell the enemy Wizard and their turn was wasted, allowing your team to clean his clock. You cast Hypnotic Pattern on the room full of bugbears, and pick them off one by one. You cast any wall in the middle of the enemy force and turn a deadly encounter into two medium encounters. Back in 3.5 it was even worse, since spellcasters were so much more powerful.

What scenarios are you thinking of where a spellcaster can't trivialize an encounter?

Segev

2017-03-13, 11:47 AM

As has been said, not every encounter needs to be a combat encounter. 5e doesn't support non-combat encounters (particularly of a social sort) terribly well, but it still can be done. If you bypass an encounter with one skill roll, it probably was too simple to really be an encounter. Try to make them a little more complex.

Note that "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "easy," and "complex" doesn't necessarily mean "hard." It just means that it's going to take more than one simple roll to bypass. Not that it can't be something easily handled by the right tool in one fell swoop - a fireball can end a combat encounter all at once if it's the right kind of encounter - but it shouldn't be "one roll and done."

Now: Tanarii and Deleted:

what systems are required for a horror experience to be effective while neither being Sanity's Deathclock or bad DMing in forcibly splitting the party through contrivance or such? Id love if we got a mutations ruleset for Steven Lumpkin's idea of "the world is Chaos, and Civilization is order. To become more powerful is to become more worldly, and thus less civilized." that he implemented in the Roleplay: Westmarches oneshot series.

i wont say DnD 5th ed supports horror, but thats because well, the only really horrifying enemy is the Int Devourer, which attacks in a way the players can never be prepared for
I'm neither Tanarii nor Deleted, but to me, horror is less about system and more about approach. System can impact it, but horror is doable no matter the system nor the power level. Horror is about a sense of betrayal. Not by characters, but by expectations. It's a sense that the world isn't working the way you expect it to.

The danger, in horror, is less about how overwhelming it is compared to your skills and powers, but about how difficult it is to bring those powers and skills to bear usefully. Disarming a marine before shoving him into a cannibal-infested backwater doesn't make it horror. That marine can be fully armed and prepped, and it remain just as much horror if he can't FIND his targets, and his targets can use the terrain against him. Likewise, he can be totally disarmed and it not be horror at all if his assailants aren't "doing it right," and act like enemy combatants rather than stalking predators.

It's a feeling of unease and a slow burn of resources. A sense that the rules are there to keep you safe, but that the rules don't make you FEEL safe, and that they become harder to follow as time slips by.

TentacleSurpris

2017-03-13, 12:09 PM

I think about this problem a lot, specifically how to write adventures with a challenging number of encounters, but in which the players don't have the freedom to just long-rest after each one. If you are doing 6-8 encounters per day, and all of those encounters require killing things, then the party is rapidly depleting the local population. You are just genocide-level killers.

One solution is to make a Long Rest be a full week of bed rest and medical attention. A short rest is overnight rest. That way you can stretch the adventuring "day" into a more reasonable timeframe to fit a story. It also makes random encounters while travelling meaningful, because if you're going to get a long rest after each random encounter, then you can blow all your resources and they're not a challenge. If they're not a challenge, then they're a waste of time on my Wednesday nights.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-13, 12:39 PM

It sounds like it would better conform to the type of narrative you're looking for, rather than endlessly arguing about how other people playing D&D without following your genre specific requirements is BadWrongFun. Nice summary.
Honestly, my players are almost always low on resources by the end of the day. There have been several dungeons in which theyou had to retreat because their resources had dried, or they faced the boss with two spell slots between them.
Sounds like you are having fun.
I wont say DnD 5th ed supports horror, but thats because well, the only really horrifying enemy is the Int Devourer, which attacks in a way the players can never be prepared for Didn't like that critter when introduced, still don't like it.
In Play there is only as much story as the DM has frameworked out, and the rest of the story is an emergent factor of the procession of encounters and interactions between the players as a whole.

Tapestry (Narative emergent from past sessions) > Weaving (Current session at the table) > Interaction Threads (Next session) Nicely put. It is a story, in retrospect.
As far as I'm consern, the storytelling aspect in RPGs is about building a story from your adventuring career. The story is always seen from a retrospective, and is not apparent when you are actually playing. Every action and decision you take contributes to the story, but you just don't how it will all turn out until the very end. Sort of how I look at it.
That's like saying the goal of living life is to tell a story at the end of it. :smallconfused: I always felt that the goal of living life was to live it, the stories come over a beer or a cup of coffee during downtime. :smallbiggrin:

If a significant number of DMs, accepting it is subjective on how many "significant number" is, aren't able to balance encounters around the assumptions of the system, then perhaps the problem is really the system working against the DMs because the assumptions are wrong. Has there been feedback to WoTC on this score? I know that CR is a blunt tool, and it takes some iterative messing about before one arrives at "yeah, this CR is about right" but the other bit is how swingy combat is, particularly at low level.

EvilAnagram

2017-03-13, 03:15 PM

It's got nothing to do with that. You counterspell the enemy Wizard and their turn was wasted, allowing your team to clean his clock. You cast Hypnotic Pattern on the room full of bugbears, and pick them off one by one. You cast any wall in the middle of the enemy force and turn a deadly encounter into two medium encounters. Back in 3.5 it was even worse, since spellcasters were so much more powerful.

What scenarios are you thinking of where a spellcaster can't trivialize an encounter?

I have seen maybe four encounters that have been trivialized by spellcasters in actual play.

This is anecdotal, to be sure, but I also rarely see people complaining on forums about casters outshining others in actual play, rather than theoretical play. In fact, most of the time people complain about how badly another character is outshining them, they're upset about nova characters because damage is pretty important in 5e.

Strill

2017-03-13, 06:14 PM

I have seen maybe four encounters that have been trivialized by spellcasters in actual play.Then none of the spellcasters in your group has read Treantmonk's guide to the God Wizard.

This is anecdotal, to be sure, but I also rarely see people complaining on forums about casters outshining others in actual play, rather than theoretical play. In fact, most of the time people complain about how badly another character is outshining them, they're upset about nova characters because damage is pretty important in 5e.

Of course. The most powerful spells are also the ones that give the spotlight to the other party members. Polymorph an ally into a T-Rex. Incapacitate half the enemy force and let the fighter clean house. A wizard's direct damage, while not terrible, is nowhere near their strongest type of spell.