|
|
Post by keolander on May 11, 2016 22:18:11 GMT -6
For the last month I've been playing a Paladin in a 5E game at my local game store. The DM, who is about 18, I don't think understands exactly what entails a low-level game. We're literally doing the kinds of "adventures" that would be for 9-10th lvl PCs under 1st Edition AD&D. Put another way, we're engaging in the whole "wargaming" aspect where we're gathering followers, repelling sieges and so forth. We have done zero dungeon crawls and as a result have no magic items to speak of even though we're 4th lvl (almost 5th). On top of that, the DM tonight threw us in with another group (all 5th-6th lvl with magic weapons) to go up against Golem-type creatures (not exactly Stone or Iron Golems, but with a lot of their powers). We're a party of 9 players and after 30 minutes of sheer lunacy in 3 rounds of combat, I told them I was retreating (I couldn't damage the d**ned Golem I was facing and decided I didn't want to die). What the hell is it with DMs who want "low magic" settings, but keep the trappings of "high magic"? I can understand not being a Monty Haul, but the opposite is just as freakin bad. I know that 5E has gone with this whole "magic blew up and is only just now coming back", but this is absurd. In the month of gaming I have literally accomplished nothing of note except marrying into a higher ranked noble house and gained additional retainers....all 0-lvl men-at-arms types.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 12, 2016 3:56:37 GMT -6
I have to say one of the (few) things I don't like about 5E is the substitution of character abilities for the magic items of the earlier editions. Comes to much the same thing mechanically, but as someone whose formative fantasy education revolved around the Ring Saga I like my magic items.
This is one reason I never had a problem with "character" progression in Traveller - maybe your character didn't get any better, but boy, did his toys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 12, 2016 4:32:20 GMT -6
Sadly, much of this is not a 5E thing but a "DM without a clue" thing. :-(
I find it interesting in 5E Adventurer's League play that the hardback books often have very little magic to hand out to players, but the expeditions (side adventures) have all of the magic. Typically one item per adventure. This means that you really need to divert from the main plotline occasionally or you get a party of above-level characters without magic items, which is similar to the situation that you describe. I suspect that your homebrew DM is following this model.
I will say that I agree with Vile, in that I kind of like the notion that the shift for 5E has gone from items to abilities. It does mean a bit more character generation time along the way but it seems to work well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 1:27:50 GMT -6
Having been "that guy", the pimple-faced moron who ran games for people up to thirty years older than himself, I am going to lobby for some understanding for the kids: At 18, what do you expect?  Myself, I love that there are still kids interested enough in our hobby to run their own, surely ambitious games - but I would never-ever let them DM me. Like, you have to know what you're in for when you sit at the table with a newbie.  |
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on May 13, 2016 9:03:36 GMT -6
It's hard to make a judgement based on just one person's subjective description, but I'll play the Devil's advocate here.
- Low-level characters not spending most of their times going into dungeons. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It's perfectly possible to have fun adventures, even campaigns, which do not revolve around the sacred cow of self-serving dungeon crawling for the first 6-8 levels.
- Low-level characters having armies and doing wargaming stuff, how dare they?! Again, there's nothing wrong here. The idea that you absolutely, positively must be name-level to have a castle and troops was not some sort of well-considered, logically brilliant, transcendetially clever master stroke on Gary's part. It was just something he happened to do while he was creating a brand new hobby and wildly trying out ideas, and then it stuck with the crowd who, for 40 years, have never bothered to consider the notion that maybe there's nothing wrong with lower level characters doing the same sort of thing.
- PCs don't have a magical armoury by level 5. Guess what, nothing inherently wrong with this, either. Obviously, if the DM keeps throwing magic-weapon-only enemies at you regularly, that's a bit of an issue.
- The fight with the golems. Again, I'm only going by what's written above, since I don't know more. We're all familiar with the old-school cathecism of "Some fights will be just too tough for you, it's your responsibility to recognise them and run away. Only new-edition retards charge swinging into any and every single fight, assuming that it will be conveniently levelled." Are you quite sure this incident wasn't about you old-school players suddenly forgetting your own credo and becoming new-edition retards, charging into a fight that you should and could have stayed away from? Or maybe the DM thought you'll be displaying your legendary grognard savvy and defeat the golems by luring them into an avalanche, or collapsing the castle on top of them, or something of the sort.
Now, again, I'm only going by what has been written in this thread. For all I know, the game might be really terrible for a dozen reasons. All I'm saying is that the stuff explicitly written in the OP does not, in any way, indicate and inherently and necessarily poor game.
|
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on May 16, 2016 9:00:26 GMT -6
One thing 5E has removed is the need to have magic weapons. Almost *no* monster is immune to ordinary weapons. Where older editions required a magic weapon to damage a whole array of monsters (which led to the near necessity of having all characters be so equipped, thus negating the point of the immunity in the first place!), 5E almost always has damage *resistance* to ordinary weapons (i.e. they do 1/2 damage). In such a case, it's important to know that without magic, certain monsters become much deadlier, but the goal is actually to prevent the scenario you describe (i.e. in which you can't damage the thing at all). Sadly, if you were fighting true golems, they *are* among the very few monsters with immunity to ordinary weapon damage from non-adamantine weapons (which would be as "common" as magic weapons!). In that sense, the DM probably just messed up. However, in general, apart from these rare monsters (or things like werewolves, in which case getting your hands on silver is a common trope and should not be too difficult), the goal is *not* to exclude characters from acting just because they don't have the right toys! Similarly, the "bounded accuracy" of armor class and bonus to hit is supposed to make play across levels relatively easier.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I'm sorry you're not enjoying your 5E game. I can only say that it's not 5E, and it's not even the low magic (since the rules as such remove most of the necessity for magic items for effective play), but probably just inexperience on your DM's part. Have you thought of asking him (and your fellow players) if they would be interested in a dungeon crawl? That might encourage the DM to give it a try!
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt on May 16, 2016 18:32:04 GMT -6
The kid's still learning, it takes time... and exposure to more experienced referees. LOTS of it. He's throwing you into epic battles and unbalanced encounters right off the bat because he's copying fantasy movies and video games and hasn't yet learned that D&D is it's own very peculiar beast and not just the game version of Lord of the Rings.
I don't mean to come off as high-and-mighty... quite the opposite. I've ran some really embarrassing stinker games in my day, and not all of them as a teenager. You can only try to learn from what went wrong and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 30, 2016 9:41:51 GMT -6
It does seem more DM inexperience. Is 5e his first system? his first d&d system? did he run other versions/editions of d&d? I would say tough it out he will probably improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 31, 2016 5:07:25 GMT -6
Having been "that guy", the pimple-faced moron who ran games for people up to thirty years older than himself, I am going to lobby for some understanding for the kids: At 18, what do you expect? Myself, I love that there are still kids interested enough in our hobby to run their own, surely ambitious games - but I would never-ever let them DM me. Like, you have to know what you're in for when you sit at the table with a newbie. I don't mean to sound too harsh for a newbie DM. I'm currently playing in a game where the DM is doing his first homebrew. He's not 18 (maybe mid-20's) but probably not much different. It's a modern game where we ended up in a battle where we were way over our heads and trapped so that we couldn't escape, and the DM threw in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to save the day. As an experienced DM I would say that the "NPC saves the day" scenario is one of the worst errors that a person can inflict on his players, but this guy made it kind of fun and he is trying hard. New DM's have to learn somehow. I probably did some really bad DM things when I started, but we were all 13 and so nobody really realized how bad they were at the time. My general advice is to stick with him and find a non-threatening way to give him some pointers after the fact and not in front of other players. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 31, 2016 5:13:55 GMT -6
It does seem more DM inexperience. Is 5e his first system? his first d&d system? did he run other versions/editions of d&d? I would say tough it out he will probably improve. One interesting thing I've encountered several times is a person who plays in maybe 3-4 games and then wants to DM and change everything and/or write his own RPG. I've found this to be a little odd, as I would think that more play-time would help that person understand more about how the game was designed, but I can appreciate the enthusiasm. I think you nailed an interesting point with the question about the experience of a player being a large part of the equation. Not only should a person gain some play-time experience in the game he wants to run, but playing in other RPGs might help to give him perspective particularly if he wants to homebrew rules instead of doing it by the book. I guess that one huge advantage of Adventurer's League is that everyone is supposed to be running the game BTB and the module exactly as written. That might limit the DM's ability to mess it up. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 9:24:08 GMT -6
I don't mean to sound too harsh for a newbie DM. I'm currently playing in a game where the DM is doing his first homebrew. He's not 18 (maybe mid-20's) but probably not much different. It's a modern game where we ended up in a battle where we were way over our heads and trapped so that we couldn't escape, and the DM threw in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to save the day. As an experienced DM I would say that the "NPC saves the day" scenario is one of the worst errors that a person can inflict on his players, but this guy made it kind of fun and he is trying hard. New DM's have to learn somehow. I probably did some really bad DM things when I started, but we were all 13 and so nobody really realized how bad they were at the time. My general advice is to stick with him and find a non-threatening way to give him some pointers after the fact and not in front of other players. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. Personally, I think the key is to read - to a have a storyteller's repertoire, so to speak. Knowing the rules is fine, but knowing how to present a scene is something one simply does not learn from watching stuff on TV. ...And since many fantasy nerds often straight out don't read, that's usually the deciding factor. Like, even if it might not come off like this, I don't think particularly highly of my fantasy exploits. The reason they mostly work out is that I know the genre well, nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by archersix on Jun 5, 2016 20:34:01 GMT -6
Personally, I think the key is to read - to a have a storyteller's repertoire, so to speak. Knowing the rules is fine, but knowing how to present a scene is something one simply does not learn from watching stuff on TV. ...And since many fantasy nerds often straight out don't read, that's usually the deciding factor. This. I believe that's why the famous Appendix N was so important. It certainly inspired me to read some books I never would have otherwise. Having that basis really helps set out a scene. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 10:58:22 GMT -6
Yeah, I agree completely. Like, the list itself, of course, is profoundly debatable. But the general intention, brilliant. I usually frown about D&D's inspiration being reduced to Leiber, Vance, and REH, but at the same time, it's good to have some sort of common consensus.
Kids today, they don't have that, any more. Sure, there's GRRM, and there's perhaps Brandon Sanderson, but both of those are not really writing roleplay-able fiction. - Which is also not helping, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 6, 2016 15:58:04 GMT -6
the list itself, of course, is profoundly debatable. I usually frown about D&D's inspiration being reduced to Leiber, Vance, and REH, but at the same time, it's good to have some sort of common consensus. Mostly on target, but I think partly missing the main point (if I read your words correctly). The intent of Appendix N is not just to give folks a reading list. It's to give folks some insight as to what specific sources of literature inspired the creation of AD&D (and ultimately OD&D) by the original authors. It doesn't say "you must read this" but it does say "we read this" and thus gives a peek into the state of folks from that era. I read many of the Appendix N books prior to the publication of the list in the DMG, not because it was on a list somewhere but mostly because these were the best of the options of the era. OD&D was Leiber. OD&D was Tolkien. OD&D was REH. OD&D was Moorcock. And so on. Just look at the classes, the rules options, the monsters, the magical items, and so forth and you can clearly see those elements throughout OD&D. In the old days, pretty much everyone that I knew had read those key authors and as such had a common frame of reference when discussing what a D&D campaign ought to look like. This is why I find modern lists of a similar nature interesting but not as inspiring. There are so many fantasy authors out there nowadays, and each has his or her own slant to "what fantasy means" that we as a hobby have lost some of our cohesiveness. One person wants to run a game based on a book that another person hasn't even read. Hard to have common ground there. Most of the modern fantasy books out there just aren't that interesting to me -- I try reading them and give up to return instead to the classics. That's just me, I realize, and there are probably many quality authors putting out good books now but I just don't find them as enjoyable as re-reading Conan or Amber or Lankhmar or whatever. Anyway, just two coppers from a guy who has been reading for a very long time. |
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jun 6, 2016 18:52:53 GMT -6
The intent of Appendix N is not just to give folks a reading list. It's to give folks some insight as to what specific sources of literature inspired the creation of AD&D (and ultimately OD&D) by the original authors. It doesn't say "you must read this" but it does say "we read this" and thus gives a peek into the state of folks from that era. I think this is the right way to look at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 1:53:28 GMT -6
In the old days, pretty much everyone that I knew had read those key authors and as such had a common frame of reference when discussing what a D&D campaign ought to look like. No, we're on the same page here - it's just my English, especially late at night, that lets things appear a bit wishy-washy. That common frame of reference is what most games today are lacking because the diversity within the genre is so big that you can spend your life being a fan, and not come in touch with certain writers. Tolkien was the last campfire everyone gathered around, but no more. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 7, 2016 4:56:44 GMT -6
Tolkien was the last campfire everyone gathered around, but no more. And even if it is, now there are "two" Tolkiens out there -- the written word and the cinematic. Folks familiar with one may not know the other and the two can be so very different.  |
|
Myself, I love that there are still kids interested enough in our hobby to run their own, surely ambitious games - but I would never-ever let them DM me. Like, you have to know what you're in for when you sit at the table with a newbie. 
