It took me a long time to change from 2e to 3e D&D. Once I did, I immediately set it as my default TTRPG. I loved the freedom to build so many different flavors of character, both as a player and a GM.
Once PF came into my life in 2009, I jumped to that and haven't backed out since. Yeah, its rules-crunchy but there are SO many options. I even like the "trap" ones. I enjoy the play driven math and ruleset. In PF a level one rogue player can look up a Good lock in the CRB and know they've gotta hit a DC 25 to open it with Disable Device, so they know up front what kind of baselines and builds to shoot for.
I tried 4e several times, didn't enjoy the powers system and quit. Now I'm in 5e. I've played D&D most of my gaming life; born around the time that Chainmail rules hit; my first game at age 6 was just after AD&D was introduced, had my own Expert set when I was 10. I've been the default DM in D&D games since I was in middle school, so I feel like I OWE the game, especially since I didn't make the jump to 4th.
I'm now starting as a player in my second 5e game. The first one lasted only a couple sessions and ended abruptly. In this new campaign I'm a hill dwarf cleric (tempest). Cleric has been my go-to since I was young so I feel like I should understand the feels of the character, intuitively know the expectations and jump in.
Why can't I get into this game?
The game so far:
See, maybe it's a DM thing. My DM is pretty rail-roady. He threw us into a village with no real setting overview or plot hook. Once there, the village elder was ill. We had one conversation with a nobody in the room and, combined with something the elder was muttering it seemed like the way to cure the illness lay in a cave past the ruins of this town called Crystal Falls.
Boom, we're on the verge of Crystal Falls. We didn't really get a say in the matter. Once there, we're playing using a battle mat so there are no battle maps, no overview map of the ruins, no good description of the ruined town. We enter, run across some skeletons, and get to a cave.
From here the lack of description really started bugging me. The main entry was an empty, rough-hewn vault with no real features except a pool of water, an exit tunnel on the far side and some moldy hay. We poke through the hay, find some kobold eggs. We search the rest of the chamber, including the water, nothing.
Once inside the tunnels we were scouring what our DM described as 10' x 10' tunnels, with occasional 4' tall tunnels of newer construction. Not surprisingly, we avoided the smaller tunnels. We had a couple encounters in the bigger tunnels and adjoining chambers, but the rooms were all just, I don't know... blah. No cover, no really interesting features, just monsters with no treasure.
We got ambushed by kobolds and nearly got destroyed. here I should probably mention there's only 2 PCs so far, me (playing the cleric) and another guy running a dragonborn paladin. 4 kobolds nearly ended us. We'd already used a long rest and I had only 1 spell left so since we'd gotten the magic water we were sent here for we tried running back out the main way.
We're ambushed again by kobolds. We try talking our way past them, the leader levels a death sentence for disturbing their eggs. The paladin remarks about how we left them undisturbed, even though they were unguarded when we found them, and asks for leniency. The DM says roll initiative.
So we're railroaded into coming to Crystal Falls, put in a dungeon where literally the main tunnel goes from the entrance, past 2 false rooms directly to the objective room, and then as we're leaving we have no choice but to face the kobold leader. Said leader defeats us in one move by throwing an iron door patch from a Robe of Useful Items, then all the kobolds escape out of some secret tunnel we missed before, even though we'd rolled a 22 on our Investigation check.
So like I say, maybe it's the DM. However I've made 2 5e characters now and both of them just felt... limited. The first guy was a fighter and now I'm running this cleric. Both times I felt like I was selecting a kit of options for race, another for Class, and a final one for Background. Once selected, these initial choices pretty much define my entire build unless
1. I multiclass
2. I get spells (so I get SOME other choices throughout my career)
3. I take optional feats instead of stat increases at some levels
I don't enjoy building characters this way. For one, I feel resource-light. As a level 1 cleric in PF I've got several archetypes and build options. If I want to be very tanky and martial, there's options; then again if I want to also have a focus on spells I can ratchet that in later through a couple feats. Even at level 1 I've got one type of cleric that even gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus, or I can take it at level 1 for consumable generation.
That means at level 1, with a bit of starting gold and character build I could have multiple uses of Domain powers, 3 level 1 spells/day, 2 Orisons/day, scrolls, weapons, armor, and other gear.
With my 5e guy I got a kit that gave me 1 melee, 1 range weapon, some armor, a shield, 2 spell slots, 3 cantrips, and 1 domain power 3/rest. I can't make magic items and, since buying items is defaulted to DM fiat, I can't buy any of those per my DM. My mundane attacks seem to have a decent chance of hitting, but do only enough damage on average to take out a kobold. Meanwhile 4 kobolds, essentially a CR 1/2 fight, nearly killed a level 1 paladin and cleric.
So I'm trying to figure out if its the system or the game that's frustrating. Maybe I haven't given either enough time. I've talked to the DM about my frustrations and he said, as far as the DMing goes, he was trying to make it "challenging" and "cinematic" and I shouldn't expect a game on "easy mode." So right now I'm just posting this out into the universe.
There is not much chargen game in 5E, which some find a feature. However, this usually means the GM needs to really bring it because there is no crunchy game to fall back on. 5E really fits the need of the average gamer, but some folks just need more. Sounds like you are not getting what you need.
From the description behind the spoiler it sounds like a GM problem.
5e lets the GM off easy. You can be lazy since there's less crunch to learn. This one sounds lazy or prone to running a railroad.
5e will allow for as crunchy a game as the GM wants to run. For 3.PF gaming the system was basically a requirement but if the GM was on their game a TPK was a likely outcome. Not so much with 5e.
TL/DR - Get a different GM. One that lets players make crunchy builds.
Your issues with the gameplay experience is one issue and may in fact be the fault of the GM but your issues with character creation are another issue and are absolutely the fault of the game design.
5e’s game design approached the notion of a low barrier to entry by creating a simplified mechanic built around character design that is relatively flattened. The numbers don’t swing much, even if you increase the feat economy. Bounded accuracy ultimately makes the game play the same at all tiers and levels of play, it makes for a great consistent game that has a universality to it. It does not however make for a game with a great depth of variance.
If you’re opposed to the character build remaining static, even if you find a great GM, I suspect you’re still likely to have conceptual issues with 5e. Perhaps Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything (the next option splat) really is more robust than we’ve been told and will add additional layers of complexity to the game; but that remains to be seen.
From the description in the spoiler text, your DM sounds bad. That's probably part of the problem. But the character creation crunch in 5E is never going to match Pathfinder. If the lack of crunch is a big problem 5E may not be for you.
My complaint about 5E is that it's too easy, but that might be my DM as much as the system.
It's completely fine to prefer other versions of the game, like Pathfinder or OSR. 4e's "cancel all other editions" attitude was a huge misstep, regardless of what you think of 4e.
As dirtypool mentioned, there's a new crunch book coming out in a few weeks, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything that'll allow you to customize your characters a bit more. I'm not tryna say it'll fix everything or that 3pp crunch books could be an option: 5e just is a simpler game when it comes to making characters. That's what I love about it and what others might hate about it. (At our table, we are instead putting a lot of the crunch into gear, inventory, and domain-level play.)
And backgrounds, of course. You can mix and match backgrounds and also write in your own traits and bonds. That can be a really rewarding part of the game. You and your co-player can try to make each other's traits, flaws and such be as big of a part of the game as possible, that could be a fun challenge for the two of you. (It's always much easier to get good roleplaying happen at the table by lifting up the other players than trying to shine on your own.)
As for your DM, yes, that doesn't sound great.
I'm gonna try to shine some silver lining on the play as reported so far, but that's not to say you're not right to be disatisfied.
Railroading: generally, my principle is that there is one and only one place for it: to set up the initial situation for a campaign. "You find yourself in the ruins of a town that used to be called Crystal Falls, yesterday elder sick water etc etc"
Lack of description: I can really like that. A quicker back and forth between players and DM instead of a longer story time from the DM about every room. If he doesn't answer your questions if you ask them ("what are the walls here made of?", "how does it smell?") then yeah, that's bad. Ask him to do so.
Forcing you to fight the kobold: yes, that was bad.
Thank you all for the responses so far. I never realized what a "crunch" gamer I was until I got into 5e. In PF 1e the GM doesn't have to USE or abide by every bit of crunch, certainly, but for example every skill has a bunch of handy baselines; as a GM myself, I got to know and understand the AC and HP averages for monsters by level. These helped me as a player make choices, not only in character builds but in general gameplay, that focused on mechanical success.
Looking at the PHB for, say, Survival, the description tells me "some" of the things this skill is useful for but there are no baselines. I have no access to the DMG but maybe there are some in there. Still, in the 5e system I don't so much tell my DM "I use Survival" so much as I say "I'll check for tracks" and the DM then decides what ability/skill combo that might fall under.
So mechanically, at least, the DM has some control over my character's actions. Maybe they don't; maybe that's just a perception on my part. All I know is that I feel like I'm back to playing the "mother, may I" style of game that I moved away from when I left 2e D&D behind.
Then there's also character gen. I've been watching a lot of videos on YouTube to optimize my build. Basically all of them say the same thing - if you have a Tempest domain cleric, get heavy armor and a good weapon; you're the tank with a couple of spells for diversity when not using weapons/damage spells. Good luck!
So from here on in I'm not so much "building" my character as watching the choices I've already made unfold. Cool. I made a couple choices as a no-nothing noob during session 1, and that's my character going forward unless I multiclass or take feats. Feels anti-climactic.
As for my DM, there's a few things there I can still try. 2097, through the whole first session I did ask a few questions. I asked about the ruins we were passing through at first, specifically asking for cover but my DM said there was none... only to have a skeleton appear unexpectedly from behind the remains of an overturned cart on the ground that I must've missed (it was 20' in front of me at the time).
When we got into that main cave, I asked about the pool at the back. It's a shallow pool with murky water. I tapped the shallow bottom with the "staff" I get for being an Outlander; my GM snickered about me being overly cautious but otherwise revealed nothing more. The paladin player and I asked about the weirdly small stalactites overhead but noticed nothing out of the ordinary. We spent several minutes inquiring about the rotten hay bale there but really got no really descriptive info until the DM said to us "do you maybe want to... INVESTIGATE the hay?"
Maybe this DM expects us to call out our own skill use instead of him TELLING us what skills we're using.
Anyway, I'm trying to probe for as much info as possible but this DM is one of those types that likes to be intentionally vague, thinking it adds a level of "mystery" to things. No, what ends up happening is fights where cover magically appears, rooms in dungeons are all 10 x 20 blobs on a battle mat and I feel completely disconnected from the action.
I'm not saying I'm a great GM. I KNOW the many times I've screwed up, peeved my players, etc. But one thing I've gotten good feedback on from my players over the years is that I do a good job of setting up dynamic encounters. Even an open plain outdoors will have contour lines on the battle mat, some tiny dice or 3d terrain bricks scattered around as boulders or rubble, the odd tree or hedge here and there. The monsters say stuff in either their own language or Common, sometimes revealing plot info mid-fight. Monsters that can't talk make unique sounds, have distinct smells, they move in specific ways and so on.
This DM is like "you see 3 skeletons. INITIATIVE!" but yet he's been running games nearly as long as I have.
Anyway, I've been trying to get him to come to one of my games, join one of my campaigns for a while now. I wish he would. From what I gather he's gamed with the same group of folks for like, over a decade and a half now and his style was working for them until there was some major drama and he had to find a new group, starting with me.
I have a learning curve ahead of me, obviously. I need to get my 5e legs under me. I know this DM on a personal level but this is the first one of his games I'm jumping into, so I have to learn there too. If more folks have input I'm all ears.
As I said in my op; I WANT to like 5e. I feel like I owe it to the game that got me into this hobby to give it a solid try and find the good. I guess I'm just not there yet.
For context: I've played a fair amount of 5e, and have never GMed it.
In 5e's favor: It's designed to bring new players in more quickly than previous editions of the game. Compared to D&D 3.x or Pathfinder (1 or 2), D&D 5e is a simpler game with fewer moving parts and a much lower barrier to entry. Chargen is quick: There aren't a lot of options to bog you down, and there is very little system to master. There's not a lot of math involved. Combat can be tactical if the players and GM want it to be, or it can be more abstract "theater of the mind": The rules don't force it one way or the other. The game shoots for consistency: Bounded accuracy means that play works pretty much the same at low, middle, and high levels: You pretty much always need to roll a 12 or higher on the die to succeed, regardless of your level or how badass the monster you're facing (assuming it's an appropraite CR).
My tagline for 5e would be "The world's okayest role-playing game."
I think that it's a mostly-playable game that does just about everything passably and nothing particularly well. The design team tried to split the difference between the heavy crunch of 3.x with the rules-light "GM fiat" style of 1e/OSR. It's a compromise that I feel leaves the system compromised.
There's just enough crunch to make its presence known, but not enough to be really satisfying to those who like a crunchy system. And while it's certainly lighter than 3.x, there are far too many rules for the OSR crowd to be happy with it. And it's still very much a system-focused game with a "pass/fail" resolution system and long-form dice mechanics that narrative-focused story-gamers don't particularly like.
The Dungeon Master's Guide offers scant little practical advice for how to effectively run a fun, challenging, and compelling game. I think the system encourages lazy GMing by making it just tempting enough not to prepare much, but not really providing robust tools for spontaneously-generated play.
My bottom line: I'll play a 5e game if I like the GM and other players and that's what they want to play, but I'll pretty much always vote for a different system.
A big goal of 5E was returning to "rulings over rules" style play. So its no surprise that's what you experienced. Also, your earliest level choices really do cement your character's abilities. I was in a game that went level 3 to 17 and I pretty much felt deflated every time level up came around. It took 1 min or less and the only choices I had was 1 spell and an occasional feat that didnt add anything substantial. Play at all levels felt the same. I do really love the idea of bounded accuracy, but this is too bounded for my taste!
This style works for a lot of people who just want to dive in and keep it casual. The game is really easy to run and play so thats a bonus. 5E would probably be my favorite fantasy RPG if 35/PF never existed. Though, they do, and the experience is so much better for me with those systems.
As for your GM, I think you have a double downer here. First, a system thats not really knocking your socks off. Second, a GM who doesnt run a great game leaving the entire experience wanting. I'd consider putting both behind you.
Some folks will say the GM just needs some friendly guidance. My guess is that the GM has settled into a groove that fits them. Getting them to shake up their style is going to take some effort. Is it worth it?
Some folks will also say a new rules supplement is coming. Man, it isnt going to get any better. This system is on lockdown and thats good for some reasons and not so much for others. This book is not going to solve your issues with 5E.
My tagline for 5e would be "The world's okayest role-playing game."
My motto is 5E is the game I love to run, but 3.5/PF is the game I love to play.
Haladir wrote:
My bottom line: I'll play a 5e game if I like the GM and other players and that's what they want to play, but I'll pretty much always vote for a different system.
Seconded. There are some craptastic games out there I'll play with the right GM and players and have fun. 5E isnt craptastic, but its way down the list of systems I prefer.
Still, in the 5e system I don't so much tell my DM "I use Survival" so much as I say "I'll check for tracks" and the DM then decides what ability/skill combo that might fall under.
Please note that on the revised 5e DM screen there is a little box for what ability/skill combo there is for checking for tracks, and what the DC is for it.
I asked about the ruins we were passing through at first, specifically asking for cover but my DM said there was none... only to have a skeleton appear unexpectedly from behind the remains of an overturned cart on the ground that I must've missed (it was 20' in front of me at the time).
Oh, that is awful. :( I'm sorry that your DM is being so frustrating :(
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
We spent several minutes inquiring about the rotten hay bale there but really got no really descriptive info until the DM said to us "do you maybe want to... INVESTIGATE the hay?"
Unfortunately, this roll-heavy play of asking for skill rolls instead of having a natural language dialog about the hay is common. :( The fact that he expects you to say the exact skill name is not good. :(
What a heartbreaking report so far. I'm not saying you would love 5e if things were different, but I can definitely sympathize with struggling with this game so far. I hope you can talk to your DM about how you and your friends want to play it.
5e is my favorite game buuuut it's so heavily house ruled that it's not recognizable as 5e, so I can't really argue in defense of 5e as is.
Thanks for the link to your work 2097! It's a good reminder on how to differentiate between active searching, what the PCs might notice normally, and how to use passive information to prompt engagement and investigation.
2 things, both of which have more to do with the DM than the system:
1. To deliver passive info the PCs pick up on, the DM needs to have some idea of what they'll find ahead of time
2. Player skill as well as the DM's own descriptive powers need to be up to the task of achieving the desired result
So here's what I mean, with an example from the first 5 session I described above.
Our 2 PCs, a hill dwarf cleric (tempest) 1 and a dragonborn paladin 1 enter a 10' wide, rough-hewn hallway. The only description and sensory "prompts" we're given is that this is a 10' wide hallway, rough-hewn but straight, leading ahead. There are 2 side tunnels, one to the left, one to the right.
As players, our skill at general gaming is ok but our skill with understanding the current system is not. We both come from at least a decade or more of PF 1e so we're used to leading with the skill we want to use. Couple that with the DM in the room before literally naming the skill he wanted us to use on the hay, and we, as players begin debating what skill to use to proceed.
After a minute we both decide to suggest actions synonymous with the Survival skill. I suggest looking for tracks on the floor while the paladin checks the nearest side tunnel, to the left.
Despite our inexperience, this would've been a good place for the DM to use description and passive skills to make things more interactive, as your thread and the linked article suggest 2097. However, as we were asking the DM about what we see and how we use our skills I noticed that he only had a single page beside him with some kind of map (I'm guessing the dungeon map) on it and lots of hardcover books. There were no notes that I could see about his homebrewed dungeon.
I'm guessing that the DM was making up a lot based on the map and monster choices he'd made ahead of time. Knowing this guy on a personal level, I'm guessing he didn't do a lot of detail prep before hand. When we began asking what our characters find, he called for a roll from each of us. After we both got in the high teens, he said we spotted kobold tracks up the main 10' wide tunnel but nothing in the left-hand hall.
Now, bear in mind... later we were forced into that lefthand tunnel. It didn't progress in a straight line but instead meandered a bit for about 70' at which point it opened into a large, circular chamber with a spring bubbling from the wall into a basin. On the wall around the basin was a huge bird-head sculpture and the water appeared to be delicious water. Sat beside the basin on a makeshift stool was a motionless figure, its back to us, with an open satchel splayed at its feet. Having spilled from the pack were several empty vials and we could still see 2 bottles of red liquid inside the satchel.
When we later were forced down this way, the DM said out loud he was happy because we'd skipped it earlier in the adventure, namely above when we were checking for tracks. He WANTED us to investigate this font b/c the "water" bubbling out was actually low-grade acid.
So... back to when we were checking for tracks. The DM KNEW that down the lefthand hall was a bubbling font of acid, guarded by a zombie, that he wanted us to investigate. He also knew we were diligently searching the threshold of the tunnel that LED to that font. Wouldn't it have made sense to drop some sort of sensory clue to pique our interest and make us WANT to go to the acid font?
Following your example above, here's what I would've done (and have done a variation of in my own PF games as the GM): "You move to the left-hand hall, but find no kobold tracks entering or leaving the tunnel. You do, however hear a distant, echoing burble, perhaps like flowing water."
See, our mission for coming here was to get some healing water from a magic font. Here was a false font the DM wanted us to explore, no less than 100' from where we were poking around. What better way to get 2 guys looking for a water font than to suggest bubbling water?
Instead this DM gave us no such details, proclaiming only that we didn't find any kobold tracks. Since the paladin felt we should parlay with the kobolds, we ended up following the tracks until we walked straight into an ambush which for some reason we couldn't talk our way out of and nearly killed us.
Now you could say that the DM was so flustered not knowing 5e well he forgot about the acid font until later except that this was only one of several places where he gave ONLY the most pertinent detail to resolving our immediate query. This DM doesn't promote a DIALOGUE, but rather a question-and-answer session: Do we find tracks here? Yes. How about here? No. Ok we follow the tracks. You come to another intersection. Which way do the tracks go? Make a roll on Wis with Survival. I cast Guidance; I got a 17. The tracks continue up the main hall further but... you missed four figures skulking in the shadows of the adjoining tunnels! Four kobolds emerge, swinging their slings with cruel intent! Initiatives!
Now to the point of poor player skill, neither the paladin player or I was really playing like someone who ask tons of questions and give our actions to the DM for him to decide what skill/ability we use. Instead we were both playing like PF players. We were trying to reason out which skill would be appropriate to the situation.
Neither of us has really wrapped our heads around the OSR style of play yet. Both of us have explorer kits for example; neither of us really understands what's IN them or what we can use that gear for. I WILL say, I pulled out my outlander "staff" (which, I assume, isn't a weapon since it doesn't say quarterstaff) and started using that in some places tapping in the water, on a rickety bridge, or around the entry to one obvious kobold tunnel to look for traps.
The DM called me paranoid.
Anyway, the paladin player and I need to re-learn that style of play that is more rulings based. We need to be more verbose with questions and creative with our suggested actions. Until we do we will continue to feel limited by the lack of crunch in the system, not freed by it.
Just a quick follow up, if anyone was interested. Its the DM. Definitely the DM.
Spoiler:
Session 2 sees us railroaded again. The elder we saved needs to deliver a letter to some other mega-powerful hero we've never heard of. Since the elder (who is the FIRST mega-powerful hero we've never heard of) was wounded he can't deliver this message in person, so we're the ONLY people capable. So... we're off to a neighboring city.
Said neighboring city is 8 days away. Personally I've never understood this setting design choice. Both the town that we're in and the big city we're heading to survive mainly on trade. There's a political rivalry between them, so they don't generally trade with each other. Somehow though trade keeps both settlements going despite the fact that there is literally almost 200 miles between them where no one lives.
Anyway, on the way our PCs were being followed by a pack of wolves. My character made Survival checks and could see the animals clearly; they’re not starving and there are signs of plentiful game in the area. Despite this they follow us during the day and attack us at night. These details didn't pay off in this past session; they attacked us for 2 nights, followed us for 3 days, and then disappeared w/out a trace but EVERY other piece of evidence was that they were normal, mundane wolves. Maybe they were being controlled.
So the day before we're supposed to get to the city we spot a ruined temple off the main road. Like... RIGHT off the main road by a few hundred feet. Despite this prominence to the ONLY road between our town and the big city, no one knew of this place except one, lone trader. Anyway, our characters decide to detour and check the place out, especially since we're a cleric and a paladin of 2 very good gods and the temple shows signs of once being dedicated to evil.
Dungeon descriptions were... challenging. In the first room we started strong; the floor had a thick layer of dirt, there was moss and mushrooms around the entrance, and so on. We find a dead myconid and small sized humanoid tracks (not kobolds this time) so we automatically assume the myconids live down here and the small humanoids are invading. My character, having rolled decently to ID the myconid, knows that they communicate telepathically so I suggest to the paladin that if we run across the mushroom-folk, we let them know we're here to help and see if we can make an alliance.
Once we started getting in however, descriptions dropped off. The DM would draw out a tunnel with a CLOSED door at some point, then if we inspected the door or listened he'd just draw the entire next room. No door was ever locked, so the DM just ASSUMED we were opening every door we were checking.
When he'd draw a new area the DM would announce proudly something like "... and this is what you see." He'd then hurry to add the monsters, wanting to get right into a fight. This style will make sense in a moment. We fought what turned out to be goblins all through the underground dungeon beneath the temple ruins, eventually making good on our promise to ally with the myconids who did indeed live down here.
About halfway through my spells were nearly out, the paladin had used his Lay on Hands and I'd used my Divine Channel. Down HP we decided to check one more room where we fought 2 goblins and their leader. Said leader had no distinguishing features, no name, did no monologuing. The only reason I call him "leader" is because he had more HP, better armor, and we dropped him to 1 HP at which point he ran away.
This fight was ANNOYING! It wasn't an epic fight with a goblin leader, it was a Benny Hill sketch. Both me and the paladin hit him, the paladin using a Smite ability, and we did significant damage. The leader then used the Disengage as a bonus action and essentially double moved away from us every round. The first couple he stayed in range of my cantrip so I tried Sacred Flame a couple times, as I had 2 times during our initial fight. MIRACULOUSLY this goblin leader made EVERY save (all four were rolled secretly by the DM despite this DM always making other rolls publicly).
The paladin, while we chased the goblin leader, was throwing javelin after javelin, missing every time. We chased the goblin down two halls, through three rooms, up the main entry stairs and finally outside where he had ALREADY double moved but apparently ALSO leapt an extra 20', jumped on the back of our horse and was brandishing his scimitar, ready to cut the lead and ride off. My character got to exactly 80' from where he was and shot a shortbow I'd picked up in some of the treasure, scoring an 18 and dealing 3 damage, killing the leader.
We pulled a short rest. Here's where I learned the DM's true gaming style. The paladin and I pulled out all the stops, putting up rope to create a perimeter, spiking one of the doors closed in the room we decided to rest in, heaping the bodies of the fallen in front of the other door to slow down anyone that comes at us, trying to protect ourselves while we took a short rest. The DM seemed confused.
Turns out, he runs his games explicitly like video games such as Diablo or Skyrim. Dungeons are very much static places; when you open a door, that's when the encounter begins. Also, as the DM points out, sometimes dungeons are SO large you could hide in a room for days and the creatures living there would never know.
This particular dungeon ended up being 11 rooms, 2 of which were still under myconid control. That means that the goblins and their worgs only had to worry about 9 and the halls between them. So... the goblins were invading hostile territory but occupied most of it, had no security whatsoever on the main entryway (the ruined temple and first dungeon chamber were WIDE open with no doors or rubble obscuring them) and had no patrols, no active alarms or anything.
It WAS a video game.
This also jibes with the DM saying our overland travel would take 8 days. Not that it was "x" miles, but rather that it would take 8 days. I had to piece it together based on movement rates. The DM however proudly displayed a game map for said travel, a map with NO key and only 2 names on it; our base settlement and the city we're journeying to.
Mind you, his game map was crafted on the computer using free map gen software. It was a color picture and we could see forests to either side, a lake, our home settlement on one shore and the city on the sea cost at the other end of the map. The ocean, major lake our town is on, both the forests, and the one lake nearby have NO names. No one lives anywhere else. Monsters only appear when you open a door or enter an area. Locals, despite lots of roleplay AND me and the paladin suggesting rolls/skills we could use to gather info, know NOTHING of the world beyond their town.
It WAS a video game.
And so, after a short rest and a final conversation with the myconids, we mopped up the last of the goblins, looted their treasure room, and loaded the treasure, weapons, armor, gear and even some of the furnishings of the goblins on the cart we'd scraped together the money to buy in our base settlement. The DM was taken aback; "you're taking... their WEAPONS?" Yeah; there's no size difference between Small and Medium in 5e so a goblin's scimitar technically costs 25 GP. We're headed to a supposed "merchant port city" so we should be able to unload ALL this stuff and make significant coin.
Then the DM was like "it's all BROKEN!" Ha ha, he literally laughed at us. Except... Mending is a Cleric Cantrip. Between that and the fact that the paladin has already said he's got smith's tools proficiency, we figure we can make all the needed repairs. The DM literally looked defeated.
Taking this like a video game, I went to the myconid sovereign and presented him the goblin leader as proof we were done. I figured that this would complete the side quest with a cutscene and get us even more cool loot. When we'd met the sovereign before he was sitting on a dirt "throne" surrounded by chests of loot, some kind of wand laying out, gems scattered around and blinged out with some terrific necklace. I thought maybe THIS action would give us our first magic items.
Nope. The sovereign was like "oh, you guys again? Yeah, thanks for taking out those goblins... here's 50 GP to split between the both of you." Apparently the DM hadn't written that part of the code yet and he was still salty about us looting ALL the goblins.
So yeah, the mechanics of 5e still aren't my fave but I'll deal. Character gen IMO could be more robust. I guess WOTC splatbooks are working to add more options, so maybe if we used those other books I'd have more choices. Also the "mother, may I" aspect of skill use bugs me. It probably would bug me LESS with a different DM, but as a 3x/Pathfinder guy I'm very used to/happy with knowing my skill does "X", and here are some baselines of success to gauge how good I am. While D&D 5e DOES have suggested difficulties, those are exclusively the purview of the DM.
The ability + skill mechanic is intuitive and good, but also the fact that it's left up to the DM irks me. My PC has an 8 Int; a lot of the ability + skill combos my DM was making me roll were Int + skill, despite the fact that he let me roll Dex + skill once in the first game using my woodcrafting tools.
PF 1e will likely remain my default. If my friends want to RUN 5e, I'll play it with them. I think that's my final assessment.
As for this particular campaign... its the only thing I've got going on right now. Plus, it gets me out of the house during a pandemic and I do get to hang with some friends. So its a video game? I'll play it like a beer and pretzels, check-your-head-at-the-door game and call it a wash.
I DO wish the DM added just a bit more, I don't know... logic? Like, if there's hundreds of miles of unclaimed woods between our home settlement and the next city, no political faction owns it AND our home settlement has been struggling to rebuild their economy for literal centuries per our DM, WHY hasn't anyone started logging now that the local mines have dried up? Why do NO other settlements exist in the hinterlands? why do monsters wait in their rooms for adventurers to murder them? Why have both the dungeons we've been in now only have ONE entrance/exit point? How did the goblins have a fire in a fireplace 50' underground yet we saw no smoke anywhere and smelled NO campfire smells?
Still, whatevs', I'm gaming so I'll just grin and bear it. Thanks for all your help and support in this thread folks!
As I mentioned in the linked reply on SE, I don't like using skills at all so in a way my game is a li'l bit "mother, may I" too. I mean, they look in the rotten hay bale and I tell them what's in the rotten hay bale. No skill needed♥
I hope your DM will improve or that you can find a game that you enjoy, whether that game is 5e or PF.
5E skill system is definitely wanting, though no skill system will protect you from a Nintendo hard GM. I mean dont we play TTRPGs so that its not like an computer game? I miss those old Sierra 80's PC games. I dont miss having to guess the correct syntax to make something happen and progress the game...
A long time ago, like, what... 20 some odd years ago now, I asked a buddy of mine for help. I was planning to use an ogre magi as a mini boss villain for a 2e AD&D campaign and I was like "The Monster Manual says they like to eat humans and they're anti-social. It also says they have Charm Person. What can I have this guy be other than a guy who hides in the woods and eats people?"
My friend very plainly asked me what's his motivation? Is it just hunger, or does he have a refined pallet? Is he just looking to eat, or eat WELL? For that matter, is food his only desire? The point was to think of how this thinking, intelligent monster would think and build outward from there.
Ever since I've moved away from "monster makes lair in dungeon b/c dungeon" to making logical, informed decisions for creatures in my games. I even do this for Animal or Undead types; they may not be super smart but their instincts will guide them naturally to some interesting and dynamic decisions.
So when I play TTRPGs as a PLAYER, that's what I'm looking for. I play in order to understand the characters in the game, see into the minds of the villains, and reason out the larger tapestry of plot and setting and how my character fits in.
I think that's a lot of what I'm struggling with in this 5e game. So far the monsters we've encountered have been "you're here and so are we, so ATTACK!!!" and that's about as far as motivations go. Then, when I've specifically asked about the larger plot being hinted at in our missions I'm flat out told by the DM that I'm not big enough in the game world to really know or care about that stuff yet, so I'm not going to tell you.
a potential rewrite:
Had I been running this last game, as a point of synergy, I'd have put the kobolds from the first session in the myconids' dungeon. I'd have had the characters help the elder recover from his disease over the course of a couple weeks, during which time they would have Downtime to explore the base town we started in. The PCs would get treated as local heroes for saving the elder, maybe had a couple side missions like in the beginning of Rise of the Runelords, and earned a growing rep in the town.
Once we'd taken some time to RP through all that, I'd have the elder call them together to explain how there's a McGuffin that got stolen by (insert later villain group here). The elder has been slow to recover b/c he's been using his mighty powers trying to search other planes for the McGuffin but with no luck. The word is out to his fellow McGuffin guardians as well, but it will take time for them to muster and form a plan.
In the meantime, there is a subordinate of the guardians in the next city, to the north. The elder was able to contact this person briefly, but having to devote his powers elsewhere he can't also get word to instruct that subordinate on what to do. At this point the elder would ASK, not TELL the PCs to travel to the city to the north and get a letter to the subordinate.
Now the elder isn't much of an adventurer anymore, but he will place a spell on the PCs (Arcane Mark) that in turn makes them seem harmless enough to (insert later villain group here) that they needn't worry about threat from them for the next 30 days. However, this won't work against ALL threats in the wilds and the world is a dangerous place; they should learn what they can about the land between here and the city to the north.
After THAT, the PCs are free to gear up and ask the townsfolk they know for info. If I've done my job right I will have thrown out a couple key NPCs that the party can gather info from, or key locations for the same thing. The PCs, before they leave, I would hope they know
1. travelers on the road have spotted wolves acting very erratically
2. for several miles the highway winds down through a wooded hollow; this area is often misty and spooky
3. about 30 miles southwest of the city you seek is an ancient, ruined temple, but all avoid the place because of terrible rumors
If #3 is taken at face value, fine. If more deeply investigated they might, if they are diligent, roleplay well, or (using the 5e skill system) they exceed DCs greatly they might learn some rumors, like it was a meeting place for an evil cult until they were wiped out by a band of heroes; the place is still haunted by spirits; those who wander too close say the air smells sickly sweet and a thick dust hangs about the area; the spirits of the place whisper into the minds of the unwary
Now, it's off to the northern city. Each day that I don't roll an encounter I'd reveal things about the local flora and fauna, perhaps have the PCs find some local resource they can choose to use, or just lay the groundwork for potential future side quests. I'd ALSO have non-encounter days be good ways to hint that a large band of kobolds had been through this way.
I ALSO want to add a bit more realism to the PCs' journey. As they travel there would be smaller side roads off the main, leading out to lesser settlements. If PCs want to stick to the main road, as some travelers do, they can camp beside the road and ignore these side paths. If they go to these other places they can possibly find a barn loft or tavern floor to sleep on (the side places aren't that big/impressive) but they'll have to spend money and they'll be slower in arriving at the northern city.
The main story beats I know I want to hit are
1. wolves stalk the PCs by day, starting mid day of day 3. These wolves will keep a good distance and run away from any PCs approaching, until the party gets to the wooded hollow
2. Once in the wooded hollow, the wolves find the party that night in camp (there are no side settlements here). There will be a straight-up pack fight of wolves vs PCs in as dynamic an environment as I can muster - mist on the trees, fallen trees and boulders as terrain elements, 2 areas of soft ground that slow movement through them, and even a creek nearby. Finally, at some point AFTER the full pack of wolves has engaged the PCs a shadowy, humanoid figure appears in the mist, close enough to spot their outline only. The remaining wolves at that point have their eyes glow and a strange symbol appears on each of their muzzles; I'll plan to relate that symbol to something I'm planning in the northern city.
3. After the wooded hollow the PCs go back to their normal travel until late afternoon of day 7. The road forks and is marked by an ancient way stone. Looking closely, the stone is marked with a bony right hand with an open eye in upturned palm. This is of course a famous evil cult in D&D so folks that manage to spot it with Proficiency in Religion automatically know the basics but might roll that skill for extra info. At this point PCs can either chose to follow the stone up the path towards the ruin or ignore it and venture to the northern city.
Once again, if I've done my job right and revealed the presence of kobolds passing through this area, I can further solidify things by having some kobold tracks on this path to influence the players' decisions. If they choose to go to the dungeon now or later, the locale is a ruined temple on a hillock overlooking a very modest swampy area. The air is thick and might cause characters to cough a bit on a kind of pollen-dense atmosphere.
The cracks in the ruins, the fallen trees in the area and other spots around here are clustered with mold and fungus. Rather than putting a dead myconoid down, in the first room of the dungeon, I'd drop it on the steps leading up towards the inner portion of the ruined, open-air temple. There would also be the distinct smell of wood smoke from somewhere in the area mingling with that sickly-sweet stench that's everywhere (its a mold smell). Finally, there are several trees on the periphery that appear to have recently been cut down.
Once inside the ruined temple area, there's an obvious path down but clever players might notice a side entrance on the lower portion of the hillock. The myconids come and go by a dim tunnel overgrown with lichen and vines, sticking mostly to the sodden peat shadowed by the dense canopy here.
The first couple of areas of the dungeon will show yet more signs of kobold invasion here, complete with some spore-animated minions guarding the half of the dungeon still controlled by the myconids. The other half of the dungeon is the dominion of the kobolds, the same ones that escaped the PCs in session 1. These kobolds, once noticing the PCs, would be actively trying to defeat them since the heroes are the reason they had to flee their last lair in the first place.
If the PCs venture too far into myconid territory the mushroom-folk would first try to pacify them and then establish a rapport for communication. At this point they'd let the party know of the kobold menace. At some point, whether by communication with the myconids or identifying what these creatures are the PCs SHOULD be allowed to know that myconids are generally peaceful but their elders can be brutal enemies. I should, as a GM, try to influence the players not to try and take down the myconids.
Finally, with all signs pointing to cleaning up the kobold menace from before and the myconids promising wealth and support for the party if they do so, the PCs should feel free to run rough-shod over the kobolds. There will be a few tough encounters, perhaps an attempt by the kobolds to ambush the party, the fireplace room, and finally a private area for the kobold leader and his hoard. This area should ALSO have an unused fireplace, one that a Small sized creature who'd pounded in a few spikes could climb up and out of for escape.
So... with all of this done, the PCs can now feel free to venture on to the northern city. I'd have the session end there, with accolades heaped on them by the myconids. That way session three opens with the PCs heading into the city fresh and ready. Also, if all of the kobolds have been defeated the PCs will find that a particular inn and tavern frequented by adventurers is quite receptive to them. Several folks have had run-ins with Zornesk the Cruel and his raiders and been robbed at knife-point by them. Yet another way for the players to feel special and accomplished for what they've done so far.
I'd want to give the game a sense of logic and motivation. I'd use my decisions in the spoiler to refocus things on the PCs, make the story about them as well as the monsters they face. The other thing I'd try to do is incorporate the PCs' backgrounds and such.
Like, our 2 PCs are an outlander cleric and a folk hero paladin. So far NO ONE has ever heard of the paladin and my outlander cleric has barely noticed a single track. Its almost as if the DM is kind of poking fun at the choices we made.
Had I run it, the outdoors sections would directly relate to the outlander cleric and highlight their abilities. Since my guy was supposedly raised by wolves for part of his childhood, when I brought in the wolves I'd find a way to incorporate that point. For the folk-hero paladin, any scene involving him in public would have at least one onlooker be like "aren't you the guy that saved all those other dragonborn in the battle of blah-de-blah?" I might even work in some kind of circumstance bonus or Advantage when the paladin is dealing with a fan, or get a free drink or a half-price cheap weapon or something.
I've been playing narrative-focused RPGs for five or six years now, and building player choices into the ongoing story is baked in to the rules of those sorts of games (e.g. Fate, Dungeon World, Urban Shadows).
When players make character choices, they are implicitly telling the GM what sorts of adventures/plotlines they are interested in following. A good GM picks up on that and delivers stories that play into these choices. They would also generally try to avoid putting the PCs in situations where the characters' abilities are either not helpful or are an active disadvantage. (Except, of course, where that's specifically the point of the situation!)
From what you're describing, you and this GM are looking to get very different things out of this game. A CATS discussion during Session Zero might have clued everyone in that the game the GM was offering wasn't what you were interested in playing, and everyone could have gone on to do something else.
I've been playing narrative-focused RPGs for five or six years now, and building player choices into the ongoing story is baked in to the rules of those sorts of games (e.g. Fate, Dungeon World, Urban Shadows).
When players make character choices, they are implicitly telling the GM what sorts of adventures/plotlines they are interested in following. A good GM picks up on that and delivers stories that play into these choices. They would also generally try to avoid putting the PCs in situations where the characters' abilities are either not helpful or are an active disadvantage. (Except, of course, where that's specifically the point of the situation!)
From what you're describing, you and this GM are looking to get very different things out of this game. A CATS discussion during Session Zero might have clued everyone in that the game the GM was offering wasn't what you were interested in playing, and everyone could have gone on to do something else.
You keep pushing CATS during session zero, and im not going to stop you, but its worth mentioning its far from foolproof. I know a lot of gamers that treat this exercise like an Apple user agreement. They just blow through the messaging and hit accept to get to the gaming.
Which is why the OP has a perfect example of finding out through play distinct differences in style. This is the perfect first step to realizing who you want to game with. CATS is great for getting you on the same page, but you all need to be in the same book for it to work too.
I miss those old Sierra 80's PC games. I dont miss having to guess the correct syntax to make something happen and progress the game...
Exactly! My GMing style is very influenced by those games (and text games like Zork and Spider&Web)—it's not so much about the rolling and the stats, and more about you saying what you do, where you look, what you say—but I am a human and I can understand synonyms and natural language. So you don't have to find exactly the right word.
5E skill system is definitely wanting, though no skill system will protect you from a Nintendo hard GM. I mean dont we play TTRPGs so that its not like an computer game? I miss those old Sierra 80's PC games. I dont miss having to guess the correct syntax to make something happen and progress the game...
From what you're describing, you and this GM are looking to get very different things out of this game. A CATS discussion during Session Zero might have clued everyone in that the game the GM was offering wasn't what you were interested in playing, and everyone could have gone on to do something else.
You keep pushing CATS during session zero, and im not going to stop you, but its worth mentioning its far from foolproof. I know a lot of gamers that treat this exercise like an Apple user agreement. They just blow through the messaging and hit accept to get to the gaming.
Which is why the OP has a perfect example of finding out through play distinct differences in style. This is the perfect first step to realizing who you want to game with. CATS is great for getting you on the same page, but you all need to be in the same book for it to work too.
I never claimed that a CATS discussion is foolproof. Such a discussion sets expectations on all sides; at least the discussion gets those expectations out in the open to give you some information to determine whether this game is for you.
I recently quit a Pathfinder 2e game after several months of the game just not giving me what I wanted: Attending the sessions felt like an obligation rather than fun, and I realized too late that I generally felt better when a regular game was cancelled and we either didn't play at all or when the remaining players ran a "B-game" in that time slot.
We had a CATS discussion before I joined the group, and I was totally on-board at the time. Ultimately both the GM's style and what I feel are limitations imposed by the game system didn't play to what I like to get out of RPGs.
CATS is great for getting you on the same page, but you all need to be in the same book for it to work too.
That and people lie.
Also true. CATS—or any RPG safety tool—only works when everyone engages in the tool in good faith.
GMs certainly can be guilty of bait-and-switch... which I think is a real dick move.
This was back in the early aughts: I joined a D&D 3.0 game that was billed as an urban adventure. The GM gave us very detailed information about this fantasy city, its power-brokers, factions, etc. I designed a city-based rogue character who had connections to several factions, a backstory that included a bunch of plot-hooks for the GM to use, and absolutely nothing that would be useful in the wilderness.
The GM's fiancee wanted to play a druid with a horse animal companion.
In Session Two of this campaign, the PCs were implicated in an assassination plot against the Lord-Mayor and banished from the city. The druid and two other characters fled for the woods. My character tried to go underground in the city, but his mentor (a named NPC in the city info hand-out) sold him out to the city watch, and he also had to head for the hills.
And the campaign became a wilderness adventure starting in Session Three. We never once returned to the city... or any city.
This game never had a session 0, nor anything resembling CATS. I suspect the DM is fully making all of this up as he goes along, or for the stuff he does have a map for all he's prepped is the absolute bare minimum.
I've said in another thread, I need to be done with this game. It's not the system, it's for sure the DM. My biggest complaint is that I beg for info, the DM is intentionally vague, and with an incomplete picture of what's going on I blunder into a situation.
Once I'm either in the midst of the situation or immediately after, I learn more info; descriptions of rooms, backstory of ruins, and so on. AFTER I learn this greater information, I realize that not only should I have had this info beforehand but it may have informed my decision to be IN this situation in the first place.
The biggest example is the whole basis for Crystal Falls in the first place. My PC interrogated 2 NPCs in a scene before tending to a diseased NPC. Said interrogations yielded NO info. I tend to the patient, he rouses for a few seconds, and he mutters the name of a ruin.
After that revelation, THEN the same 2 NPCs are like "oh, he said 'Crystal Falls?' All that is is this ruined town nearby. Come to think of it though, it DOES have this healing font that can cure any disease. Think THAT's why he said it?"
But even MORE than that...
1. My PC is a local wilderness guide; the DM later revealed to me I've BEEN to outskirts of Crystal Falls
2. In the backstory we learned later, the town was ruined by orc attacks. Said attacks occurred "a few decades ago." My PC has, in his backstory, a group of orcs that destroyed his homeland 40 years ago. There's no relation between the 2
3. My PC is trained with Proficiency in both Medicine and Religion. The Paladin also has proficiency in Religion. The people of Crystal Falls were really religious, what with this healing fountain in the caves at the edge of town. Our PCs knew NONE of this until the TOWN PRIEST told us later
My point here is that if we'd had prior knowledge of the setting, things our PCs could easily have known, like ruined religious sites close by where supernatural healing flows from the very rock, this may have influenced our choices and actions, led to more independent thought and less "hand holding" by the DM.
And that's just it. In an email last night my DM said, among other things, he is deliberately vague with info SO THAT we players have to ask more questions and make more choices, thus he has to hand hold us less.
What? Begging for info to be spoon fed to us by random NPCs, and only AFTER specific trigger events like another diseased NPC mutters the name of a ruin, is, like, the DEFINITION of hand holding!
Ever walk outside on a cool night when your neighbors are having a bonfire or burning wood in their fireplace? You can smell the wood smoke on the breeze from a few doors down. Our characters came to a dungeon door, 10' from where a fire was supposedly "ROARING" in the fireplace, and inspected the heck out of the door and the frame. NEITHER of us smelled smoke, heard the crackle of the fire, saw the flicker under the door, and so on.
Now, in THAT instance it didn't end up having a game impact, but this is the DM I'm dealing with. He purposely omits or spoon feeds us info that our PCs could EASILY have already known or at least suspected, based not only on our stats and mechanics but from the actions we state that we're taking, and then GASLIGHTS me into thinking I'M the crazy one for questioning his...
Enough. I'm ranting. I'm quitting this game. He and I are supposed to have dinner tomorrow night, I'm telling him then. It sucks, b/c it's gonna cause problems in a couple friendships but at this point I'm so done with the whole thing.
My feeling is that… I don't wanna gatekeep and say that only great DMs are allowed to DM. Somehow there's gotta be an onramp to DMing so that people are allowed to learn and grow.
One of the frustrating things about this guy is that he doesn't seem willing to listen.
Some GMs want to run everything their way and thats it. There are a lot of players out there that accept that. For them, its just about getting together with friends and having some fun.
Now, some GMs have bad habits or poor recognition of player interests. Some of those GMs will be receptive to feedback and adjust their game. Others are not interested in the feedback and just want to run their style. In the latter situation, you need to decide if you can accept a less than ideal game for the sake of company and leisure, or if it's simply not fun and/or a good use of your time.
Seems the OP is not enjoying their time here and has decided to walk away. I would second the notion of respectfully walking away. I mean they have already had discussions on play style and come to a point of disagreement. Its best not to argue any further and just aprt gaming ways. That way, you can hopefully retain he friendship that surely has value in other aspects of life.
We didn't actually end up getting together last night. Instead I met up with another buddy of mine that I usually play PF with. We had a couple beers and burgers, and chatted about all our different games together.
I'm going to take the weekend off from obsessing about this. I know I haven't talked to the DM about this stuff live yet, but every indicator over past experiences, emails and texts has been that his game is HIS game, and what I consider fun or interesting is secondary.
Ironically my buddy last night reminded me that his chief complaint with the way I run MY games is that I give out too MUCH information. They make a decent gather info roll in a PF game and suddenly they get the entire backstory for an adventure site.
Still, what he said to me though was that this also has an upside. My "data dumps" on the setting have given the players a clear vision on how their characters fit in - they feel like their characters are a part of the world. Then, when I add local descriptions and such, like there's a weird bone in the middle of a room or a cave is painted with dried blood, those details end up meaning SOMETHING. Either it's telling them there might be a trap nearby, or an evil cult used this place, or whatever.
My buddy said, by getting so much detail he feels like he's "on the same page" with me and the game I'm running.
I know I'm wordy. Look at my emails here and in other threads! But even though I slow down my games with info delivery I'm not doing it ONLY to hear myself talk. I'd rather my players know exactly what their characters could know instead of surprising them with the details later.
I don't enjoy building characters this way. For one, I feel resource-light. As a level 1 cleric in PF I've got several archetypes and build options. If I want to be very tanky and martial, there's options; then again if I want to also have a focus on spells I can ratchet that in later through a couple feats. Even at level 1 I've got one type of cleric that even gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus, or I can take it at level 1 for consumable generation.
It's hard to get out of the 3e/4e/PF "build" mentality. My players struggled with that. And the idea they needed to find better gear to improve at what they wanted to be; to be a better swordsman they needed a better sword or some magic bracelets or something.
But the thing is, all the building and character op is done away from the table. It doesn't make the game more fun to actually play or the character more engaging to run. That's lonely fun that happens between sessions.
Instead, what you need to "build" the character for the actual table. Think of goals and secrets; personality and quirks. Stuff that you can roleplay and use to act out during the session. Optimize your character for all those times between comments when the dice aren't rolling.
Y'know what's interesting with that sentiment J-Dave? What you're saying is that constant improvement of the character's numbers, abilities and such aren't really part of the 5e system, so focus instead on making your character more interesting/engaging through roleplay.
Here, again, I reference challenging DMs.
If you give your character a secret but the DM never plays that into the larger game, does it really matter? If you say one of your goals is to bring industry to a little town that's struggling with poverty and your DM says "Ok, you do that. Meanwhile, goblins attack; roll initiative!" then it wasn't much of an accomplishment, was it?
These kinds of "builds" are possible in any system, mind you. I've told my players in all 3 of my PF campaigns to have real, measurable goals for their characters. Want to be the best axe wielder in the land? Intend on taming that swamp? Planning to pen the definitive work on the eldritch society that built that megadungeon? Ok, then I'm going to take those and work them into my adventures.
Perhaps between stories the axe wielder is constantly getting challenged to contests, brutal fights, etc. However, over time since she's bested so many she's built quite a rep, even among humanoids in the region. Now, when she holds her axe menacingly while also making an Intimimdation check I might ignore Size penalties or grant Circumstance bonuses.
The player is seeing a genuine game impact for their RP efforts, their achievements. Meanwhile, in my 5e game, my DM has openly mocked the paladin and I for roleplaying aspects of our backgrounds.
My character was "literally raised by wolves" per the rolls I made. I've been playing it as written; my character growls, snarls, makes references to his "pack" being the people he travels with and generally acts wolf-like. The paladin in the meantime has the "folk hero" background and saved his militia squad at the zero hour.
My DM has laughed openly at me trying to be like a wolf in character. NPCs have treated both of us like we're crazy. No one in town believes that the paladin is anything more than a blowhard claiming HE saved all his fellow soldiers since the skirmish happened in his own Dragonborn lands, not here.
Its demoralizing. Why bother coming up with a secret or a goal, or playing up some aspect of your character when the DM has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care to use those efforts to effect the game world at all? Worse yet, how would it make you feel if your own DM made fun of you for some of your RP choices?
I'm generally pretty easy going when it comes to system - I literally don't care, I've had fun in every RPG I've tried (though my group is a little fussier).
However, it's important to play to your chosen system's strengths, imo. If you run 5E like it's a Pathfinder-level PC building game, it's going to seem empty (because you make broad choices in 5E, not carefully selected minutiae which is a great strength of PF1). That does free up headspace or prep-time for other stuff, but if the DM doesn't provide any payoff there then as you say - what's the point?
I think there's a trap in 5E - it's seen as "easy to DM" because you don't have to do some of the number crunching and prep work that was required to run a PF1 monster (particularly at higher levels or if you had an especially invested character-build-invested group). But if you take "no need to prep monsters" as meaning "no need to prep adventures" you run a serious risk of....graph paper filled with empty rectangles next to lists of statblocks and rewards.
I think 5E shines with a DM who thrives on improvisation. If you come up with a quick-and-dirty, "when in doubt, roll and shout" approach to some unexpected occurrence then you won't be ambushing your players who have invested class features/items/spells/feats. It can easily happen in PF1 if you start to narrate something to have things slow down as you try to work out how it interacts with a particular PC's contingency plan. In 5E PC interaction with the story is generally just a rapidly adjudicated stat checks - the fact it's fast to adjudicate shouldn't mean that they're not the central protagonists though. If you don't involve them, they'll just be spectators in between bouts of a not-terribly-complicated combat simulator.
However, no lonely fun is still less fun for some.
Lonely fun via character building was always a double edged sword. It was great for some, but for others it was just homework. Busywork between the game. A chore they had to do in order to play.
The catch is, there's always more casuals than hardcore players. People who just want to hang with friends, or roleplay, or just show up at the table and game and not think about RPGs between sessions. For what is probably the majority of gamers, games based around "lonely fun" are a barrier to entry.
Character building is fun and all. But 90% of the characters I dream up never get played. It's just designing characters for the sake of designing characters.
And if I'm just designing and building characters for fun... I might as well use a different game system. I don't need to use 5e or whatever system I'm playing (most of which are even simpler than 5e, which is probably one of the top 10 crunchiest games in print).
5e changes character building and focuses more on in game play. Said play revolves around narration, interaction between players and DM, and while there is a lot of crunch, the central mechanic is stat + bonuses +d20, or the player declaring an action that requires a foe to make a similar roll to survive said action.
I don't think I'm trying to force 5e to play like PF 1e; my brain was making the comparisons between the 2 b/c PF 1e has been my default game for a decade now. I recognize the differences between the 2 systems.
I enjoy character builds. I enjoy builds in general. I'm usually the GM in my PF games, and part of the fun for me is building foes. A particular pastime for me is reskinning monsters. Thing is, while I agree that character building in PF is a stumbling block for new player entry, I disagree that the effort of building your character is lonely fun away from the table.
I've hosted session 0 sessions where a couple players have discussed and played off one another for their initial builds. I've also sat in on email chains between players, going over how one might take one feat and another a supporting feat, or Teamwork feats, or how the party is going to quest for a certain armor for the barbarian, and so on.
It CAN be lonely fun, or it CAN be a group activity. Either way, it is fun for some, not fun for others.
In 5e the subjectiveness of character success depending on hurdles laid out by the DM is more pronounced. While PF has this too, there are RAW expectations baked into the skills, equipment, and other sections in the Core book that lay out baselines for players to measure their expectations against. While minor, and still modifiable by the GM's discretion, these baselines and the setting of player expectation could, for some players like myself, offer a baseline: if my GM and I follow the rules, by "x" level I should be able to smash through walls like they're paper, based on hardness and HP of a standard wall.
So... I agree with Stevie G upthread. 5e is a system that encourages DM's to be MORE prepped, not less. Walking into a dungeon room, the DM has to know the details PCs might find in that room with their skills, have some kind of idea how hard those details are to detect, know what details character skills might discern from other rooms/areas adjoining this one with the difficulty of those as well, what monsters or hazards exist here or nearby, the stats for those hazards, the rewards, if any, for overcoming those threats, and all of the other crunchy bits that go into running a dungeon room in a 5e game.
It doesn't stop there though.
As the sole arbiter of the rules, the DM has to be prepared to share these details with the players. They have to know and understand how mechanics like Passive Perception work and be ready to act accordingly, or else be ready to provide reasonable explanation why such mechanics aren't being utilized.
The DM has to know the level of handwaving or mechanical reliance they're comfortable with. They have to be ready to be barraged with questions from players hungry to digest the scene. The DMs of a 5e game have to be prepared to set and maintain player expectations as far as success or failure of the characters' actions go.
To run a 5e game the DM has to be mentally and emotionally prepared, as well as physically ready with graph paper, rectangles, stats and rewards.
I've gotten kind of lazy as a GM in PF 1e. Oh, I still narrate the scene when my players first enter and I usually give myself an outline-style write up of important details I review pre-game, but once it comes to interacting with a scene I'm kind of on autopilot. My players are all vets of PF as well as RPGs in general so they announce their actions while grabbing their dice and I just casually recline in my role as narrator and threat-runner.
In my few experiences in 5e, my DM has the added layer that he's telling me what actions to take, after I announce what actions my character is taking. In other words, while 99 percent of the time my stated action would result in a certain dice roll, with a specific mechanic to it, to resolve the action, that isn't a foregone conclusion. Every action I declare for my PC, at least outside of combat, is a potential corner case for my DM to weigh in on.
So... that removes a lot of the feeling of consistency I have as a player. In PF 1e I know that walking into a room and looking around, searching the shelves and such is a Perception check. What's more, I know that a Perception check adds certain bonuses from set locations and requires at least a Move action, if not more time, to accomplish.
When I walk into a room in a scene, knowing all that as a player, I KNOW that I can state that I walk into the room, declaring my PC's action, and roll the die, then look to my GM for the result.
In 5e, while I THINK that the same declared PC action SHOULD result in a consistent mechanic involving a Perception check to resolve that action, that's not up to me, its up to the DM. They can decide whatever they want to resolve my PCs' actions so all I'm in control of is narrating what my character wants to do, not how it's done. While I might expect that my DM would use the predictable mechanic, I have no leg to stand on if the DM decides differently.
Its subtle, and play will most certainly vary from DM to DM, but that is the biggest difference I've noticed between the systems, outside obvious crunch. In PF certain consistencies are baked into the RAW and players are in control of resolving HOW their PCs accomplish some tasks, even if they have no control whatsoever over how successful they might be. In 5e the "how" is determined by the DM.
This, to me, means more work for the DM. The DM has to do more in 5e than in PF. The DM I have for the recent games I've been involved in suggested he wanted LESS work.
Regardless of anything I've suggested, that DM refuses to let me run a PF game for him, nor does he see ANY virtue in Pathfinder as a system. Bare in mind: he's never played a single session of the system, simply paged through the Core book and made his decision from that review.
Personally, I like being a player in any system where I determine the "how" of what my character does. I like saying "I'm gonna use my..." and insert whatever skill, character ability, spell, power, or whatever, completing the sentence as a declaration, not a question. It gives me a feeling of control. I don't have control over anything else in the game world, but I have total control over the actions my character takes, how they're built, and so on.
Now, maybe what I'm describing isn't a function of the system but of playstyle. Maybe there are 5e groups where players announce "I'll use Perception to scan the room. I got..." rolls dice, adds Wis plus Proficiency and other static, pre-determined bonuses, "a 21. What do I see?" but this has not been my experience, nor does this seem like the norm based on anecdotal evidence I've gathered here and on other forums.
Whatever. As I've said, 5e is a good game and I don't think I'm closing the book on it forever. I think I just need to get a better DM.
I disagree that the effort of building your character is lonely fun away from the table.
I've hosted session 0 sessions where a couple players have discussed and played off one another for their initial builds. I've also sat in on email chains between players, going over how one might take one feat and another a supporting feat, or Teamwork feats, or how the party is going to quest for a certain armor for the barbarian, and so on.
It CAN be lonely fun, or it CAN be a group activity. Either way, it is fun for some, not fun for others.
Sure... but they're still not playing the game during that time. It's a side activity that has zero bearing on the actual session. And, in the case of a session 0, might mean the difference between actually playing and just building characters.
It may be shared lonely fun, but it's still time spent setting up the gameboard before you actually start...
And, really, you can do the same thing by coordinating backstories. Friendships and rivalries. Overlapping goals. Planning character motivations and how the PCs are connected.
But the thing is, all the building and character op is done away from the table. It doesn't make the game more fun to actually play or the character more engaging to run.
But it does for some. The actual game part of it. I like to feel that my characters improve in ways from level to level or as I spend xp in nonlevel systems. It does make the game more fun for me as I character build. And that character is more engaging to run because of the options that allow it to interact with the mechanics.
Jester David wrote:
Instead, what you need to "build" the character for the actual table. Think of goals and secrets; personality and quirks. Stuff that you can roleplay and use to act out during the session. Optimize your character for all those times between comments when the dice aren't rolling.
This is all well and good, but if you do all this and you havent planned out mechanically and the interaction with the system gets the character killed out of the box what was the point?
It's a balance, and for you to say "it doesn't make the game more fun to actually play or the character more engaging to run" smacks of absolutism and "one true way to play." It dismisses out of hand a way that some players get enjoyment out of playing.
I didn't want to agree with this at first, but then I remembered my own most recent 5e experience. It had started out well enough, everyone was having fun. Then half the party died in a boss fight with a homebrewed monster, and it was difficult to continue with the main quest line as more and more characters were swapped out (group of 5-6, had maybe 8-10 different characters over the course of it due to character death).
I would like to note that the GM wasn't aiming for near TPKs. He sincerely wanted to create challenges for us and just got really good rolls on his dice.
However, he stopped liking the game, and worse, he tried to hide it from everyone, but it became pretty clear to everyone that he didn't want to play this game. The only reason this campaign carried on as long as it did was he wanted to finish a campaign (something we've never really been able to do).
As soon as we all realized the GM didn't like the game, we stopped liking it too. No one wanted to play, and we had to work to convince our GM that it was ok to be unhappy with the game and want to try something else.
But the thing is, all the building and character op is done away from the table. It doesn't make the game more fun to actually play or the character more engaging to run.
But it does for some. The actual game part of it. I like to feel that my characters improve in ways from level to level or as I spend xp in nonlevel systems. It does make the game more fun for me as I character build. And that character is more engaging to run because of the options that allow it to interact with the mechanics.
Levelling can be fun, yes. Gaining new abilities and getting better at your chosen skills.
But that's a very different thing than sitting down between games and carefully planning the character's progression from 1 to 20, or designing three or four back-up characters, or going through three books to pick the best array of new spells. That's fun for many, but not all; and it has a very limited impact on fun had at the table. When you are actually playing the game.
And even then, I've had a blast playing games with very limited advancement. Because playing that character and game is fun. Levelling is fun, but it's an independent thing, and the former (playing) can be fun without the latter (levelling).
If you're enjoying the other players, the character, and the story... couldn't you just cap everyone at the level they're at and just play? And if not, what does it say about the campaign and the story that the DM needs to bribe you with levels to keep you playing?
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Instead, what you need to "build" the character for the actual table. Think of goals and secrets; personality and quirks. Stuff that you can roleplay and use to act out during the session. Optimize your character for all those times between comments when the dice aren't rolling.
This is all well and good, but if you do all this and you havent planned out mechanically and the interaction with the system gets the character killed out of the box what was the point?
Then that game system is a failure for requiring you to plan out the interactions and mechanics.
But that's a side discussion. The argument isn't "you should never plan your character." Or "don't design optimized character builds."
It's "optimized characters aren't more fun at the table and games that specialize at making numerous small choices between games aren't more fun to actually play than games with locked-in choices."[/i]
I was commenting if you want to spend time between sessions thinking and planning for the game, it could be related to roleplaying and character goals as easily as mechanical tweaking.
5e really has caused a shift in downtime gaming activities. In the era of 3e and 4e, D&D communities would be people talking about builds and crazy combos. People engaging in the hobby and the game between sessions by designing combat monsters and Pun-Pun creations.
But when you look at /r/dnd/ and #dnd it's waves and waves of art. People are engaging with D&D now by visualizing their character. It's not just an array of stats and powers, but an appearance and particular style.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
It's a balance, and for you to say "it doesn't make the game more fun to actually play or the character more engaging to run" smacks of absolutism and "one true way to play." It dismisses out of hand a way that some players get enjoyment out of playing.
Except it's true.
Very little you do mechanically in the days between game sessions actually affects the fun you will have on game day. Spending a minute or ten minutes or an hour pouring over feats or selectively picking spells in no way translates to more fun at the actual game. There's no significant correlation.
I'm not saying people can't do that. Or that it's wrong that they get enjoyment from building characters. And if I did it would be a self-own as I have a stack of 3e/ 4e/ PF characters that were never played and a library of superheroes for Palladium's Heroes Unlimited. And that was fun and I regret none of it. But zero percent of that time actually impacted any of the sessions I ran or played.
In the exact same way drawing a big colour illustration of your character is effectively "wasted" or customizing and painting a metal mini doesn't enrich the game more than using a "close enough" WizKids mini. But that in no way mean those activities are wrong and people shouldn't do them.
Think of your next campaign. Now imagine what it would be like playing it with, say, set pregens. Or official suggested builds. No mechanical choices and every decision point locked in. But everyone instead spent all the time they would normally spend picking feats and powers instead planning character goals and roleplaying scenes to have with other players and NPCs. Working on their backstory and giving the DM personal quest hooks to potentially use. The direction of possible character arcs and secrets the character keeps. Reading the DM's campaign setting rather than splatbooks and working the character into the world.
What would that campaign be like? Would that be more or less fun at the table than one where everyone spent that time building an optimized combat monster?
Yeap, I've had some boring GMs in 3E/PF. The mechanics allow me to shape characters I like and are represented no matter how engaging the GM is. 5E is super generic, so much more focus is placed on how the game is run by the GM. If a GM isnt engaging with players on their non-mechanical backstories and collaborations its going to get boring. A boring GM sticks out like a sore thumb in 5E and drags everything down with it. It's one of few weaknesses of a good for causal players RPG.
There's nothing wrong with preferring systems with elaborate build games. I don't think it's fair to say that we should all drop that because we'd have more fun if we put the effort into backstory and hooks instead we'd enjoy it more, regardless of our personal preferences.
But on the other side, there's nothing wrong with not caring for that aspect of the system and focusing on what's happening at the actual table either. I don't like seeing that denigrated as "generic" or "casual" either.
Personally, I don't really find crunchy mechanics make up for boring GMs - if I'm just going to be playing for the mechanical builds, I'd rather play a video game - like Kingmaker or the old Neverwinter Nights. Other people are different though.
I'm not really sold on the idea of making up for lack of non-game time crunch work with more background details or the like. At least for me. The best games I've played in haven't necessarily been heavily tied to backstory, but have had complex plots, engaging NPCs and lots of room to work out how to approach the problems and figure out the big picture of what's going on. That's what tends to hold my interest when not actually at the table, not background stuff.
Very little you do mechanically in the days between game sessions actually affects the fun you will have on game day. Spending a minute or ten minutes or an hour pouring over feats or selectively picking spells in no way translates to more fun at the actual game. There's no significant correlation.
Except who are you to tell me that what I do between game sessions actually affects the fun I will have on game day? What I do between game sessions in regard to how my character systemically changes does translate to more fun at the actual game. There is significant correlation between my character growth and my fun.
I'm not even touching the ridiculousness of DM bribing with levels except to say that to remain in place is stagnation, no growth, no change, and I play these games for dynamic qualities not stagnation.
Except who are you to tell me that what I do between game sessions actually affects the fun I will have on game day? What I do between game sessions in regard to how my character systemically changes does translate to more fun at the actual game. There is significant correlation between my character growth and my fun.
How am I wrong?
Explain to me how spending 60 minutes carefully and artistically picking powers for a character makes them more fun at the table than 5 minutes?
Do you roll better by spending more time picking through features rather than having them assigned? Does it improve your tactics and teamwork? Does your roleplaying and interactions with characters improve more? Are you more engaged with the story?
Where's the correlation? The one-to-one connection between spending more time building a character and the session being more fun?
Is it just that you're more attached to the character? Because that seems tenuous. You can get attached to characters in all kinds of ways.
For many people drawing their character between sessions is their between-game fun and how they become attached to their character and involved with the game.
Should a game system mandate art?
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
I'm not even touching the ridiculousness of DM bribing with levels except to say that to remain in place is stagnation, no growth, no change, and I play these games for dynamic qualities not stagnation.
Then that says a lot about how engaged you are with the story if you need constant advancement to avoid being bored.
Never, ever play Call of Cthulhu where your character generally becomes weaker and more likely to die as the campaign progresses...
You're wrong because you're attempting to put an objective value on everyone else's subjective tastes. If they say that tinkering builds makes the game more fun for them, who are to say that they are wrong?
Personally I could chuck white room theorizing and comparative building in the trash heap and be happy, the other players at my table love it. My fun is not their fun and their fun is not my fun. As long as we have fun together and no one impedes anyone else's fun, what does it matter how the fun was had for each individual?
Jester David wrote:
Where's the correlation? The one-to-one connection between spending more time building a character and the session being more fun?
The one to one connection between them spending more time building and them having more fun in the session is - THEM.
Jester David wrote:
Then that says a lot about how engaged you are with the story if you need constant advancement to avoid being bored.
The amount of systemic engagement via advancement does not reflect at all on ones narrative engagement with the plot.
Whatever. As I've said, 5e is a good game and I don't think I'm closing the book on it forever. I think I just need to get a better DM.
This. For me 5E lives and dies at the GMs feet.
I couldn't agree more.
A lot of elements of 5e, for better or worse, are even more directly controlled by the DM, and also require quality narrative skills. Over the weekend I had an occasion to do some board gaming with my DM. During that game we got to talking about likes and dislikes of 5e.
It wasn't his pros and cons that got to me, but how he related them. Every conversation with this person is a debate. He listed off his pros and cons and any question I had, or anywhere where my feelings diverged from his, it was like a personal slight to him.
The more I think of it, the more I realize that this is how he narrates the game. First off, he gives very little detail, as I've said upthread. Then when we players make decisions based on those details, he then reveals OTHER details that, had we had the whole picture ahead of time would've strongly influenced our decisions.
More than that, this DM has actively derided us when later explaining to us that we came to the wrong conclusion. Now I'm not talking about going the wrong way in a dungeon or something; our characters can't know what they physically couldn't know. I'm more referencing narrative details. Take for example his "Shamsaran Empire" that apparently exists on the outskirts of our starting area.
Shamsar:
When the game first started and we were making our characters, the only setting details were the town that we started in, period. That first session then ended with a minor epilogue, the DM revealing to us that our town and the ruined settlement of Crystal Falls were once their own kingdom but that the kingdom fell a "long time ago" and now our town basically governs themselves.
Now, between sessions I emailed the DM and asked about some political boundaries and stuff, just trying to get a bigger picture. My DM told me I don't have proficiency in History; these just aren't details my character would know.
Fine; session 2 began with our characters trying to gather info. Amid that info I was specifically asking the town's populace the questions I posed in my between-session email. My DM pokes fun at my need for "extraneous details" and provides a map of the area. No political boundaries, but three names on the map: the town we're in, Celadorn, the town we're headed to, and a big sideways blurb across one corner of the map labeled "Shamsaran Empire."
What's that I ask. "The Shamsaran Empire." He replies, smirking. What followed was nearly 20 minutes of teeth pulling on my part to try and ask the local townsfolk what the "Shamsaran Empire is." The only things that are revealed to me are that the empire sort of came together as the wars back in the day were ending. The Shamsaran basically went around, buying up settlements that broke off from other kingdoms and impressing them into their empire. Our town is NOT part of the empire, but our kingdom lost ground to the Shamsaran.
The general attitude of every townsperson I spoke to was that the empire STOLE the lands it controls. No one however was entirely certain what the actual boundaries of the empire are. These two points seem to suggest to me that the Shamsaran might be an oppressive regime. With no other details we set out on our mission.
There is apparently a settlement, not noted on the map, between our starter town and Celadorn. We head there to rest and resupply. Once here I lead off in the local tavern asking about the specter of the Shamsaran Empire. Immediately the DM chuckles a bit and THEN brings up the fact that this town, AND Celadorn, are part of the empire. THEN, AFTER my character blurts out anti-Shamsaran rhetoric, my character notices the pennants of the empire on this town's guildhall out the tavern window.
I mean... WHAT? We'd traveled 7 hours from our home town. At the rate our characters move, that means we'd gone just over 20 miles. That means that 1. my home town folks, 20 miles away, don't know that their nearest neighbor (that was once part of OUR kingdom that people all around my home town were proud of the legacy of) is now an Empire town; 2. My character and the paladin missed spotting any signs of Shamsar through the WHOLE town with passive Perception.
The DM explained... I didn't ASK, so he didn't tell.
There are a lot of moments like this, thinking of my friendship with this guy. He purposely misdirects in conversation and nearly EVERY conversation, even those about opinions, either have to end with him being right or agreeing to disagree.
Narratively this DM is specifically creating scenarios, by controlling the flow of information, that require us as players to take actions or make decisions without a reliable picture of what's going on. When these actions learn to a negative consequence or conflict, one that we might have foreseen and avoided, we are chided as poor players who got what we deserved.
Again... bottom line, I need a better DM.
The frustration just comes from having multiple bad narrator DMs/GMs in a row now. Here's my simple request for any future game runner that I'm just putting out into the universe: If my character walks into a town, tell me what I see, don't wait for me to ask "what do I see?" The DM/GM sets the scene, so obvious info that my character's working senses could have detected with ease, if not delivered to me, suggests to me as a player that they are not significant enough to have any immediate bearing on my PC or the game.
Likewise, on the occasions where I do ask questions of the setting or narrative, rather an taking this as an assault or feeling some need to obscure information from my probe, specifically take note of the fact that my asking these questions means I'm TRYING TO ENGAGE with the setting as a player. MORE information, not less, is a good reward for that attempt, in order to incentivize MORE engagement from me in the future.
Last, but certainly not least... don't laugh at your players. Like, c'mon folks; no one likes a DM/GM that acts like a Disney stereotype of a high-school bully. I kinda feel like this should go without saying, but there it is.
I'm actually kind of bored with 5e whether I play it or gm it.
Like when I was new to game completely I had fun in first few campaigns, but after a while I realized that if I make character of same class, they play exactly the same, and lot of times there are level ups where i barely nothing if I'm not playing a caster. On GM side I'm frustrated by ambigious rules which sometimes are freeform and sometimes have super specific rules for scenario, encounter design guidelines are confusing, monster design seems arbitrary(quickling is good example of overpowered for their cr monster...) and lot of monsters have been quite bland in monster manual compared to their older incarnations in previous editions.
Like yeah, good GM helps with every system but I don't really think 5e helps gm much besides prep time wise.
But yeah, umm, regarding your friend/gm/dm there, they are kinda starting to get area of "no gm is better than bad gm" mostly in terms of how they seem to act in bad faith
Mark: You definitely need a new GM. From what you say, he'd deliberately withholding information from the players then throwing their acting in ignorance back at them with a smirk and a "GOTCHA!!"
That's atrocious GMing.
If that's how he runs games, I can see why the players of his previous group all quit on him. I would.
But on D&D 5e, I'll reiterate what I said upthread: I think it's a compromise system that handles most in-game situations more-or-less adequately, and nothing particularly well. The rules put a LOT of responsibility on the GM, but offers little-to-no practical advice on how to run a fun game effectively.
Love it or hate it, Gary Gygax provided a TON of instructions and advice on how to DM a game back in the AD&D 1e Dungeon Master's Guide... and much of that advice was minimized/excised from later editions of the game (Not all of Gygax' advice was good IMO, but it was there.)
