Controversial Opinion: 5e isn't great for CRPG?

[lazarusblack]

First off, this isn't a thread to knock Larian.

I know some people are going to come in hot, right out the gate having read the title and I'm sure to receive an abundance of clowns. I humbly accept your scorn (and the points)

But I'm asking for a genuine conversation and not just ♥♥♥♥ flinging.

I'm generally finding many of the 5e mechanics as Larian has interpreted them, underwhelming. I wasn't much of a fan of 5e anyway, so it's entirely possible I'm heavily biased here and so I'd love to hear some advocates make a compelling case for why 5e is better IN CRPG FORMAT than previous editions. I recognise it has benefits in terms of table top, expecially for new comers and those that aren't as invested in the meta.

But while I'm enjoying playing BG3, I'm finding certain aspects of the game... not good. That isn't to say that Larian haven't done something worthwhile with the material but that the material just doesn't have the same impact in CRPG format as perhaps it does in TT.

Just in terms of character development. The whole system feels so empty. I gave up playing a martial class pretty quickly as there really seemed little to decide upon at level up and class progression is pretty binary/boring.

I find myself comparing BG3 and 5e to WoTR and Pathfinder 1st edition which is close to DnD 3.5e and it's hands down a less engaging system. I know it isn't this bad in TT. I mean the same issue exists there, but it isn't as stark as it appears to be here.

There are other examples I could give, but hopefully that's enough to get the conversation going and finding out what other people think.

[Ruffio]

Origineel geplaatst door Coldhands:

Origineel geplaatst door lazarusblack:

5E is a lot more irritating for the DM though, because what it does is move the onus from players needing to know a ton of meta, to the DM having to homebrew and figure out a lot of mechanics that simply aren't covered in any real detail in 5E.

I have not found this to be the case at all. There's no "meta" to know, and the mechanics in 5e are way easier to run and adjudicate than earlier editions. 5e's the easiest version of D&D to run yet. It's great as a group storytelling device, the downside is that it's so easy to run because there's not very much going on on the game side of things, so it can get pretty boring when combat starts if people are looking to play it like tactical combat game.

tbh, I find the interaction and roleplay more fun than much of the combat when do dnd tabletop though. If you play with people that really into it, it can be quite fun.

[qqgachoo]

A common theme made here is how the simplification of 5e makes it easier for new players, and someone made the point that it can depend, for example a long time TTRPG player can find BG3 lackluster, but a new player can find it overwhelming - and certainly the amount of threads about how hard the game is or how many people misunderstand dice-based probability suggests this to be true.

But I think this actually points to one of the major problems in BG3 which is the LACK of information.

There are actually builds in this game, it's just that you have to have played through the classes to see each of the changes throughout leveling to understand what choices to make, and there is none here. There is no direction, no explanation, nothing. They don't even tell you your hit dice at character creation, they don't explain anywhere that they've decided instead to max roll your level 1, and average roll every level after, so you get 4-7 HP per level depending on class, not on hit dice.

For example, with regards to martial variability, you can make a killer dual weilding champion subclass fighter half-orc with savage attacker. you can make a monstrous drow eldritch knight with great weapon fighting and war caster, a savagely tanky gold defense dwarf battlemaster with durability and tough and just eat damage, etc etc.

But this is the problem. These are all deterministic video-gamey classes, not a one of them allows for variability in the build itself. You have to know what choices to make to get there.

This is not D&D.

Part of the fun of D&D is theorycrafting. It ALWAYS has been, since day one. People who like D&D like sitting over stats and charts and tables and planning out their character because that was very much how you infused your character's RP with aspirations and dreams, they became part of your drive for the character.

And yeah, that was almost non-existent in D&D/AD&D/2e - until all the player handbooks and errata were published towards the end of TSRs reign, and suddenly there were options galore, and it was beautiful.

I was actually talking about this with my wife last night, we're both long time gamers, and she made the observation that D&D, like any fandom, was originally a safe space for outcasts. Fandoms everywhere have always been predisposed to neurodivergent and non-binary people as a safe space since day one. Ed ♥♥♥♥♥♥ Greenwood is one of the most compassionate hippies ever. And so the observation was that, as 5e diluted the game by making it popular, it also diluted the player-base with an infusion of the people that the fandom had originally been escaping from - and unfortunately they spend the most money.

For my part, that makes me think about the prevalence of bigotry in many comments and threads around here and the counter arguments that suggest that old-school dnd was nothing but a bunch of racist boomers, and that's just not the case. D&D suffered from problems of representation and sexism like all things made before 2000, but I can't help but think that the rampant influx of anti-inclusion sentiment is here because when the game became popular, WE invited the vampires in.

Anyway, that went on a bit of a tangent.

BG3 is a fantastic Divinity: Forgotten Realms game. It's a Larian interpretation of Forgotten Realms with lots of cameos from beloved characters. But it's not Baldur's Gate, neither in game nor spirit. And 5e doesn't do it any favours with the lack of agency throughout the levelling process.

5e is an RPG without the G. And most new players seem to prefer it that way. Problematically, a CRPG cannot exist without a hardcoded G because you cannot possibly anticipate every potential idea a multitude of players will have.

EDIT: I should also add here that ANY piece of media that creates this much controversy and debate is an important piece of contemporary art. THAT is Larian's achievement with BG3.

[Coldhands]

Origineel geplaatst door Ruffio:

Origineel geplaatst door Coldhands:

I have not found this to be the case at all. There's no "meta" to know, and the mechanics in 5e are way easier to run and adjudicate than earlier editions. 5e's the easiest version of D&D to run yet. It's great as a group storytelling device, the downside is that it's so easy to run because there's not very much going on on the game side of things, so it can get pretty boring when combat starts if people are looking to play it like tactical combat game.

tbh, I find the interaction and roleplay more fun than much of the combat when do dnd tabletop though. If you play with people that really into it, it can be quite fun.

Agreed. Unfortunately, my group is more into combat. Most of them started with 3e, and so think of D&D as being all about character builds and mechanical optimization. They want to min/max a character and then take it into combat so it can "go off" and succeed.
Our table isn't devoid of RP, but it's not the main reason my players show up, sadly. : \

[magritte]

Origineel geplaatst door tsundoku81:

Part of the fun of D&D is theorycrafting. It ALWAYS has been, since day one. People who like D&D like sitting over stats and charts and tables and planning out their character because that was very much how you infused your character's RP with aspirations and dreams, they became part of your drive for the character.

And yeah, that was almost non-existent in D&D/AD&D/2e - until all the player handbooks and errata were published towards the end of TSRs reign, and suddenly there were options galore, and it was beautiful.

Umm...contradictory much? Day One for D&D was 1974, and by your own words you note that for twenty years there was no theorycrafting to speak of in the game. Theorycrafting is fundamentally antithetical to roleplaying since it relies on in-depth knowledge of rulebooks that your character would not have.

In fact, when D&D established itself as the top dog in the RPG world, it was comparatively simple compared to its competitors. People who liked sitting over stats and charts and tables liked Rolemaster, not D&D.

While I recognize that 3.5e/PF1 had plenty of fans, it was an aberration in terms of the system's history. 5e is way closer to its roots. And commercially speaking, 5e is probably the most popular version of D&D since 1st edition AD&D. That may be partly because of Stranger Things and people yearning for human interaction in online-dominated world, but it could also be because 3.5e had little appeal to people who had no prior experience with tabletop RPG's.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

While I agree with you magritte, let's be honest, newcomers to D&D are coming to RPG tables mostly thanks to streamers, streamers that probably discovered D&D through Stranger Things. The 5e ruleset is popular because it's the current one and that the one people discovered thanks to pop culture. D&D is less a niche thanks to pop culture. Bring Vampire: The Masquerade, Call of Chtulhu, Night Witches,... and you lose most of them.
The same goes for any video game genre: TbT, FPS, RTS,... Outside big popular titles, you lose most of the enthusiasts of those big titles. The best sellers are usually not the favorite games of hardcore gamers, but more of casual ones. I can only think of Minecraft as the exception.

[qqgachoo]

Origineel geplaatst door magritte:

Origineel geplaatst door tsundoku81:

Part of the fun of D&D is theorycrafting. It ALWAYS has been, since day one. People who like D&D like sitting over stats and charts and tables and planning out their character because that was very much how you infused your character's RP with aspirations and dreams, they became part of your drive for the character.

And yeah, that was almost non-existent in D&D/AD&D/2e - until all the player handbooks and errata were published towards the end of TSRs reign, and suddenly there were options galore, and it was beautiful.

Umm...contradictory much? Day One for D&D was 1974, and by your own words you note that for twenty years there was no theorycrafting to speak of in the game. Theorycrafting is fundamentally antithetical to roleplaying since it relies on in-depth knowledge of rulebooks that your character would not have.

In fact, when D&D established itself as the top dog in the RPG world, it was comparatively simple compared to its competitors. People who liked sitting over stats and charts and tables liked Rolemaster, not D&D.

While I recognize that 3.5e/PF1 had plenty of fans, it was an aberration in terms of the system's history. 5e is way closer to its roots. And commercially speaking, 5e is probably the most popular version of D&D since 1st edition AD&D. That may be partly because of Stranger Things and people yearning for human interaction in online-dominated world, but it could also be because 3.5e had little appeal to people who had no prior experience with tabletop RPG's.

I said almost non-existent. There were still plenty of tables and options to pour over in early D&D, near the end of 2e is when things really started to flesh out. That was the point of what I was saying, not your nitpick about my verbiage, which was clearly rhetorical and not matter-of-fact.

Popularity is not indicative of quality. It never has been. 5e is popular because it appeals to the lowest common denominator oh gamers. 5e largely lacks the game component of the role-playing game. One of the criteria for a game is rules. The more rules you strip away, the less of a game you have. And the popularity of the game within the consumer sphere is precisely what I was talking about.

[orthostatic]

I loved 2E because its rulebooks came with awesome stories about why those rules came about, and there was a gorgeous synergy between the fantasy books (Greenwood, Niles, Novak, Grubb, Salvatore, etc.) and the game. It was a stroke of genius that they pushed it like that, even if TSR bit off more than they could chew administratively.

My only devotion to 2E as a CRPG ruleset comes from BG1 and BG2 using it and being the favorite and most-repeated of RPG experiences I've ever had. Well, that and the fact that it had rules at all. 3e might've been fine but I never saw it since my friends and I all stayed on 2e for tabletop, and still do.

I thought the folks who did Pillars of Eternity did a great job rolling their own CRPG. It was also neat to play the Pathfinder game, though I really hate how slowly the characters walk in it.

BG3's interpretation of whatever garbage 5e turned out, honestly, is still reasonably fun. I don't need it to be 2e, though I'd like it if they used 2e lore since 5e kids appear to be revising history on a whim.

[Sephiroth]

Problems with BG3 are 1. neutered spell casters due to bad mechanics like concentration and the spells that rely on it. 2. EVERYONE should NOT be able to use scrolls.. 3. Quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

1. Casters are neutered by bad mechanics like concentration. Needs to be fixed asap. possibly add some nice feats that allow more than one spell to be concentrated on. But the most important thing that needs to be working in proper order is many spells that are rendered useless do to the horrible state of the mechanic its all very imbalanced making casters spells useless.
examples:
Improved invisibility is basically regular invisibility because of how bad concentration mechanic is in this game. Anytime you do anything it breaks. War caster does not make a difference it still sucks... the game is checking your constitution.. for it.. instead of your casting statistic... like charisma... also improved invisibility is relying on stealth checks... which are BROKEN in battle... and again.. improved invisibility should provide you with a bonus to those checks if they are going to require them to be made.
How do we know?
Simple we have tried these in game follow the rules and making builds and the end result is that ITS BROKEN AND IT DOES NOT WORK OUT.
Improved invisibility sucks.

Other things that concentration is having a bad affect on.
Look at a simple basic spell like BLUR... this could be useful...if the game did not make you use concentration to have it on... its an ok spell... but not something you should be wasting your concentration on.

Some nice buffs would be to allow casters to concentrate on 2 spells at once if they reached 20 in their casting statistic or reached a certain spell level.


2. self explanitory.

3. quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

[⇧⇨⇩⇩⇩]

Origineel geplaatst door Sephiroth:

Problems with BG3 are 1. neutered spell casters due to bad mechanics like concentration and the spells that rely on it. 2. EVERYONE should NOT be able to use scrolls.. 3. Quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

1. Casters are neutered by bad mechanics like concentration. Needs to be fixed asap. possibly add some nice feats that allow more than one spell to be concentrated on. But the most important thing that needs to be working in proper order is many spells that are rendered useless do to the horrible state of the mechanic its all very imbalanced making casters spells useless.
examples:
Improved invisibility is basically regular invisibility because of how bad concentration mechanic is in this game. Anytime you do anything it breaks. War caster does not make a difference it still sucks... the game is checking your constitution.. for it.. instead of your casting statistic... like charisma... also improved invisibility is relying on stealth checks... which are BROKEN in battle... and again.. improved invisibility should provide you with a bonus to those checks if they are going to require them to be made.
How do we know?
Simple we have tried these in game follow the rules and making builds and the end result is that ITS BROKEN AND IT DOES NOT WORK OUT.
Improved invisibility sucks.

Other things that concentration is having a bad affect on.
Look at a simple basic spell like BLUR... this could be useful...if the game did not make you use concentration to have it on... its an ok spell... but not something you should be wasting your concentration on.

Some nice buffs would be to allow casters to concentrate on 2 spells at once if they reached 20 in their casting statistic or reached a certain spell level.


2. self explanitory.

3. quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

I lol @ U. XD

[Ruffio]

Origineel geplaatst door Sephiroth:

Problems with BG3 are 1. neutered spell casters due to bad mechanics like concentration and the spells that rely on it. 2. EVERYONE should NOT be able to use scrolls.. 3. Quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

1. Casters are neutered by bad mechanics like concentration. Needs to be fixed asap. possibly add some nice feats that allow more than one spell to be concentrated on. But the most important thing that needs to be working in proper order is many spells that are rendered useless do to the horrible state of the mechanic its all very imbalanced making casters spells useless.
examples:
Improved invisibility is basically regular invisibility because of how bad concentration mechanic is in this game. Anytime you do anything it breaks. War caster does not make a difference it still sucks... the game is checking your constitution.. for it.. instead of your casting statistic... like charisma... also improved invisibility is relying on stealth checks... which are BROKEN in battle... and again.. improved invisibility should provide you with a bonus to those checks if they are going to require them to be made.
How do we know?
Simple we have tried these in game follow the rules and making builds and the end result is that ITS BROKEN AND IT DOES NOT WORK OUT.
Improved invisibility sucks.

Other things that concentration is having a bad affect on.
Look at a simple basic spell like BLUR... this could be useful...if the game did not make you use concentration to have it on... its an ok spell... but not something you should be wasting your concentration on.

Some nice buffs would be to allow casters to concentrate on 2 spells at once if they reached 20 in their casting statistic or reached a certain spell level.


2. self explanitory.

3. quicken spell should require 2 points not 3.

Yeah spell casters sooo bad right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wwsR122myE

[Aetemes]

Ow no, this is exactly why I have not felt the temptation to buy the game....when I tried pathfinder and first encountered this whole DnD ruleset, I found the whole thing very..."convoluted" with no actual rewarding feel when you actually come to understand it. I don't know how to articulate it....but it's just "dead passive things, that will work or they won't".

It does not actually impact how you feel "power" wise...or even "class feel wise". Just words and texts. Feels like tons of choices...but they don't "materialise" when you are playing.

A lot of people have stated that this is fun if you play the table top games, which I am not into any of that my self.

I tried to get it...but I just really want a skill based RPG, that has rich diverse class feels, not an rng fiesta, with a side of calculus that doesn't even matter like that??. I don't think BG3 is that bad in that aspect from the the outside, but I just..don't want to get the game for that kinda experience...not at full price anyways <:.

[Coldhands]

Man, I'll tell you what's not great about 5e: Casting a level 3 Cure and it healing SEVEN hp. Why are spells that can do basically nothing due to RNG good game design?
Enemy made their save? I get that. Spell hit but the floor is so low it'll occasionally be worthless? Who thought that would be anything but a pointless annoyance in their game people are supposed to have fun with?
It's like being back in 3e, where cantrips were so weak you didn't even have dice small enough for them.

[DinoMight]

i think a lot of people here yearning for 2/2.5e wear a bit of rose tinted glasses when it comes to combat and the "G" part of the "RPG" and prolly misremember a lot about BG1 and BG2 and how they were back in the day

but i have one word for it to counter any nostalgia about it, and why me personally even though 5e tends to be lackluster at times, prefer it over 2e dnd any time
and that is
thac0

its major reason why i dont go back to bg1&2 anymore and why i play newer, more modernized games

screw that system, and im very glad that we left it in the past and that bg3 is based on 5e dnd

someone had to say it... sorry

[qqgachoo]

You can be sorry all you like, but it doesn't make your opinion any more or less factual.

You sit here and tell everyone with a minor complaint about BG3 that if they don't like it they can go play something else, and yet in the same breath argue that the game we like - but you don't - needed to be changed to suit you? Your hypocrisy is nauseating.

I don't misremember BG 1 or 2 ... because I still actively play them. A lot of people still play them, and if you filter out the echo chamber there are a lot of people on this forum who think they are better games. You just choose not to acknowledge that.

Frankly, I think people like you who don't like the old games just suck at them and get frustrated at them the same way they get frustrated at people who find this game to be a cakewalk.

[lazarusblack]

Origineel geplaatst door Coldhands:

Origineel geplaatst door Ruffio:

tbh, I find the interaction and roleplay more fun than much of the combat when do dnd tabletop though. If you play with people that really into it, it can be quite fun.

Agreed. Unfortunately, my group is more into combat. Most of them started with 3e, and so think of D&D as being all about character builds and mechanical optimization. They want to min/max a character and then take it into combat so it can "go off" and succeed.
Our table isn't devoid of RP, but it's not the main reason my players show up, sadly. : \

This might be where our experience differs.

I love TT for the role play aspect. So does the group I play with most. We love combat too and we love theory crafting. I love making builds and its one reason I DM. Creating interesting characters and monstets for my players to encounter and then witnessing (and sometimes being astounded and frustrated at the unexpected ways they deal with these creations and plots of mines!) It's a very organic experience and it's very much an aspect of DnD that no CRPG, no matter how good has been able to replicate.

I think that is why for many, memorable and seemingly living companions are sooo important in games. If dome right and well, it can replace the group aspect that is so integral for the DnD experience.

Now in CRPG'S I honestly think that same lack of real party dynamics you get around the table, leads to a shift in focus from narrative and non combat role-playing elements to the combat system and the expression of one's character via combat.

I agree in principle with the other person who said that combat ought not be the focus of a true DnD game, but I think the format of a CRPG necessitates that shift. Especially when the writing fails to create as compelling a narrative and social aspect to the game as you'd find in TT.

I can see why people might favour 5E, which tries to reorient the focus a little, away from a combat focus, that 3.5 for example, is more inclined towards with it's vast tables of numerous feats, skills, subclasses, prestige classes etc etc.

But the problem for me is that, it is that much harder and that much more vital, to get the narrative, writing and social simulation aspects pretty much spot on in a CRPG, for that aspect of 5E to shine through if BG3 is anything to go by.

Granted I haven't played Solasta, which I hear does the wider mechanics much better than BG3. But in BG3, I feel like it stumbles. The combat can easily become so unengaging. I understand this is a matter of preference. But I find the combat to be repetitive, unexciting and builds still seem to be inclined towards combat.

A number of choices Larian has made regarding dice rolls in conversation undermine a focus in that direction. For example, dice rolls on low speech checks that depend on class skills or proficiency skills, which opens up the chance of critical fails (which happen way too often) introduce a degree of "♥♥♥♥ you" randomness that don't make that style of gameplay fun or consistent. Some speech checks should have been auto successes without rolls due to character skills and proficiencies.

Then there is the narrative. I think you can tell there is an interesting story here and by Larians standards it's a masterpiece. By DnD standards its okay, but because of the need to voice so much dialogue, there is an instant cap on how much they can do with dialogue, writing and story telling. Here we have a systemic limitation, because of the medium and the industry.

So you have a ruleset that is designed to reduce, in particular the combat focus and "clutter" if you will and reorient towards simpler and easier roleplay and yet, in terms of game design there are extreme limitations how much they can capitalise on the narrative and role-playing aspect, by virtue of the mediums shortcomings.

And this is the crux of my issue with 5e. Granted. I haven't played Solasta and all I keep hearing is that it does 5e better. So I gotta check it out sooner or later and maybe, it will make a believer of me, that 5e is suited to CRPG.

But for now, I feel like the format by its nature needs to reorient focus towards combat and perhaps build and progression epements and thus the accompanying meta, to compensate for the mediums limitations on the social, narrative and dialogue based role play aspects of DnD which it struggles to match on table top.

5e might have potential to be better for roleplay with an ease of social and emergent narrative gameplay in TT (not my experience but I'm coming from prior editions. I'm not new and that does make a difference) but it is fundamentally hobbled in the CRPG arena by that mediums inherent technological and financial limitations.

Thus I still come to the conclusion that 5e is just not good for CRPG, where as some older versions, whose focus lies in other areas of roleplay and expression, are much better suited to CRPG format.