|
> I see people on Reddit complaining about 5e (the current iteration of D&D) all the time: there are too many rules, combat is boring and drawn out (since all people really want to do is roleplay), keeping track of health and statuses is impossible...the list goes on. This is obviously super subjective, and everyone's opinion is right for themselves, but as someone who learned 3.5e first and then eventually moved on to Pathfinder and now plays PF 2.0, it's crazy to me that 5e would seem to rules heavy and combat too complex. I specifically prefer Pathfinder because 5e feels _too_ simplified compared to what I'm used to, and I just don't get the same enjoyment out of having a character that "feels" less powerful. > "I think I finally fixed D&D!" I heard someone on Reddit excitedly explain. "I just make up all the monsters' dice rolls and abilities and do whatever feels most cinematic, my party loves it!" > "That's not D&D," I want to say. "That's make-believe that involves you lying to your friends." Honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with that. I don't DM much anymore, but I totally am fine with the idea that my DM might occasionally fudge things to make the game more fun for everyone. Is it fun if in the first first round of the first encounter of an adventure the monster gets a lucky crit and kills the fighter, leaving it free reign to mop up everyone else? Some people might find it more enjoyable if it's "real" and want there to be randomness and a sense of danger! On the other hand, if this is the very first time this group of people has played, and they were enticed more by the roleplaying than the combat, it could sour their perception to the game to the point where they don't end up pursuing it despite the potential for them to have a lot of fun. I think an experienced DM will generally develop a good sense for their group and be able to tell when something warrants a bit of fudging to make the game more fun for everyone, and that's a good thing. This is sometimes even explicitly written in D&D rulebooks (I believe the 5th edition Player's Handbook includes this) as "Rule 0", which is that the rules are subject to the DM rather than vice-versa, and that every play group is free to customize the rules as they see fit. Obviously, there's a degree to which the rules can be changed or thrown out at which the game no longer resembles "by-the-book" D&D, but personally I don't think that it really matters that much where the line is (as long as you're not, like, trying to market things commercially as D&D when it's not, but that's really the purview of the company holding the trademark to decide). |