Ten Years (Part 2)

As you know, I quite like D&D 5E. Hopefully I was able to illuminate some of its positive qualities that you may have overlooked. But let's be honest. This is the moment you've all been waiting for. The bad parts. A lot of people bounce off of 5E at first or they fall out of love with it after a while. But you want to know what a person who's spent a full decade playing it has to complain about. What are the most agonizing parts of this game after all this time?

Well, like before, I have to split them up into a few categories. Because "what makes D&D bad" is not just a long list, but a nuanced one.

Things that will literally never change no matter what

This is actually the "least bad" list in this post, oddly enough. Because even if I have misgivings about these things, the fact that I still play the game anyway means that they must be acceptable on some level. To me, anyhow. I wouldn't judge anyone else for considering these to be deal breakers.

1. The six attributes. You know 'em, you got opinions about 'em. Everyone who's ever played an RPG in their life has eventually thought about the flaws of those classic six character attributes. And I just don't see them going anywhere. There are few things truly core to D&D, but this is probably one of them. Wisdom will never be given a better name and Constitution will always be treated as though it's somehow equivalent to Strength and Dexterity even though it obviously isn't.
   
   
2. "Race fantasy." As in, being able to play as "humanoids." D&D is and has always been a game about the fantasy of racializing people. You can blame it on the game's origins, that it was created by white men from the American Midwest, many of whom held conservative worldviews even by the standards of their time. But D&D has never stopped being about this, even as its sought a progressive shift. The efforts to escape it have often only reinforced an antiquated and deeply troubling understanding of race, have only doubled down on equating "fantasy race" and real-life race, have only further confused the issue.
   
   The new edition finally adopts the term "species" instead. While I think this is (technically) an improvement, in that it's more semantically accurate and may, over time, reduce the confusion entangling the conversation stemming from the word "race," it's so minor an adjustment that it really doesn't change anything substantial at all. D&D is a game about racializing people, about splitting them into groups defined by tangibly real biological differences, and about uncritically constructing and playing in imaginary societies stratified by those differences.
   
   And it is the single most sacred thing in the entire game. There is a huge, huge portion of the audience for whom "playing as an elf" is definitional to D&D. It's the entire point. Hell, there's a huge number of people who refer to the entire hobby itself as "elf games" on this basis. I honestly believe that most D&D players would sooner remove dice from the game than remove the option to play as a tiefling.
   
   I have reservations about this. Every game I've created or am creating is about playing as humans. I recommend you consider this option yourself, if you make games. But I also think there are plenty of games that manage to allow you to play as non-humans without recreating and celebrating the dynamics of real-world racialization. Those are cool, too. But I don't see D&D ever doing that, and I've just had to make my peace with that. Because yes, I really like playing as my dwarf.
   
   
3. It's an action game, kids. It's about violence. You have to accept this. If you aren't on board with that, I'm sorry. I sympathize, of course. It's not for everyone! More and more people are getting into RPGs than ever, and D&D is the entry point for nearly all of them. But there's a growing audience of folks who just aren't really into killing monsters in gruesome fashion. And it isn't just as simple as "play non-violent games" (if there even truly is such a thing). I'm talking about an audience whose preferences range all the way from "I just want to play a cozy slice of life game about my halfling running a cafe" to "I want to go on adventures, delve dungeons, and even face off against monsters... but I just don't really want to play a crunchy tactical combat simulator as the main activity comprising that."
   
   A lot of them say they just run 5E but don't really do combat all that often. Of course, they're leaving, like, 80% of the game on the table by doing so. But hey, lots of games are played without touching most of the crunch in the book. I won't tell them they're wrong.
   
   What has bothered me is watching WotC struggle to find a middle ground on this. Where the game design parts have only increased their emphasis on the crunchy tactical combat part of the game, yet the setting and adventure design parts seem to want to remove or mitigate the narrative potential for players to engage with that stuff. They were already getting cagey about the "heroic action" genre early in the edition, and it's just gotten worse since then. Sanitizing the Forgotten Realms doesn't really make it more inviting to that playstyle. It just alienates anyone who did want to play a game where they could fight bad guys and kick ass.
   
   In my opinion, the "best" answer is, unfortunately, for the players to change, not the game. Returning to that spectrum, the ideal options are going to likewise range widely. Some of you will be happier simply playing a soft game without any action in it. Start by looking for "cozy RPGs," figure out your threshold for how dark it can get where you still feel comfy. Others of you just want an action-adventure fantasy game that isn't about tactical crunchy skirmish gameplay. Literally anywhere from "pick the right OSR" to "pick the right PbtA" to "play Ryuutama." And some of you may actually be happiest in the middle, a game with a playful "cartoon violence" like Labyrinth: the Adventure Game (which, yes, I will continue to shill forever and ever).
   
   The point is, as always, more gamers should be playing games other than D&D. I'm not saying this to exclude you. I love soft games. There's so many good ones out there for you to check out. You'll be happier once you do.

Things that annoy me

None of these are seriously bad. Even when taken together, they're still not a deal breaker. But they definitely grate on you after a decade. And all of them would be pretty easy to fix. If the next edition were identical to 2014 5E but simply addressed each of these problems, then it would have easily earned its place.

1. Ability scores. They gotta go. It's time. They aren't used for anything anymore. And whatever highly specific and obscure example you're about to cite from 5E where you somehow use your score rather than the modifier? It can be changed, I assure you. This is one of the most needlessly confusing and obtuse mechanics in the game. It's always hard to explain to new players. There's a reason other games don't do this.
   
   If you're a nerd for game design and you feel like there's something still salvageable here, some way to justify still including ability scores, you're not alone. Good luck and have fun with that.
   
   
2. Saving throws. This one will be more controversial, but I personally have never cared for saving throws as a mechanic in pretty much any game. The distinction between regular checks and saving throws has always been incredibly weak. "Ability checks are for when you're actively attempting to do something, whereas saving throws are for when something happens to you." I'm sorry, I ain't buying it. Maybe it makes sense when you hear it for the first time, but it falls apart in practice. There are a lot of edge cases where you can rationalize something as being either of those two. Maybe more importantly, it's a distinction you quickly realize doesn't benefit the game in any way. When are you ever going to make a Constitution roll that isn't a saving throw? Why have a separate mechanic for that?
   
   Once again, this is a silly distinction that only exists because of the baggage of D&D's legacy. Most other games combine both of these functions into one mechanic, the basic dice roll, and it works fine. Oh, and those games that only have saving throws but don't include ability checks, like Into the Odd or Knave? Those are secretly just ability checks, but with a new name. It's just a framing thing. It sets different expectations, but mechanically it's the same thing.
   
   5E finally making the saving throw types literally the same as the 6 attributes only serves to highlight what a pointless mechanic they are. I especially dislike how some spells are saving throw based and other spells are attack roll based, with seemingly no rhyme or reason for which ones are which. All it means is that, once again, new players get confused because they have to learn a second mechanic that's redundant with the first mechanic. More terminology to learn, more space taken up on the character sheet, more time spent in character creation on decisions that aren't actually that interesting.
   
   Honestly, I quite like how 4th Edition reworked saving throws into passive defenses, more analogous to Armor Class. "Rare 4E dub" as the kids say.
   
   
3. Conditions. I really like the idea of "status effects" in combat games. Ways of harming or hindering your opponent that aren't just straight damage. But the conditions in 5E are pretty frustrating. They're all tucked away in an index in the back of the PHB and are hard to look up, their descriptions are wordy and fiddly so you can't easily memorize them, and there's definitely some overlap between a few effects that could be streamlined.
   
   
4. Exhaustion. This is my go-to example of a bad mechanic. Maybe the worst-designed single mechanic in all of 5E? To its credit, the new edition actually did overhaul this rule, and the new version seems waaaay better. Again, I want to like exhaustion as a mechanic. I like the idea of fatigue being a problem to deal with, of there being an alternative avenue of PC death than just HP loss. But this sucks.
   
   
5. Creature types are frustrating. At some point, someone decided that every creature belongs to one and only one type, and then a bunch more mechanics were designed around that restriction. Is a dracolich a "dragon" or an "undead?" How about a faerie dragon? "Dragon" or "fey?" Why can't a treant be both a "plant" and a "giant," or a gibbering mouther both an "ooze" and a "aberration?" They're all made up categories, anyway. I won't claim that this comes up a lot. But every now and then, it causes problems and annoys everyone at the table.
   
   
6. Darkvision. Obviously. It only serves to negate potentially interesting gameplay, not offering any meaningful choices as an alternative. If it were confined only to rare instances, such as if it were exclusive to dwarves or if were only a spell that you must expend a slot to cast, then it would be fine. But it's given away for free to nearly every race in the game, except humans. God, what an annoying decision.
   
   I can't imagine it was an accident that nearly all PCs would be given darkvision so freely, so I must wonder: why didn't the designers just get rid of darkness entirely? They clearly do not want you to ever have to engage with it as a part of the game, for some reason unfathomable to me. So they should have just gotten rid of it altogether.
   
   
7. The encumbrance rules suck. Again, not at all a controversial opinion. Of course, they seem pretty straightforward. Simply tally up the weight of all the objects you're carrying, tracking the number of that total. Easy, right? But it just sucks to do. It sucks to constantly erase and re-write this number every time you shoot an arrow or eat a ration or spend or receive money. It sucks having to ask the DM "how much does this little frog idol weigh?" and then the DM goes, "shit uhhh I dunno. Maybe a pound, I guess?" There's a reason every group on the planet just handwaves it.
   
   Like many of you, I prefer slot-based encumbrance rules, although I'm also open to a variety of other systems. But most options would be better than the 5E rules. Remember back during B/X, when you only had to bother tracking the weight of armor and treasure, and weight was measured in coins? Even that would be an improvement.
   
   
8. The character sheet has a lot of issues. By no means is it terrible or anything. But after 10 years of using it, you bet I have some feedback. There's nowhere near enough room to list out your equipment. They severely underestimated how many proficiencies the average character starts with. There isn't anywhere to record half the information you need for your basic attacks (modifiers? range? damage type? non-damage effects?). A lot of space could be cleared up by moving all the roleplaying stuff (traits, bonds, flaws, ideals) to the second page, which makes more sense anyway. And by golly, writing out your class features is just such a huge pain in the ass.
   
   Y'know, every time I've played a crunchy RPG for, say, more than a year? I eventually use some fan-made character sheets tailored to each class. They're so handy, it's kind of bonkers that WotC hasn't made these an official thing yet. There can still be a simplified generic character sheet for first-time players, of course. But once you're at, like, level 5 or so, you'll have outgrown that design.
   
   
9. Damage types don't matter as much as I would like them to. Wouldn't it be cool if the type of damage you deal made a difference? So you had to pick your choice of weapon or spell carefully? Whatever is best suited to that particular enemy. A fighter would have a reason to carry a variety of weapons instead of just one favorite. Like a bag of golf clubs, each one built to a different purpose.
   
   Instead, it makes absolutely no difference to the vast majority of enemies. Even though the game has a rule for monsters being resistant, immune, or vulnerable to particular damage types, they didn't use it enough to ever actually spark interesting gameplay. Resistance to poison is extremely common, vulnerability to fire crops up now and then, but other than that it very rarely matters. Instead, high-level enemies will usually just have resistance to any nonmagical damage, which is probably the most boring choice they could have made.
   
   What's weird is that the game is nonetheless filled with character features that allow you to change your damage type. You can change your fireball to a lightning-ball? Big deal. How often is that going to come up? But the designers keep adding new character options that include this, so they must be under the impression that it's somehow a meaningful benefit.
   
   
10. Let me play as a large boi, dammit. WotC keeps making large-sized monsters into playable races but then shrinking them to medium size, because they are cowards. The goliath, the firbolg, the loxodon, the centaur, and even the minotaur. These obviously should all be large. Instead, most of them just get a racial feature called "powerful build," letting them count as large-sized only for the purpose of determining how much stuff they can haul around. BOOOOOOOooooo. 
    
    The devs have explained that there are too many issues with playable races being large-sized. So let's make a list of pros and cons.
    

    Cons: squeezing through medium-sized spaces is difficult terrain while small-sized spaces are impossible, there's less situations where you can be stealthy, you can be surrounded by more enemies on a grid, you're easier to target with area spells, small creatures can move through your space as difficult terrain, you can't ride horsies, and you need to eat and drink way more.
    
    Pros: you can carry more stuff, you can block more space in a fight, you can reach more enemies on a grid, you can occupy more of a spell's area, you can't be grappled or shoved by small creatures, you can grapple and shove huge creatures, you're immune to lots of monster abilities like "swallow," and the enlarge spell is even better for you.

    There you have it. And you know what I say? BRING IT ON. Like, seriously, does that not appear to shake out roughly evenly? I'll admit that having to deal with all of those factors does complicate a lot. But we can take it.
    
    There's some lingering questions about how some spells would work, and also a question as to how your base damage might be affected, seeing as the DMG tells you to double the damage dice for large-sized enemies. But notice that, throughout the rules, the "small" and "medium" size categories often behave identically in lots of ways that other size categories would differ. They're only partially distinct from one another. Thus, we should just lump "large" into that grouping.
    
    Also maybe make it so large-sized bois have disadvantage using Light weapons, in the same way small-sized characters have disadvantage using Heavy weapons.
    
    
11. The guidance spell. The reason it's in this category instead of the next one is because my main group doesn't really use it. But I understand that's not the norm. Here's a recap of the spell:
    
    
    
    
    

    This was engineered in a laboratory to annoy DMs. Every damn roll, the cleric pipes up with their dumb little free d4 bonus. There are limits, of course. Casting it in combat isn't really viable. It takes an action rather than a reaction, you have to touch your target, and it requires concentration. But everything outside of combat? It's that perfect combination of "obnoxious interruption that slows the flow of the game, even for the simplest of tasks" yet also "way way way too good not to use."
    
    But the thing that actually bothers me about this spell is that it's fucking boring. What even is this? What is the magical effect that you're bestowing? How the hell is the DM supposed to describe this? What am I supposed to imagine is happening in the fiction when this spell is cast? It "improves your luck" I guess? What does that even mean? There is no explanation for this spell outside of the mechanics describing it, an element which exists only on the metagame layer.
    
    In other words, it's the worst kind of spell there is: one with no magic in it at all.
    
    
12. Procedures would be nice. If you read my blog, you know I'm a big procedure guy. Love me some numbered steps, flowcharts, gameplay cycles, etc. D&D used to have a bunch, but over time they cut each and every one except for the combat procedure. And I really do think the game has suffered a lot for it. One of the most common complaints people have about 5E is that it "doesn't do enough to support the DM." I think the number one reason is the absence of solid procedures for common activities. I have watched countless new DMs stumble their way through their first campaign because they don't really know how gameplay is meant to flow on a moment-to-moment basis. They know the rules, but they don't know how to connect them all together into a greater framework.
    
    The combat system is evidence enough of the vast utility of a game procedure. It's not too rigid or board game-y. It provides just enough concrete parameters to help guide the action, to inform the players of what kinds of decisions they can make and what the limits of those decisions would be. "We're going to take turns, each about 6 seconds long. On your turn, you can move and take an action, and if you've got one, a bonus action. Play it fast and loose, do things in whatever order, skip any of those if you want, whatever." It's simple and flexible. The DM always knows the next step in the process, always knows where they're supposed to be pointing the spotlight, always knows when relevant mechanics are triggered. Just those few constraints are immensely helpful for someone new to RPGs. Further, you can then tie even more elements of game design into that procedure. Every class gets combat features that only make sense in the context of the procedure that they're designed for. "You can use Bardic Inspiration as a bonus action." "You can substitute one of your attacks for a grapple when you use the Attack action."
    
    Yet then there's the poor Ranger, supposed to have wilderness exploration features but without a corresponding wilderness exploration procedure that they could fit into. Now you might say, "5E has lots of wilderness exploration rules!" But they're all just miscellaneous mechanics for various factors that might come up. They're missing their skeleton. Some guidelines for how and when to use each one. For this reason, my friend Warren and I went ahead and just wrote a damn book finally giving 5E (or rather, Tales of the Valiant) a wilderness exploration procedure. I think we did a pretty good job, so if you've still got any 5E love left in you then I hope you'll check it out.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I can understand the reluctance to embrace proceduralism. By building a framework around gameplay, you are necessarily limiting certain possibilities. Defining what adventure looks like within a specific shape. A really procedure-heavy game like Torchbearer practically has a script for you to follow, such that all campaigns are more-or-less the same thing. Modern D&D's ambition is be the "one-size fits all fantasy game." Even just including a dungeoncrawling procedure would imply that you're meant to be crawling dungeons, which isn't necessarily the case anymore. Better to instead rely on the flexible core mechanic to handle any and all situations, no?
    
    But I personally believe in the possibility of generic, simple, flexible procedures that can map onto a wide variety of gameplay situations. Something like Flux Space could be the template for all "traveling across a wide area" gameplay. Or something even looser, like Blades in the Dark's basic adventure cycle. Even the most bare-bones outline for what a quest looks like would benefit DMs and players both.
    
    
    
    
    
13. The adventures suck. I've harped on this enough before, so I'll spare you most of my thoughts. But yeah, I mean, they suck. They make these huge, expensive, detailed scenarios and they're all below-average in quality. No creative sauce, all railroaded plots, contrived and nonsensical plot elements, padded with substance-less filler, terrible formatting, and hack tricks that teach DMs bad habits.
    
    The reason why I put adventures in this category is because it's an easy enough thing to simply not use them. Make your own or run any of the thousands and thousands of other adventures available. But wouldn't it be cool if you didn't have to? I tend to value level design more than game design after all, so by that metric I would instead have to call 5E a terrible game.
    

As I've said several times, none of this is a deal breaker for me. It adds up to a bit of a headache, but no more painful than any other RPG I might want to play several hundred hours of. But what of the truly terrible complaints I promised?

SYKE! You thought this was going to be a two-parter? Please. We've got a whole other post to get through. I got carried away and this one ran a bit long, so I've saved the juiciest bits for last. Tune in soon for the final part of this series, to get the final word on 2014 5E D&D once and for all.

-Dwiz