D&D 5E I played a game of Classic D&D.

[schnee]

We older DM's are now see'ing the legacy of the World of Warcraft mentality in paper and pen RPG's designs. In D&D 3.5, you could still die sometimes but 4E took D&D to an MMO level of playing and 5E I think continues this trend but in a lot less transparent way.

Yeah, dude, there's a reason 'Monty Haul' campaigns were so widely sneered at. Because they were so prevalent.

The idea that all players back then were these mega-wise, tough, resilient thinkers is hogwash. Sure, they existed, but all throughout life, the only constant has bee Sturgeon's Law - that, and we all look at the past through rose-colored lenses.

I think it is different now, but the degree is less than I hear about in forums. And it's definitely a healthy balance of 'worse some ways, better in others'. IMO and all that.

 

[guachi]

For an awesome thread on the awesome awesomeness of B/X BECMI, go here

It's someone deciding to run people through random dungeons and then everyone having so much fun they made a campaign out of it. Nailbiting excitement!!!!

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Believe me, I much prefer 5E over 1E anyway, its nice to muse over those bygone days, but I think people are having more fun playing D&D than they have done in the past. Whats more interesting is the different Dm'ing styles that have evolved over the last 5 editions, from free ranging DM's who are very liberal about how they run their campaigns to DM's who are very conservative on how they run their own campaigns. A very eclectic range of DM'ing styles indeed.

Scott

Yeah, dude, there's a reason 'Monty Haul' campaigns were so widely sneered at. Because they were so prevalent.

The idea that all players back then were these mega-wise, tough, resilient thinkers is hogwash. Sure, they existed, but all throughout life, the only constant has bee Sturgeon's Law - that, and we all look at the past through rose-colored lenses.

I think it is different now, but the degree is less than I hear about in forums. And it's definitely a healthy balance of 'worse some ways, better in others'. IMO and all that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think there is truth that many people look at the past through rose colored glasses, however, 1e was my preferred edition until 2012. So it's not like I'm viewing my experiences through decades of nostalgia like many are probably assuming.

Also, an equally true statement is that human creativity and adaptability improves with the less tools you have available to you. There are countless examples of people, when faced with limited tools, use those tools more creatively when trying to achieve something. I've seen someone with nothing more than a hatchet create an entire table and chair set out of logs, in fact using that hatchet to create more tools in ways that most people wouldn't think of. In D&D terms, it is related to the "the more skills and powers and abilities listed on the sheet, the less likely a player will attempt something not explicitly listed as a skill, ability, or power." Which those of us who have gamed over the decades will have seen first hand as the editions have progressed.

 

[iserith]

I think there is truth that many people look at the past through rose colored glasses, however, 1e was my preferred edition until 2012. So it's not like I'm viewing my experiences through decades of nostalgia like many are probably assuming.

Also, an equally true statement is that human creativity and adaptability improves with the less tools you have available to you. There are countless examples of people, when faced with limited tools, use those tools more creatively when trying to achieve something. I've seen someone with nothing more than a hatchet create an entire table and chair set out of logs, in fact using that hatchet to create more tools in ways that most people wouldn't think of. In D&D terms, it is related to the "the more skills and powers and abilities listed on the sheet, the less likely a player will attempt something not explicitly listed as a skill, ability, or power." Which those of us who have gamed over the decades will have seen first hand as the editions have progressed.

I think there's a reliability issue though that plays into this. Though the rules of the game are really the DM's tools, in practice, players may come to rely on them more based on how the DM adjudicates. If the DM is likely to rule that "being creative" isn't as effective as simply using an explicit skill, ability, or power (as you say), then it's natural for the players to want to stick to the rules. I'm sure a lot of us can relate to this. And to be fair, it's not always easy to rule in a way that makes a creative solution as effective as pressing a button on the character sheet while not making that creative solution more effective and discouraging particular builds.

So as usual, I'm blaming the DM. But at least only partly this time because I otherwise agree with your tools analogy.

 

[DemonSlayer]

I've found that my enjoyment in playing is not the edition of the game. It's hanging out with friends and having a good time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've found that my enjoyment in playing is not the edition of the game. It's hanging out with friends and having a good time.

The social aspect is clearly the biggest impact to fun for sure. No game in the world will be fun if the people you're playing with are not enjoyable to be around. Conversely, the closest friends can make the worst game fairly enjoyable.

It is just a game, after all. A hobby. Something you should really be doing with people you like.

 

[The Old Crow]

Sounds awesome! Juxtaposing the editions, reveling in their fun bits and lampshading their failings, can be fun - and 'educational.'

I did a crossover like that, leavened with parody, for a convention. 'Lord of the Editions' ripped the Moria section of LotR. 12hr session, swapped eds every 4hrs...

That sounds like it was a lot of fun. And if I try the Tour again, I will do it with a time limit per each edition, or have it change over at some sort of milestone.

You could've started with 1e but might've had the same problem - just dropping a huge monetary haul, though, can take care of it, since the exp to level doesn't mesh well with the exp for taking on the fights you actually have a chance of winning - something 4e & 5e finally got right, if in slightly different ways ...

Well, the point was to play basic, because I had never played it before, and none of us have ever played 4e. At least now I have DMed basic. If I do it again I'll likely do what you did and put a time limit, or have a milestone like finding the way down to the next level of the dungeon.

 

[KarinsDad]

And what makes an encounter that is "almost impossible to beat" unfair?

I don't necessarily think that it is unfair, but it can be just as non-plausible as the DM who doesn't have such encounters.


Let's take an example. A group of 4 4th level PCs encounter an Adult Evil Dragon in 5E. Some DMs might think that this is unfair. Some DMs might think that this is "oh well, stuff happens".

I view it as forcing in a way. Sure, as DM, you can give some foreshadowing that the PCs should not enter the valley, maybe villagers told the PCs that there is an evil spirit in the valley that kills people. The villagers do not even know what it is because it kills anyone who goes near, but the villagers are scared crapless.


Issue #1: The DM added information into the game for a metagaming reason. He added the information because physical human beings are sitting at his table and he feels that he should warn those players of the danger, not because the PCs should actually attain that information. If the PCs would have not gone to the village, the villagers would not have been able to give them that information. So, the DM metagames and gives them foreshadowing in a different way. Maybe he throws a lone villager into the path that the PCs actually do take through the woods towards the valley, just to make sure that they get warned.


So, the players decide to go talk to this evil spirit and encounter an adult dragon. Yeah, they were warned, but again, the players know that this is a metagaming warning. One that the DM threw into their path, just so that later on he can say "Hey, I warned you". Meh.

Option #1. The dragon possibly talks to them a bit, but eventually kills them. This seems like the most logical outcome 99.9% of the time. How do you think that evil dragons get 90% of their lair treasure? By killing adventurers who have some treasure and possibly magical items. They don't get their lair treasures by knocking off farmers taking their vegetables on a cart to the local town. Second note on this: They are EVIL arrogant dragons. Why would a DM gimp them and not play them as badass evil? If the DM is going to allow for impossible or near impossible encounters, he should play the evil foes as actually evil.


Option #2. The PCs kowtow to the dragon or negotiate or whatever. The DM creates some plot device so that the Dragon decides to let the PCs live if they go off and do a quest for it. Why would this ever happen from an in character logical reason?

Issue #2: It happens for metagaming reasons. There are physical players at the DMs table and it takes a few hours for everyone to create a new PC and doing this sidetracks the current adventure. So the DM gives the players an out. Or, he doesn't (DM dependent, some DMs warn PCs, then they have the dragon kill them anyway).


So the point is this: The game can be played as CAS or CAW. If it is played as CAS, the DM is metagaming the power and frequency of the encounters. If it is played as CAW, the DM is either metagaming PC knowledge, or he is playing a game of "gotcha".

Either way, the DM is metagaming (or being a d__k). One form of DM metagaming is not really any better or worse than the other form. One avoids TPKs (for the most part) ahead of time by making encounters mostly level appropriate. One tries to avoid TPKs by adjusting player behavior by forcing them to make certain narrow decisions and not "stepping over the line". As a player, I sometimes just come to a game to kick butt, not to be schooled by a DM on the proper behavior of MY PC in each circumstance. Meh. Neither is definitively better or worse, but I know which one is more fun for me as a player (i.e.. I hate wasting my gaming time running into 5 Goblins at level 10 and the encounter is over before the last PC's init even comes up, just because the DM's world is "realistic"; or alternatively having my PC killed by the impossible encounter because the players ignored or misinterpreted the DM's hints du jour).

Neither approach is really "realistic" because both of them require metagaming on the part of the DM. It's just different types of metagaming. In one case, encounters should not always be level appropriate. In the other case, not all dangers should be telegraphed.

The CAW DM might think that his world is more plausible (or realistic), but he is still adapting it to the players (by throwing out hints and foreshadows and such quite a bit, shy of him being a rat bastard DM). It might not be as obvious that the DM is metagaming his world (although smarter players do catch on real quick), but he is.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*