D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Aldarc]

It seems like a non sequitur to talk about DnD being a tactical wargame when you can play it without any tactical wargaming components at all. Certainly you can see bits that were taken directly from wargames for example Armour Class that goes negative as it improves and hit points were taken, as I understand it, from a Naval wargame.

So of course if you play DnD as a tactical wargame then you are going to see it as a tactical wargame.

What seems like a non sequitur to you, is not necessarily what is one. As you also suggest, you can also play DnD as a tactical wargame without any roleplaying components at all too, as several people have mentioned regarding Gygax. Roleplaying was tacked on later. There are scarcely any rules in DnD for the roleplaying that Colville did in that session.

 

[Shasarak]

What seems like a non sequitur to you, is not necessarily what is one. As you also suggest, you can also play DnD as a tactical wargame without any roleplaying components at all too, as several people have mentioned regarding Gygax. Roleplaying was tacked on later. There are scarcely any rules in DnD for the roleplaying that Colville did in that session.

I dont really understand, what kind of rules do you need for talking with someone?

If what the game is is based on the number of rules that it has then DnD must be a magical simulation game

 

[Lanefan]

I dont really understand, what kind of rules do you need for talking with someone?

Oh, let's see....Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Skill challenges, Insight, some others I forget right now....

No such rules are really needed, but the game keeps adding them on notwithstanding.

Lan-"what are words for, if no-one listens any more"-efan

 

[schnee]

They're needed due to the history of terrible DMs that ruin the games based on arbitrary power trips.

 

[Lost Soul]

That must be some serious game-culture shock for you, jumping from one to the other and back all the time.

It can be because I DM both groups. I had to give out higher stats to the RP group because I overpowered them in combats that my other group would have cake walked with the standard point buy. The good part about having to DM such different playstyles is that it keeps me more nimble as a DM instead of just sticking to my comfort zone and reinforcing my same opinions all the time.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont really understand, what kind of rules do you need for talking with someone?

That's the point. We are talking about "outside the game mechanics" type stuff that is less supported by the game mechanics themselves, which are oriented heavily around combat. Again, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, but we should not be surprised when players approach the game and see a tremendous amount of materials and mechanics oriented towards fighting and then attempt to build effective characters around that. The mechanics support game assumptions that perpetuate further ones.

 

[schnee]

I dont really understand, what kind of rules do you need for talking with someone?

It depends on the players and the DM.

With a good DM and players that are mature, experienced with complex board games, and have some exposure to acting or improv, it'll be fantastic.

If it's a bunch of people that are completely new, they'll basically make all the rookie mistakes and won't have any support to model better behavior, and then it's a matter of how much work they'd be willing to put in. Will they get stuck in a rut? Will they get bad habits that make the game a drag? It's unknown.

If those same players get a set of rules, and introduce enough of the 'understand how much ability you bring to change the current situation, adjust your character's actions behavior accordingly, and roll dice' dynamic, then you create a framework for how they can judge success or failure when there's risk involved.

Otherwise, the DM has total control, and when the players fail they blame the DM, and when they succeed they can't take credit - it's pure improv theater railroading. By having rules, conditions for success or failure, and dice, it changes into an actual game that can go in directions nobody expects. That's explicitly true in combat, and it should be just as true out of combat.

I'm not saying a 'pure improv' game isn't bad or wrong, there are plenty of story games like that that are fun as hell. What I'm saying is that it's not the way D&D does things.

If what the game is is based on the number of rules that it has then DnD must be a magical simulation game

Yeah, that's much more accurate than calling it a wargame IMO.

I'd call it a 'fantasy tactical combat game', or 'well-disguised colonization simulator', or 'murder-hobo wealth acquisition game' also.

 

[Warpiglet]

It's a simulation exercise.

Go say that on Boardgamegeek in the wargames forums! Ha! That is not a universal opinion! In all seriousness though, it is more a game than a simulation by any stretch. And frankly, the fans of the game are more often into beer and pretzels and generalizations (at least that has been my experience in tournaments at cons and with my home group). Players of Case Blue etc. would be a much different crowd.

Instead, look at any asymmetrical game out there and question why anyone would want to play a side with any perceived disadvantage--(to include wargames).

I believe it is about variety and challenge.

We used to argue over who got to play the Axis in Axis and Allies because they got to experiment and try new and wild things. It was an adventure in problem solving and so forth. If you are really sensitive to the risk of "losing" better play the team with advantage.

I believe this mindset is more about preference and personality than a sweeping trend in 5e. Some people are more worried about losing or have a higher need for success however they define it compared to others. Whatever floats your boat.

But I think one answer to my initial question is that the attitude has been present for a long time in many different games. I think however it is more apparent in latter versions of D&D though has always been present in an attenuated form.

It is interesting to think about. As my group has gotten older we are more centrally located. All of us are into being effective, but take some risks with lower bonuses when it fleshes out a character. I suspect this is more typical in groups than not, but I see more of the optimization secondary to the internet.

And in this case it is anything but simulationist. It is all fairie stories after all is said and done.

 

[Aldarc]

I also think that there is a difference between (1) Game as Played and (2) Game as Discussed (on the Internet). These are not mutually exclusive groups or categories either, as I think that many people in Category (2) do recognize (and will play themselves) character concepts that do not qualify for "ultimate optimization." However, a lot of discussion, particularly on the internet, entails exploring the contours of the rules, sometimes to ridiculous degrees for all sorts of reasons that I won't speculate about here. But in regards to this conversation we are having in this thread, I would say that many people - particularly new people to the game or people invested enough in the game to post - are often curious about (a) what is the most effective option, and (b) how comparatively (in)effective is their option. In actual game play, I don't think that most Internet Optimizers are necessarily In-Game Optimizers, at least of the sort that appear to be the focus of this thread.

 

[Warpiglet]

I also think that there is a difference between (1) Game as Played and (2) Game as Discussed (on the Internet). These are not mutually exclusive groups or categories either, as I think that many people in Category (2) do recognize (and will play themselves) character concepts that do not qualify for "ultimate optimization." However, a lot of discussion, particularly on the internet, entails exploring the contours of the rules, sometimes to ridiculous degrees for all sorts of reasons that I won't speculate about here. But in regards to this conversation we are having in this thread, I would say that many people - particularly new people to the game or people invested enough in the game to post - are often curious about (a) what is the most effective option, and (b) how comparatively (in)effective is their option. In actual game play, I don't think that most Internet Optimizers are necessarily In-Game Optimizers, at least of the sort that appear to be the focus of this thread.

There may be some truth to this. I know I have asked about making something and specifically how the rules could be applied in order to do so. At the table I mix a lot of roleplay "suboptimal" design choices and combat together. Nevertheless I do think that some optimizers are all about it as evidenced by angst in taking a class race combo that does not have perfect synergism.

I don't know anyone personally that sees max bonus as THE imperative. However, some discussions I see on this site and others suggest that some players do indeed have this attitude.

In response to "OMG! A Half Orc Wizard?!" I usually have an idea of where the emphasis lies.