D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Aldarc]

If Matthew Colville says that DnD is a tactical wargame then DnD must be a tactical wargame with, as you say, other people farting odorless rainbows.

I don't think that Matthew Colville's word is canon law. I mention him, because he is a fairly popular D&D Youtube podcaster with roots back to the oldest editions of D&D. He's a big fan of the roleplaying pillar, so it was interesting to hear him refer to D&D as a tactical wargame. It's getting a second opinion. From my group of D&D novice friends, this criticism may not hold much water with others, but with someone who has played a longer time and with a greater reach of their voice, as per Colville, then it's nice to hear similar sentiments.

 

[Warpiglet]

I don't think that Matthew Colville's word is canon law. I mention him, because he is a fairly popular D&D Youtube podcaster with roots back to the oldest editions of D&D. He's a big fan of the roleplaying pillar, so it was interesting to hear him refer to D&D as a tactical wargame. It's getting a second opinion. From my group of D&D novice friends, this criticism may not hold much water with others, but with someone who has played a longer time and with a greater reach of their voice, as per Colville, then it's nice to hear similar sentiments.

As an occasional wargame player I too have an opinion about this.

The roots of D&D are clearly in wargames. Clearly. It has some components of wargames. Hell, a lot of it IS a wargame. But suggesting that is all the game consists of is missing a broader perspective.

The phenomenon of D&D is not about just another entry into a crowded wargame market. We would not suggest that "Vampire" or some storytelling games are wargames, right? D&D has as much in common with them as it does wargames.

It is an odd hybrid perhaps but I cannot see just another wargame causing a stir. Chainmail was cool, but was not a phenomenon until roleplaying was added or bolted on depending on your perspective.

And perhaps that perspective informs my playstyle. Some sessions we play in are more akin to wargames than anything else. Some are quite different than any traditional wargame.

I am not a newbie but am not ancient either. First sessions were in grade school probably around 1980...I do not go back to chainmail or anything like that. Nevertheless, I think my opinion is somewhat informed as a player of D&D as well as traditional wargames. The roleplaying in conjunction with the focus on a one person "unit" makes this something new as well.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course. I am not disparaging D&D with this comment, and I seriously doubt that Colville was either. That point pertained to how a lot of D&D's "new" culture surrounding the idea of builds, "winning" the game, and player/system mastery predates the usual video game scapegoat, but extends even into D&D's earliest incarnations and predecesors. It sometimes amazes me how often the "game" aspect in "roleplaying game" gets forgotten or marginalized in a lot of these discussions - and this observation applies to multiple heated discussions such as remembering that games should be about fun - but any time that you have a "game," there will be people gaming the game and/or optimizing to win.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Are there lots of lightweights and milk bar dives in CT then?

There can be!

 

[Gradine]

I disagree with your assessment. I play with two very different groups. One is totally focused on combat survivability and role-playing is an afterthought. The second group is seriously focused on role-playing and will make decisions based upon their characters, combat efficiency is an afterthought. Group 1 performed exactly the same in every edition of D&D and also Pathfinder with very little variation to characters. The second group played radically different than group 1 in every edition except 4rth because the classes straightjacketed their choices. MY second group really DISLIKED 4rth edition because of this and have heartily embraced 5th because system mastery is not much of an issue in 5E as it was in 4rth.

There is a difference between a system being better suited for one particular playstyle over another and that system being responsible for amplifying a divide between playstyles among the community. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence being presented here to suggest that optimization was a thing from the beginnings of D&D, and while online communities weren't as much of a thing before 3.X, I really feel like it was that system, which was built to appeal to both types of playstyles, that you really began to see that big shift, where the optimizers really began to run with their mathematical models and tier lists and class guides.

If anything, I feel like 4e diminished that particular conversation because its design was so heavily focused towards combat and balance that the non-optimizers (and quite a few optimizers) just avoided sailing that ship altogether, and either stayed with 3.5 or moved to Pathfinder. Of course, that split only added more fuel to the fire for the Edition War(tm), which mostly consisted of people treating their preferred playstyle/gameplay aesthetics as objective fact in order to trash this or that edition. But we're not really talking about edition warring here; we're talking about the seeming domination of optimizer style/opinion/thought in online conversations regarding tabletop RPGs (and D&D specifically), and that's something that existed long before 4e was a gleam in anyone's eye, and it's something that still exists in communities that wouldn't touch 4e with a 10 foot pole.

This conversation has nothing to do with the edition war, because it exists, and has existed, in every edition to varying degrees. Even 4e, even if that conversation tended to center more around complaining about the relative dearth of non-combat character options.

Of course, we talk about optimizer/roleplayer as if it's a binary dichotomy but it's really not; it's not even a spectrum with the two on opposite ends; they're two separate spectrums, and while the loudest voices often tend towards the extremes of one or both, the vast majority of players are going to fall someone in the middle on both, with maybe some slight leanings one way or another (do you take two cream one sugar, or one cream two sugar?).

 

[Ratskinner]

Minmaxing was a word/thing before I started gaming in about 1980. Back in the day, I saw more than one player riding another for their suboptimal choices. So I can't say this is new. Seemed as much part and parcel then as it does now of that subset of gamers who put on a tough show but actually have fragile egos.

You can count me in the crowd of old timers who thinks that many of my fellow old timers have either a) bad memory of what the old days were actually like, b) played in singular gamer subcultures, or c) misperceptions of what/how they actually play at table when I observe them. I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off at all the "get off my lawn" threads around here of late. Especially since most of them seem to rely on hazy recollections and hyperbolic descriptions of "back in the day" that don't hold up to even moderate scrutiny.

Just my 2cp.



Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

 

[Warpiglet]

Minmaxing was a word/thing before I started gaming in about 1980. Back in the day, I saw more than one player riding another for their suboptimal choices. So I can't say this is new. Seemed as much part and parcel then as it does now of that subset of gamers who put on a tough show but actually have fragile egos.

You can count me in the crowd of old timers who thinks that many of my fellow old timers have either a) bad memory of what the old days were actually like, b) played in singular gamer subcultures, or c) misperceptions of what/how they actually play at table when I observe them. I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off at all the "get off my lawn" threads around here of late. Especially since most of them seem to rely on hazy recollections and hyperbolic descriptions of "back in the day" that don't hold up to even moderate scrutiny.

Just my 2cp.



Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

I was actually discussing an observation and if you meant me, do not want to chase the kids off the lawn. I hope the yard is enjoyed by many.

I do not think my recollection is hazy either. I think you are right in two specific ways as it relates to me in particular: i I played in a particular group which differed from others. I only did a few cons before the late 90s. Secondly, we might have been more into treasure and found items but there were fewer levels to pull with character creation, considering mechanical levers only.

Nevertheless, I never considered outright being shocked at a choice in any edition where level limits weren't imposed. Even with third edition we were excited by novelty and cool characters. Using a mace instead of a sword would not raise an eyebrow.

In a recent thread I read on this site there was some real angst about not being worth much unless the superior racial benefits were in play. That was and is foreign to me, but apparently is not to all groups. And perhaps this started earlier than I cared to realize.

In 1st (my previous edition of choice), it was more a function of level limits than anything and even that did not always stop us. But that is a subculture, I am realizing.

 

[Warpiglet]

Of course. I am not disparaging D&D with this comment, and I seriously doubt that Colville was either. That point pertained to how a lot of D&D's "new" culture surrounding the idea of builds, "winning" the game, and player/system mastery predates the usual video game scapegoat, but extends even into D&D's earliest incarnations and predecesors. It sometimes amazes me how often the "game" aspect in "roleplaying game" gets forgotten or marginalized in a lot of these discussions - and this observation applies to multiple heated discussions such as remembering that games should be about fun - but any time that you have a "game," there will be people gaming the game and/or optimizing to win.

I did not read any criticism in there. I just thought you were discussing the nature of the game and its origins. Afterall, I don't think wargames are bad things and indulge from time to time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Matthew Colville's ... with roots back to the oldest editions of D&D. He's a big fan of the roleplaying pillar, so it was interesting to hear him refer to D&D as a tactical wargame.

Squad Leader is a tactical wargame.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence being presented here to suggest that optimization was a thing from the beginnings of D&D, and while online communities weren't as much of a thing before 3.X, I really feel like it was that system, which was built to appeal to both types of playstyles, that you really began to see that big shift, where the optimizers really began to run with their mathematical models and tier lists and class guides.

It's not clear what playstyle you're contrasting with optimizing, here - I assume old-school 'skilled play?'

But 3.x certainly favored system mastery very heavily.

If anything, I feel like 4e diminished that particular conversation because its design was so heavily focused towards combat and balance[/quote] ... that optimized and non-optimized characters didn't experience such a huge gulf in effectiveness, so the two could co-exist without the former dominating. To the extent that the system masters could be satisfied with such modest 'rewards,' anyway - a lot of them /did/ stay with 3.5 and go to PF - sunk system-mastery investment, and greater intentionally built-in rewards for it, afterall.

Though the 'focus on combat' is also a thing that has always been with D&D, and one that 4e shifted away from in un-D&D-like manner, with Skill Challenges & Rituals. (Heck, 5e even retained rituals, sorta).

But we're not really talking about edition warring here

Meh, if, in a general discussion of editions, you keep seeing 4e coming up more than all the others combined, primarily in the form of baseless criticism and pushing back against same, yeah, it's at least contaminated by lingering edition warring.

; we're talking about the seeming domination of optimizer style/opinion/thought in online conversations regarding tabletop RPGs, and that's something that existed long before 4e was a gleam in anyone's eye, and it's something that still exists in communities that wouldn't touch 4e with a 10 foot pole.

It's probably as much to do with the nature of the on-line medium as anything.

Even 4e, even if that conversation tended to center more around complaining about the relative dearth of non-combat character options.

:sigh: See, that's edition warring, right there. There was no such dearth /relative/ to other editions of the game. 4e Skill Challenges, alone, integrated and mechanically supported non-combat more than other editions before or since.

What was missing? Formerly game-breaking spells were absent or nerfed. Non-adventuring skills were not given mechanical weight. (You want your character to be a blacksmith or a sailor or whatever, fine, take a background, and get a perk with a related adventuring skill.)

Of course, we talk about optimizer/roleplayer as if it's a binary dichotomy but it's really not; it's not even a spectrum with the two on opposite ends; they're two separate spectrums,

A rare and astute observation. Not only that, but they often correlate. Optimizing to a strong/interesting RP concept combines both. Go to an optimization forum and ask a question, and you'll immediate get OP mavins asking you 'what are you going for? 'what's the concept?'