D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Lost Soul]

I heartily disagree with you on a few points Tony. 4E is feat tax and if you did not take correct feats (weapon focus, defense feats) you were indeed suboptimal which is the complaint against this thread. Your second point of orc with a certain wizard build is also weak because orcs don't have the same flexibility for most of the wizard options in the same way a human, eladrin or teifling would. Any of my three can work your wizard option as good or better but your orc will fail out of most wizard builds. Its very poor game design for a system built on synergy. It creates cookie cutter classes. You also fail to address 4E straight jacketing character since all optimal wizards are high on Int, WIS & Dex to take advantage of their features. Almost all classes fall into the 3 stat trap where if you play against their build strengths you really limit your choices and miss out on some of the best ones. Just by looking at how feats are represented in 5e its a wholesale rejection of 4E in that feats are uncommon and tend to bundle what would be 2-3 feats in a 4E system into a single 5E feat.

 

[Lost Soul]

This is the truest thing I've read today (and I also just read "5e is not a RAW system" and a bunch of higher ed research so the competition is pretty stiff) and I definitely plan on stealing this for the future.

I feel like the shift is more obvious in online RPG communities because of self-selection bias; there's a stereotype that the more "casual" gamer isn't going to spend their time on online message boards and is also more inclined to build characters based on their personal whims and fancies rather than any objective "optimization" while the "hardcore" gamers are going to be more inclined towards both system mastery and sharing (and arguing over) said mastery online. I... don't entirely buy that, nor do I buy the argument that it's the fault of any one edition of the game (or video games, for that matter). As has been pointed out, D&D's roots were in tactical wargaming which consisted of very little besides system mastery and optimizing strategy. It's been a part of the game for so long that my mind struggles to comprehend an RPG rulebook when it doesn't present a full chapter exclusively to combat mechanics.

The trouble comes when optimization forums become such echo chambers that it makes certain individuals feel like they hold the keys to the only objectively right way to play the game. And they treat any forum (and any question asked on such forums) as if they are an optimization forum. Don't get me wrong, the "badwrongfun" can go both ways, but I think it's fair to say that you hear a lot more moaning about "trap options" than you do about "munchkins", though that could just be this forum or a few other venues I've gone to (the RPG Stack Exchange, for example). Obviously there are a lot of different legitimate ways to engage with the game, including "optimization", but also including making different choices about character building and play.

I happen to think there's a lot more players like myself or the above-quoted ccs on forums such as these that optimize our experiences and characters in ways differently than building up bigger numbers. But we don't really argue about, say, whether Actor or Linguist are "better" feats because, well, that's not how we engage with the game in the first place. The better feat is whichever best matches your chosen character concept.

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.

 

[Shasarak]

A few of my friends, including my fiancé, love roleplaying games. While they enjoy playing D&D, one of their common criticisms is that the game feels strongly indebted to wargaming and leans heavily on the combat pillar. Your games may be different - and you may fart odorless rainbows - but that common criticism remains. Matthew Colville even recently was involved in an interview on Geek & Sundry where he says as much: D&D is a tactical wargame. And overall, as a sort of overlapping consensus, that fosters a particular mentality, culture, and norm surrounding how players approach the game.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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

 

[Ilbranteloth]

And to be fair, the reverse attitude also exists, where *any* optimisation is seen as outrageous munchkinism. I remember, in the last days of 2e, I made a dwarven fighter (sooo should have been a ranger but 2e...) with a high con. This got me accused of being a power gamer...

Thankfully, most people are in the middle.... I hope!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

From my personal observations, I think that attitude peaked in 2e. First because I think that 2e opened the floodgates with more and more options, that the options were all over the place in terms of power, and more and more of the options were mechanized as time went on. Some players embraced this, and annoyed the players that didn't. Particularly because you could optimize a very overpowered character if you wanted to. I admit I was at least leaning toward that anti-munchkinizing crowd.

I think 3e went a long way to fixing that with better balanced (although still far from perfect) options. At least at the beginning. Power gamers and role-players could play together again. Of course, as more and more splat books were released, it fell into the same trap as 2e, only with more crunch.

And I think that's the key to 5e right now. It is optimizable for those that want to, but not so much that it breaks the game in significant ways. So they players that like to optimize see it as a tactical war-game, and those that don't see it as a role-playing game. Certainly there will be those on both sides that think it goes too far in either direction, but overall I think the way the game is designed, it is often perceived as being more like the game that a specific person likes from their point of view. Which is pretty impressive, actually.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So you saying that the people you started playing with in 1E are still the people you gaming with?
I am lucky to see my former gamers once a year if they live in town. And I have not see my high school gamers since 1984 (2 years after high school).
I been in the military and lived in military towns so I did have a lot of turn over in groups. So I had power gamers who would suicide their pc if they were not doing the most DPR and people bringing pcs similar to yours. But through the years the discussion was the same (dpr vs role player vs odd ball fun pc vs others) but the players changed.
Alright question for those playing over 10 years. Is your core players (say 60%) still the same?

I wish. They are 100% different (people move, unfortunately). I usually have a core group that lasts for a few years before attrition due to jobs, moves, weddings, divorces, etc. shift it to a new group. At the store it's almost always different groups, with a few fairly regular players.

Having said that, my approach to DMing has grown (I hope) but the focus remains the same, the campaign remains the same, old PCs are NPCs, and the general feel of the rules and the setting is very similar. There was a slow morph from 1e to 3e as we got caught up in all of the rules changes. Now that I'm past all that, it's morphing back to a 1e/early 2e approach.

Never had an issue with power gamers. In part because I probably don't provide what they are looking for, but that's not entirely the case. The ones that I have had fit in well with the group and have often participated for several years. The one thing that I did find is that a great many of them often grew tired of their characters (not the campaign, but their characters). They didn't have to kill them off, as I didn't have any problem with PCs going their own way and new ones coming in. But it was usually just one or two people who would do that on a fairly frequent basis, while everybody else played the same character over a period of years with occasional changes.

I also frequently run campaigns where the players have multiple characters, to bring in and out as appropriate. That's where I am currently.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Alas most people don't comment - Internet forums are disproportionately filled with people beyond the 2nd standard deviation of opinion.......



It's kinda doubly ridiculous when you think there's an actual person there in control of the "dangers", and part of their job is to ensure the game is fun for everyone and as challenging as the players want it to be. Like D&D only has 1 difficulty setting (INSANE!) and the GM is incapable of adjusting that setting on the fly to make sure the fun/challenge balance remains in the goldilocks zone.



And in the reverse case - I soooo want to play a dwarf with rubbish Con who can't handle his drink and has been exiled from Dwarf society because of it, and has to drown his sorrows in milk......

Do you live in CT?

 

[Ancalagon]

Alas most people don't comment - Internet forums are disproportionately filled with people beyond the 2nd standard deviation of opinion.......



It's kinda doubly ridiculous when you think there's an actual person there in control of the "dangers", and part of their job is to ensure the game is fun for everyone and as challenging as the players want it to be. Like D&D only has 1 difficulty setting (INSANE!) and the GM is incapable of adjusting that setting on the fly to make sure the fun/challenge balance remains in the goldilocks zone.



And in the reverse case - I soooo want to play a dwarf with rubbish Con who can't handle his drink and has been exiled from Dwarf society because of it, and has to drown his sorrows in milk......

Well said. I want to meet that dwarf now.

Ultimately, as long as the people in the group are more or less on the same wavelenght, it works. It's when they aren't that it can become an issue...

 

[hejtmane]

I have read with interest a recent threads about balance and race choices. During the discussion I began wondering if there has been some culture shift in the community that I have been ignoring.

What I found in that thread was worry that characters would not be viable unless the race and the class fit an archetype. As an example, unless you take a halfling for a rogue thief, you are nuts! A half-orc wizard? Madness!

In the dark ages, we relished taking things that were off center. A particularly strong cleric? Cool. A half-orc paladin? Novel. A strong halfling fighter? Off the beaten path. And so forth. Unconventional ability placement? Sometimes fun. (Here I must note that this might really just mean a different high score without totally gimping the main stat). I have never played in a group that totally ignored effectiveness.

However, I have taken a mace in place of a d8 longsword because it looks cool for some characters. I even (gasp) like shortswords better than rapiers for personal aesthetic reasons...

In 5e I have enjoyed taking backgrounds that are not "optimal" for dungeon environments but are fun for character development.

Lest you get the idea that I am into some sort of high drama roleplay without combat, let me assure you I prefer most play to be devoted to fighting and conflict. Exploring is cool, but swinging swords is the best! Roleplaying is fun in almost all situations (though I don't like to barter over coppers ad nauseum...get the adventure going!).

But in the discussion about the need to match half-orc with champion fighter, it seemed that many people were afraid their character would simply die young if they did not make the "best" choice.

This is where I am really confused.

First, the variability in rolling for stats seems to suggest that there can be different levels of ability. Additionally, party size can vary. Lastly, there are feats in most games. As a result:

This does not seem to suggest that the game is perfectly balanced and that life hinges on perfect efficiency. If it did, wouldn't certain class and race combinations be restricted? Wouldn't party size be mandated? Would stat rolling be allowed at all?

In many cases, we are talking about 2 points in a stat difference for "optimal" pairings. How often is that going to be the difference between life and death over the course of a campaign? It could be I guess, but if I only play cookie cutter characters, how much does it matter? I already have a template so I can start over and recreate the "perfect" array.

If we are talking about a +1 bonus say in AC, we are saying we are worried about one number on the die difference. I am wringing my hands about being hit on an 11 or higher instead of a twelve or higher in a particular case. One number on the die...is that one number THAT pivotal often?

This is been going on even back in the old ad&d 1e days just saying it happen with weapons and speed factors etc etc

 

[Hillsy7]

Do you live in CT?

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