D&D 5E Things 5E has taught you about your playstyle.

[Nergal Pendragon]

Comparing 5E to earlier editions has taught at least my group that there have been some continued mistakes over multiple editions. For example:

1) We've been playing attacks of opportunity wrong for years, due to a misreading of the 3E PHB and the vague wording being carried over to Pathfinder. The result has been a much more lethal game and fighters coming to value taunting their enemies into coming to them.

2) We rely way, way too much on overly-complex schemes to counter the infinity+3 magical protections that BBEGs have in prior editions (due in no small part to player ingenuity inventing those protections).

3) Our dice hate us. No one in the group saw critical hits in the old rules often enough for any of us to remember the rules.

4) We relied way, way too much on quirks of mechanical rules to accomplish some of our amazing victories than upon roleplaying.

5) We're insane. Every single one of us is utterly certifiable. The poor DM is already having to come up with a set of advantage/disadvantage tables based on uses of chandeliers, covering everything from dropping them on people and swinging on them while attacking to using them as wrecking balls and leashes.

I can't wait to see what happens when we hit level 2.

 

[iserith]

My "playstyle" changes from game to game depending on how I perceive it's best to play with a given rules set and genre. I don't approach D&D 5e the same way I approach D&D 4e. I don't approach D&D 4e the same way I approach D&D 3e. And so on. Dungeon World, 13th Age, Fate, Marvel Heroic... different games, different playstyles.

I think that keeping the same playstyle from game to game is inviting trouble to the table.

 

[SteveC]

This is a really interesting question!

I have basically played 5E in two different ways: as part of the Adventurers League and with a home GM.

With the Adventurers League I've played with several GMs that I don't really know that well, but played with before under 4E. The thing I've found myself doing is asking a lot more questions about how they run their game, since the rules are designed to give more direct authority. I've really found a few of them that I'm not interested in playing with because of how they interpret things (basically, the answer is "no" to whatever you might want to try).

For the home game, the GM is fantastic, so there's been no real change: I play the game like I play all of their games.

This is really interesting to me since I'm finding that 5E is much more "DM centric" in how good the experience is: I've played with these same GMs in 4E and they were fine, since they simply followed the rules. Not so good in 5E where I hear a lot of "man I'm glad you can't do X anymore, since I always hated it." The problem is that X isn't always a powergaming thing, it's often just something involving creativity. The long and the short of it is that I'd be much less likely to play with a GM I didn't know about as a result.

 

[DaveDash]

5e is trying to teach me to let go of RAW. Something I'm still not 100% comfortable with, and neither are my players.

I've had some pretty heated arguments in 5e.

 

[iserith]

This is a really interesting question!

I have basically played 5E in two different ways: as part of the Adventurers League and with a home GM.

With the Adventurers League I've played with several GMs that I don't really know that well, but played with before under 4E. The thing I've found myself doing is asking a lot more questions about how they run their game, since the rules are designed to give more direct authority. I've really found a few of them that I'm not interested in playing with because of how they interpret things (basically, the answer is "no" to whatever you might want to try).

For the home game, the GM is fantastic, so there's been no real change: I play the game like I play all of their games.

This is really interesting to me since I'm finding that 5E is much more "DM centric" in how good the experience is: I've played with these same GMs in 4E and they were fine, since they simply followed the rules. Not so good in 5E where I hear a lot of "man I'm glad you can't do X anymore, since I always hated it." The problem is that X isn't always a powergaming thing, it's often just something involving creativity. The long and the short of it is that I'd be much less likely to play with a GM I didn't know about as a result.

I agree. Having a good DM is more important than ever in D&D 5e with its emphasis on rulings. Having players that are on the same page with the DM before play is also critical. It was always important in previous editions, but now I think Session Zero or other forms of page-setting should be the forefront of every bit of DMing advice given. When the DM controls two-thirds of the conversation of the game, the group benefits from identifying and agreeing to the goals of play and players should have an idea about how their DM will generally rule before committing.

WotC should also spend a lot of time and words on making better DMs. The DMG is a good effort, but is just the beginning of creating and honing the skills of people who are essentially ambassadors to the hobby.

 

[DaveDash]

I agree. Having a good DM is more important than ever in D&D 5e with its emphasis on rulings. Having players that are on the same page with the DM before play is also critical. It was always important in previous editions, but now I think Session Zero or other forms of page-setting should be the forefront of every bit of DMing advice given. When the DM controls two-thirds of the conversation of the game, the group benefits from identifying and agreeing to the goals of play and players should have an idea about how their DM will generally rule before committing.

WotC should also spend a lot of time and words on making better DMs. The DMG is a good effort, but is just the beginning of creating and honing the skills of people who are essentially ambassadors to the hobby.

The problem is you're always stumbling across something later on. For example, I had a massive argument with my Abjurer Wizard player that his magic resistance he gained at level 14 didn't apply to his Arcane Ward. To him it made sense, to me it didn't.

You usually stumble upon these things in critical moments as well, and your rulings often don't benefit the players.

5e is fun to run and fun the play, and I get the rulings not rules design philosophy, I just am not sure if I like it as yet. I feel like every time a vague rule pops up I'm having an argument.

Later on when everyone cools down they all see my point, but my players naturally want to seek out any advantage they can in those hard fights.

FYI most of my players come from 3rd Edition. I think in time we will all learn what 5e is trying to teach us, but there will be more bumpy rides along the way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like every time a vague rule pops up I'm having an argument.

Man, I feel like this is the wrong way to go about vague rules. If that's the result you're getting, you might want to re-examine what happens when a rule is vague.

IMXP, it usually goes something like...
Player: "I do X!"
DM: "Wait, X? That doesn't sound right. Walk me through that. "
Player: "Well, (explanation of logic)"
DM: (Option 1) "Ah. That makes sense. Great, describe what happens when you do X." -- END
DM: (Option 2) "Naaah, I'm gonna go with (alternate interpretation). You can do Y or Z." -- END

Sometimes if the original explanation is REALLY important, someone might support it or the person might have a second point or something, but it rarely lasts more than one or two points, and the DM's ruling is rolled with, and everyone has a good time because really it's a game about magical elves and you can't take your rules interpretations THAT seriously.

 

[TarionzCousin]

5E has taught me that, despite appearances to the contrary, I am not a sexy, shoeless god of war.

 

[iserith]

The problem is you're always stumbling across something later on. For example, I had a massive argument with my Abjurer Wizard player that his magic resistance he gained at level 14 didn't apply to his Arcane Ward. To him it made sense, to me it didn't.

You usually stumble upon these things in critical moments as well, and your rulings often don't benefit the players.

5e is fun to run and fun the play, and I get the rulings not rules design philosophy, I just am not sure if I like it as yet. I feel like every time a vague rule pops up I'm having an argument.

Later on when everyone cools down they all see my point, but my players naturally want to seek out any advantage they can in those hard fights.

FYI most of my players come from 3rd Edition. I think in time we will all learn what 5e is trying to teach us, but there will be more bumpy rides along the way.

Here's where I feel some solid DM advice and an agreement as to the goals of play help out a lot. Since I know my players are after the same thing I am - a good time and an exciting, memorable story as a result of play - I don't worry about siding with their interpretations of rules. Erring on the side of player costs me nothing as DM and by showing trust, I will tend to get that trust validated and returned in my experience. As well, the rules alone aren't always going to help me achieve those goals and when I feel they will not, they simply are not invoked in play.

As to how this relates to the topic, if your fun is predicated on following the rules exactly because of a playstyle grounded in another edition of the game, then problems can result when playing a game where exacting rules aren't the order of the day.

 

[DaveDash]

Man, I feel like this is the wrong way to go about vague rules. If that's the result you're getting, you might want to re-examine what happens when a rule is vague.

IMXP, it usually goes something like...
Player: "I do X!"
DM: "Wait, X? That doesn't sound right. Walk me through that. "
Player: "Well, (explanation of logic)"
DM: (Option 1) "Ah. That makes sense. Great, describe what happens when you do X." -- END
DM: (Option 2) "Naaah, I'm gonna go with (alternate interpretation). You can do Y or Z." -- END

Sometimes if the original explanation is REALLY important, someone might support it or the person might have a second point or something, but it rarely lasts more than one or two points, and the DM's ruling is rolled with, and everyone has a good time because really it's a game about magical elves and you can't take your rules interpretations THAT seriously.

It doesn't happen like that for me unfortunately. A lot of preconceived notions and expectations from previous editions + rules lawyerly mentality = lots of arguments in 5e at my table.

We ran 3e and 4e strictly by the book (unless something was ridiculously OP and game breaking). 5e you can't do that, so if player A interprets RAW to be A yet I interpret RAW to be B an argument ensures.

We aren't in the mentality yet that the DM is the rules, we are still in the mindset that the book is the rules.

As to how this relates to the topic, if your fun is predicated on following the rules exactly because of a playstyle grounded in another edition of the game, then problems can result when playing a game where exacting rules aren't the order of the day.

@iserith pretty much.