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

[DaveDash]

See, 5e seems to recognize the fundamental paradox of DMing. Strong rules systems attempt to reduce the uncertainty in the game, and hope to reduce the chances that a DM can ruin the game for you. The paradox is that the same strong system also makes it impossible for the DM to make the game exceptional as well. As you reduce the risk of bad DMing, you reduce the ability of the DM to make the adventure epic.

I like the fact that 5e is willing to let the DM aspire to greatness, rather than shackling him to the role of mere referee. The last few iterations of D&D (and Pathfinder) have felt far more like D&D: The Boardgame than what I played back in 1e. Sure, there might be fewer arguments about rules (notice I said "might" ... I'm not convinced it's actually true), but at what cost? I'd much rather have the chance of unforgettable and risk the occasional lousy than trade it for guaranteed mediocre...

When it comes to combat, I much prefer a game like D&D Minis (ie, a wargame experience) than grand roleplay.

The best for me would be pathfinders certainty in rules (ie, rules that are NOT vague), but D&D's 5e overall less cumbersome combat system. I like *less* rules and faster combat, but I wish they were more concise. I've even had brand new players to D&D comment on how ambiguous and vague the rules are.

For me (and a few of my players) part of the fun is mastering the system given a consistent set of boundaries. From the DM's point of view, that is creating challenging encounters within the boundaries of the rules, and for the players that is defeating those encounters also within the boundary of the rules.

When the rules are unclear, a certain amount satisfaction in that style of mastery is robbed. Players are unsure of how the next ruling might turn out, and DMs are unsure of how the next combat may turn out, what vague rule may pop up and surprise them, etc.

Now I realise that many people were clamouring for rulings and not rules, I understand this, but for me and my table this is certainly both an adjustment and learning experience.

 

[Lanefan]

I learned that I actually enjoy playing non-spellcaster character more than spellcasters. Fighters are awesome.

Fighters have always been awesome; it's just that in a few of the various editions you had to work a bit harder to get the awesome into view. But it was always there.

Lan-"an awesome 1e Fighter"-efan

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Fighters have always been awesome; it's just that in a few of the various editions you had to work a bit harder to get the awesome into view. But it was always there.

Lan-"an awesome 1e Fighter"-efan

Fighters have always been awesome in the same way every class has always been awesome, but I think I understand where IchneumonWasp is coming from. I really love what they've done with Fighter Subclasses, especially the Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight. No matter how you slice it (get it? slice?) Fighter's in 5E are effective, fun, integral parts of any adventuring party that are NEVER made obsolete or superfluous by another class, no matter what spells or feats they take.

That is quite 'awesome'.

 

[Geirmund]

As someone who has read the 5e, but has not played the game yet, my wheels are spinning.

I am a veteran gamer since 1980, so I have a little experience in gaming in general. The 5e rules are a fresh start for me.

I love the fighter myself, though I lean more toward rangers. The rangers are awesome. I may go from my traditional dual-wielding dervish to a Bow-wielding sniper in this edition. Getting spells at a lower level helps as well.

I will be running my first 5e game in a couple of weeks. My players are giving me good feedback for the upcoming game. I am sure they will enjoy it.

 

[Eirikrautha]

When it comes to combat, I much prefer a game like D&D Minis (ie, a wargame experience) than grand roleplay.

The best for me would be pathfinders certainty in rules (ie, rules that are NOT vague), but D&D's 5e overall less cumbersome combat system. I like *less* rules and faster combat, but I wish they were more concise. I've even had brand new players to D&D comment on how ambiguous and vague the rules are.

For me (and a few of my players) part of the fun is mastering the system given a consistent set of boundaries. From the DM's point of view, that is creating challenging encounters within the boundaries of the rules, and for the players that is defeating those encounters also within the boundary of the rules.

When the rules are unclear, a certain amount satisfaction in that style of mastery is robbed. Players are unsure of how the next ruling might turn out, and DMs are unsure of how the next combat may turn out, what vague rule may pop up and surprise them, etc.

Now I realise that many people were clamouring for rulings and not rules, I understand this, but for me and my table this is certainly both an adjustment and learning experience.

I understand your desire, but it's impossible to achieve. You can't have both faster combat and clear rules. Ever. The only way to make that work is to restrict choice. Chess has absolutely clear-cut rules. You just can't move a knight any way other than two forward and one to the side. Ditto that for D&D.

So long as you are willing to abstract the combat to the point where it is no longer representative of actual fighting (and just rely on the mechanics for mechanics' sake), you can have clear rules. But as soon as a player wants to flip a table or swing on a chandelier, you've either got to expand the complexity of the rules or simply say no. That's the trade-off.

It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can borrow certainty on the momentum, but it's going to cost you certainty on the position. And there's no way around it...

 

[DaveDash]

I understand your desire, but it's impossible to achieve. You can't have both faster combat and clear rules. Ever. The only way to make that work is to restrict choice. Chess has absolutely clear-cut rules. You just can't move a knight any way other than two forward and one to the side. Ditto that for D&D.

So long as you are willing to abstract the combat to the point where it is no longer representative of actual fighting (and just rely on the mechanics for mechanics' sake), you can have clear rules. But as soon as a player wants to flip a table or swing on a chandelier, you've either got to expand the complexity of the rules or simply say no. That's the trade-off.

It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can borrow certainty on the momentum, but it's going to cost you certainty on the position. And there's no way around it...

They definitely could have been a lot more concise with their existing ruleset without adding to the amount of rules. Even more examples to at least show their intent with many rulings would have been helpful.

That would mean less artwork and fluff in the books however, something I could definitely live with, bur absolute sacrilege for others.

 

[Daern]

I don't know if its necessarily V, but I've swung towards being a lenient DM. My gf is at the table now and the advantage mechanic keeps things from getting out of control so I just sort of roll with whatever now. Like last night the guy playing a Monk was battling a thug in a flophouse and he wanted to use one of his attacks to throw a blanket over the guys head. Sure. If you it, then the next attacks have Advantage. Why not? If you think about it he was probably gonna hit at least two of his attacks anyways. Rule of cool they call it. I think the real new twist to my approach has been to not overcomplicate adjudicating that stuff. Just let it happen.
I sometimes come up with elaborate houserules to satisfy some simulatory itch, but I find that they usually don't go over well at the table. And if they don't, well then, why not shine it?

 

[Hussar]

I understand your desire, but it's impossible to achieve. You can't have both faster combat and clear rules. Ever. The only way to make that work is to restrict choice. Chess has absolutely clear-cut rules. You just can't move a knight any way other than two forward and one to the side. Ditto that for D&D.

So long as you are willing to abstract the combat to the point where it is no longer representative of actual fighting (and just rely on the mechanics for mechanics' sake), you can have clear rules. But as soon as a player wants to flip a table or swing on a chandelier, you've either got to expand the complexity of the rules or simply say no. That's the trade-off.

It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can borrow certainty on the momentum, but it's going to cost you certainty on the position. And there's no way around it...

That is absolutely not true. Look at something like Savage Worlds, a very freeform style combat system (although still fairly crunchy) that plays light years faster than D&D.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept that the combat rules are abstract, you can get very concise, clear rules that play lightning fast.

It's only once you start trying to add in the idea of simulation (that there are direct correlations between the dice and what's going on in the fiction) that you bog down speed.

 

[Manbearcat]

I understand your desire, but it's impossible to achieve. You can't have both faster combat and clear rules. Ever. The only way to make that work is to restrict choice. Chess has absolutely clear-cut rules. You just can't move a knight any way other than two forward and one to the side. Ditto that for D&D.

So long as you are willing to abstract the combat to the point where it is no longer representative of actual fighting (and just rely on the mechanics for mechanics' sake), you can have clear rules. But as soon as a player wants to flip a table or swing on a chandelier, you've either got to expand the complexity of the rules or simply say no. That's the trade-off.

It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can borrow certainty on the momentum, but it's going to cost you certainty on the position. And there's no way around it...

That is absolutely not true. Look at something like Savage Worlds, a very freeform style combat system (although still fairly crunchy) that plays light years faster than D&D.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept that the combat rules are abstract, you can get very concise, clear rules that play lightning fast.

It's only once you start trying to add in the idea of simulation (that there are direct correlations between the dice and what's going on in the fiction) that you bog down speed.

+1 Hussar. Absolutely not true. There are several systems that pull this off. You need (typically unified) robust resolution mechanics generally and robust procedures for stunting/creating assets/turning existing scene elements into assets specifically. And broad-descriptor keyword tech can do a lot of the heavy lifting here. There is a gang of non-D&D systems out there that does this and does it well. And 4e's general stunting and terrain stunting system is entirely intuitive requiring pretty minimal mental overhead and table handling time.

 

[Hussar]

+1 Hussar. Absolutely not true. There are several systems that pull this off. You need (typically unified) robust resolution mechanics generally and robust procedures for stunting/creating assets/turning existing scene elements into assets specifically. And broad-descriptor keyword tech can do a lot of the heavy lifting here. There is a gang of non-D&D systems out there that does this and does it well. And 4e's general stunting and terrain stunting system is entirely intuitive requiring pretty minimal mental overhead and table handling time.

To be fair, where 4e breaks down timewise is in the plethora of interrupt style powers. Particularly at higher levels where interrupts can start chaining together. Monster does X which triggers PC 1's reaction, which causes PC 2 to react and so on. Even if no one actually interrupts this particular action, the DM has to slow down on every action to give players time to possibly interrupt. Never minding the snafu's caused when the DM starts moving on and some player shouts out, "Wait! I can do something!... ummm... oh, no, that's not right... sorry".

Couple that with combats that can easily last 6-10 rounds, and you get some snail paced combat.