D&D 5E Some things I don't care for in the D&D culture

[Mistwell]

Hey guys, I haven't posted in years because I've been away from D&D. I've done some private writing about D&D to understand why I don't like it anymore, and I'm curious what peoples' thoughts on these cultural elements I've identified are. If I'm alone or if there are actually some subcultures that I might find I agree with (and actually start playing D&D again, since 5E rules look playable to me).

Before I go into them though I want to ask if you think I should pose them all for discussion in one thread (this one). Or make a separate thread for each since they can be pretty big topics on their own. They are:

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering
The importance for rules to "realistically" portray what "could happen" in a given situation
The concept of speccing and character builds in D&D

Those are the things that have been keeping me away from modern editions of D&D and I want to see what thoughts different folks in the community have about them. Thanks.

I would say all three of those things were directly addressed in this newest edition (5e). The new rules take a big step away from all three of those ideas, and put a lot more into the idea of story, and the rules being there for the DM to use as an adaptable toolset more than a bible for players. It also made the rules more simple (which reduces "realism" to aid ease of play), and made things like multiclassing less appealing (moving some better abilities further down to level three, requiring some ability score prerequisites for multiclassing, not stacking additional attacks, etc..).

 

[Morrus]

OK, so here's my interpretation of your position. You're basically expressing a preference for rules density. Different people like different rules densities like different people like different cake flavours. It's all OK.

You like rules-lite games. D&D 3.x (inc Pathfinder) aren't for you. D&D 5E might be (it's more rules lite than 2E, 3.x, or 4E).

If 5E is too rules dense for you, then you're looking at Fate or Savage Worlds (both universal mid-light systems); maybe the Cypher System (very light - powers Numenera and The Strange); Green Ronin's AGE system is fairly light, too.

There's a game for you. It might not be D&D. But there are games with almost no rules (Dread - the rules are a Jenga tower) and there are games with lots of rules (GURPS or HERO). All editions of D&D fall well within those extremes.
.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I largely agree with [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] above. However, while I think 5e is much more open to lighter rules, I think a large amount of the player base enjoys this style of play and the shift in tone for 5e may not alter how they play the game.

Bottom line is that it's still very important to find the right group of people to play with.

 

[MoonSong]

Haha, that's ok. I'm open to others' opinions and experiences and I want to know ALL THE THINGS.

I should point out that I didn't necessarily say that I'm into escapism, just imagination. And yeah, I can agree with DaveDash that writing fiction bores me too

I'll start with the first one since I'm not getting much with such an open ended OP.

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering.

What I don't like about this kind of play is that an RPG doesn't need it to be fun. It's a distraction to me. In Basic D&D there weren't enough rules to be rules lawyers (which became more prevalent with editions 1 - 4). And balance wasn't a concern because there weren't enough different class abilities to notice.

So I'm curious if anyone else does or doesn't like playing or running in campaigns that make an effort to "keep the game balanced", and the level of rules discussion they're willing to tolerate during a gaming session.

Well, I'm a confessed shameless rules lawyer. So well, I can give a copper or two about it. Balance is important to me, but not that important. But it is important, Part of it is a certain inferiority complex, you see I love sorcerers and hate wizards with a passion, this hate is because I cannot identify with wizards, their story and motivations are a no-sell for me. On the other hand sorcerers can have more origins and motivations and I love them because of it. That's why I care about balance, I shouldn't have an inferior spellcaster just because I don't like the wizard flavour. (Really cartoon Presto and Disney's Merlin ruined wizards for me ) A similar thing happens for all other cases -two swords, Giant hammers, etc-.

On rules lawyering, I find it is a way to have fun. I like to think things are fair, and the agency that comes with rules. I don't like to receive special treatment or feel like I'm receiving it, it kind of sets you apart from the group, it "others" you, like you don't belong there, I also don't like to feel like I'm at the whim of the DM. So by rules lawyering I get to feel like I have agency and not receiving special treatment, it is all in the rules so it is fine! It also helps to avoid pointless drama and discussion, and it helps to pinpoint bad egomaniac DMs early on.

PS. Funnily enough, I tend to rules lawyer less the more codified things are. I barely ever did it when playing 4e, on the other hand 5e feels like I need to do it more than ever!

 

[S'mon]

I'd just say that those were big issues in the 3e culture, which continues with Pathfinder. Less so in 4e and much much less so in 5e, with the caveat that some of the Internet discussion of 5e eg here on ENW does sound a bit 3e-ish at times. But my experience at the tabletop is that 5e is more like 2e (and I GM it like 1e!).

Edit: I definitely don't want a game that attempts to have the experience mimic a MMORPG server, so DaveDash's approach is not for me. I tend to enjoy Semi-Free Kriegsspiel (or even Free Kriegspiel) with lots and lots of GM judgement. 5e is good for encouraging GMs to use their own judgement and not feel rules-bound.

 

[Uchawi]

It is like stating I like the Yin, but I don't like the Yang. You can't have a game without a little bit of everything. For every person that sways to one side, you will find someone that tends towards the other.

 

[iserith]

Hey guys, I haven't posted in years because I've been away from D&D. I've done some private writing about D&D to understand why I don't like it anymore, and I'm curious what peoples' thoughts on these cultural elements I've identified are. If I'm alone or if there are actually some subcultures that I might find I agree with (and actually start playing D&D again, since 5E rules look playable to me).

Before I go into them though I want to ask if you think I should pose them all for discussion in one thread (this one). Or make a separate thread for each since they can be pretty big topics on their own. They are:

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering
The importance for rules to "realistically" portray what "could happen" in a given situation
The concept of speccing and character builds in D&D

Those are the things that have been keeping me away from modern editions of D&D and I want to see what thoughts different folks in the community have about them. Thanks.

Game balance is important in competitive board games so that one player doesn't have an advantage of another. It is not as important in an RPG where the goal is to have fun together and create an exciting, memorable story. What matters is spotlight - the ability for everyone to contribute more or less equally to these goals. The rules can help with this and do, but it's chiefly a matter of table management and shared expectations.

"Realism" in a fantasy game like D&D 5e is only as important as a particular group agrees it is. Typically, people in my experience just want things to be consistent so they can make decisions based on how they understand things to work in the setting, and realism isn't much of a concern. Sometimes you'll get into games with players and DMs who use "realism" as a means of control and an excuse to shut down the ideas of other people. If that's a thing you don't like (I hate it), it's easy enough to game with people who aren't like that. I've actually had a lot of success breaking people of this urge by introducing them to improvisational techniques ("Yes, and...", no blocking, etc.) which make games run a lot smoother.

As for character builds, in my experience, most people are more interested in choosing options that reflect the fictional concept they have in mind than eking out the highest mechanical advantage. For some, optimization is quite fun even if it's purely theoretical. I think it's a good idea for players to realize that in D&D it's important to balance the urge to optimize with the goals of play: having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story. The most optimal build or optimal choice isn't necessarily enough to achieve those goals.

 

[Big J Money]

Thanks for all the thoughts, people!

Morrus, I would say you're correct from a practical standpoint. I never set out to say "I like rules-light games", but also I don't garner any benefit from having more rules. But there are two specific distinctions to 3E rules that are far more important to me than the "amount" of rules. Those would be the style of rules (hardcoded character behavior) and the amount of character options (extreme). Both things kill an important part of my imagination for some reason. 4E was the extreme in this regard. If I want to let this part of my imagination rest, I'll play a videogame or boardgame. Otherwise I want to exercise it, and that's one of my main purposes for playing a pen and paper RPG.

Regarding character builds, it's actually not the min-maxing that bothers me per se. That's simply playing 3E/4E as designed. What bothers me more is the amount of time spent on character creation, and the punishment that can happen to players who don't min-max. Again, if I want to spend time studying or poring over RPG character options, I have video games for that. I actually do enjoy this, just not when I want to roleplay. And this is purely a preference, of course.

MoonSong, you pointed out something very interesting. I'm reminded of something that turned me off of the old d20 Star Wars RPG many years ago. I created a bounty hunter Rodian and he was terrible. Even though in Star Wars fiction, Rodians were supposed to be skilled hunters, the system required me to make a Trandoshan to be most effective. I was pissed about that! So I think what bothers me about balance isn't necessarily when a game is well-balanced, but when the rules are designed in such a way as to turn it into an issue. In original D&D you can't compare the fighting man and the magic user for balance because they were asymmetrically designed. That game design avoids balance entirely. I guess this isn't so much a cultural thing as a rules thing, then.

Edit: Wow, I just read some of the Stealth thread and I can see what someone meant by 5E can "make rules lawyering worse" for some people. Yes, this is what I meant by rules-lawyering being a cultural thing. I used to be one. But now I've decided that I would rather rule in favor of common sense and plausibility of fiction (according to the concensus at the table) than to try and parse the rules as a legal document. It's a matter of personal priority. Mine is not to "play the game as correct, according to the verbage in the legal-game-document", but to try to use the rules as a guide to let everyone at the table have fun. This is an example of the rules-lawyer culture that I prefer to avoid, certainly. FWIW, I think interpreted the rules perfectly is a sacred cow. Unless you're playing MtG, and then it makes sense.

So it sounds like there's evidence that I could find a 5E group that has similar tastes as me. Bacon Bits, what you point out is my biggest concern of course, that these folks may be quite difficult to find.

 

[GMMichael]

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering
The importance for rules to "realistically" portray what "could happen" in a given situation
The concept of speccing and character builds in D&D

Those are the things that have been keeping me away from modern editions of D&D and I want to see what thoughts different folks in the community have about them. Thanks.

A good point earlier: fifth edition has stepped away from a lot of this. Some additional thoughts:

Seeking a balanced ruleset should be a goal of the designers, but their primary goal should be making the game fun and playable. I wasn't behind the scenes in the design of 5e (although some reasons why I feel like I was can be found here), but I'm guessing that they didn't put "balance" as high on their list as they did on, oh, 4th edition. It's the players, really, who are the perpetrators of balance-seeking and lawyering, not the game.

Realistic portrayals: this is very much on the designers. If you provide a formula for determining how many concubines a character may have, you'd better expect that rule to be followed verbatim. If, however, you say something to the effect of, "the player is free to design his character's harem as long as it is within the bounds of the GM's campaign concept," then the burden of realism is dropped on the GM and players, not the book.

Speccing and builds: I'd like to point at 2nd edition's class handbooks for this. Ever since I saw the Gladiator kit, I wanted to make my fighter cooler. And I suspect that other players did too, which is why D&D provided those options. WotC's a business. Businesses sell stuff. If people go back to Starbucks time and again, just because they can build their own coffee-beverage, you'd better believe it can happen in RPGs too.

I really don't find that these issues are unique to D&D. Players look for a game that they'll like. Optimizer-type players are likely to avoid a game that provides zero character-speccing options. But if you raise the D&D flag, guess who will rally around you!

 

[Big J Money]

You're tempting me. I'm sorely tempted to find a copy of the Class Handbooks and rewrite them using my own design paradigm and sensibilities of what makes "a cool class". And to sort of rewrite this history of game mechanics design concepts, as it were...

I feel that what makes a fantasy character concept cool (mechanics wise, I mean) is not how it manipulates the existing rules, but when. Cool from an RPG perspective; not a tactical wargame perspective, I mean.

But I'm way OT now.