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

[Nebulous]

For the record I don't think absolute balance is fun. Flavour is important too, and flavour is achieved through differences.

However players should feel like they can all contribute to each pillar of the game on a more or less even footing, depending on what they enjoy the most. That is achieved through a semblance of balance.

What you also need to understand is that D&D competes with MMOs and such for time. That's where I need to draw players from, and ensure my D&D sessions are more fun than their MMOs, otherwise they will just play those instead.
To many MMO players, balance, mechanics, and builds are very important. Take those things away and you're basically left with a glorified fantasy version of story time.

One of my players is new to D&D but a hardcore MMO player, we're talking hours a day nearly every day. BUT he loves the face to face aspect of D&D and the rules and the rolls and how much of a different experience it is than the computer. So yeah, I got him hooked like a junkie on crack

 

[DaveDash]

One of my players is new to D&D but a hardcore MMO player, we're talking hours a day nearly every day. BUT he loves the face to face aspect of D&D and the rules and the rolls and how much of a different experience it is than the computer. So yeah, I got him hooked like a junkie on crack

That's great to hear.

One of our players is finally starting to enjoy roleplay more (probably after 8 months or so), but another guy still very much only enjoys rollplay and combat.

I don't mind either way, I enjoy both, although I lean on the rollplay side more than the roleplay side of things - i.e. if I play a character with 20 charisma or 20 intelligence, I don't want to be expected to come up with amazing speeches or cunning plans as a player. You don't make a player try and chop blocks of wood with his bare hands to prove he can do feats of high strength, so I don't agree with DM's who dislike rollplaying and force players to do these sorts of things with the mental attributes.

Just give them advantage on the roll if they do a good job or come up with something awesome.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I was one of the participants in that conversation, so I thought I'd chime in as far as what my motivations are in engaging in that type of debate. First of all, I don't consider myself a rules lawyer. If I were gaming at any one of your tables, I think you'd find that I defer to the DM's judgement on the interpretation of the rules. I like to just describe what my character is doing within the fiction and let the DM worry about the rules as the DM sees fit to do.

With that being said, when I participate in threads on ENWorld most of the time it's rules debates like the one you've sited. The reason I enjoy this type of discussion on-line, not necessarily at the table, is to test my interpretation against the opinions of others, and to help me in formulating an interpretation of parts of the rules I may be in error about. Mostly I just enjoy this type of text based discussion, and as a DM I may be more tolerant of rules debates at the table than others seem to be because I like to give the players the benefit of understanding my interpretation, and because I don't always assume that I'm correct in my interpretation. I like to hear a variety of opinions, but if someone is manipulating the rules to their sole benefit in a given situation, which is what I would call rules lawyering, I'm not particularly favorable to that type of behavior at the table.

 

[Nathal]

Since you prefer playing strictly by the rules, how do you feel about being a player in 5E versus 3E or Pathfinder? Does it still work for you, assuming in all cases there is a decent GM?

Those are things I like about D&D.

I like D&D for a rollplaying game, not a roleplaying game.

I'm not into the whole escapism aspect to live in someone else's world. The rules are very important to me, since I like the game from a rules/mechanics standpoint. They form the basis of the social contract of agreement upon what game we are playing, and I am very fussy about that. I want to play the game printed in the book, not your version of the game.

Also as a player fiddling with mechanics and builds then testing them in game, is kind all you have to do outside of game time. Well I suppose you could write fiction as well, but that bores me.

 

[DaveDash]

Since you prefer playing strictly by the rules, how do you feel about being a player in 5E versus 3E or Pathfinder? Does it still work for you, assuming in all cases there is a decent GM?

The problem with 5e is you can't play strictly by the rules, because there aren't rules for everything. I play in a couple of games and DM one, and there are lots of little things that are ruled differently across each game, leading to an inconsistent experience.
We have had some big arguments in 5e - especially over things like stealth - when we first started playing.

The overall experience is more fun though, because combats go faster, every class more or less feels powerful and like they can contribute, and most players are on equal footing no matter how much experience they have with the mechanics. This experience isn't tied to rulings not rules however, it's tied to fun mechanics.

 

[Nathal]

Good answer Also, I empathize with your statement that "if I play a character with 20 charisma or 20 intelligence, I don't want to be expected to come up with amazing speeches or cunning plans as a player". Expecting a player to be as brilliant as his smartest character is not fair. I understand GMs don't want to have every puzzle or mystery solved with an intelligence roll, but to dash somebody's character concept against the rocks because the player himself can't live up to it? Well now that's a special kind of DM sadism.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...or-in-the-D-amp-D-culture/page3#ixzz3ePuYoJI3

The problem with 5e is you can't play strictly by the rules, because there aren't rules for everything. I play in a couple of games and DM one, and there are lots of little things that are ruled differently across each game, leading to an inconsistent experience.
We have had some big arguments in 5e though - especially over things like stealth - when we first started playing.

The overall experience is more fun though, because combats go faster, every class more or less feels powerful and like they can contribute, and most players are on equal footing no matter how much experience they have with the mechanics. This experience isn't tied to rulings not rules however, it's tied to fun mechanics.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I strongly empathize with the OP, and suggest that a good alternative to the last fifteen years of 3rd and 4th edition (and Pathfinder) can be found in the OSR community and games out there. D&D 5E is a strong effort to get the current game back to its roots as well, while retaining the most useful designs the game has gone through. That said: Swords & Wizardry Complete is my favorite alt D&D these days, or plain old Basic/Expert D&D back in PDF on dndclassics.com. It's in many ways a better time than ever to be a classic era gamer.

Ultimately we need different editions and flavors to cater to everyone's needs. Where one player is bothered by the idea that one table's rules might vary from another's and wants to play The Official Game As Intended, another player like myself much prefers to play at the table, experience that table's version of the game, and see it as The Game Master and Players Wanted.

 

[Inchoroi]

I strongly empathize with the OP, and suggest that a good alternative to the last fifteen years of 3rd and 4th edition (and Pathfinder) can be found in the OSR community and games out there. D&D 5E is a strong effort to get the current game back to its roots as well, while retaining the most useful designs the game has gone through. That said: Swords & Wizardry Complete is my favorite alt D&D these days, or plain old Basic/Expert D&D back in PDF on dndclassics.com. It's in many ways a better time than ever to be a classic era gamer.

Ultimately we need different editions and flavors to cater to everyone's needs. Where one player is bothered by the idea that one table's rules might vary from another's and wants to play The Official Game As Intended, another player like myself much prefers to play at the table, experience that table's version of the game, and see it as The Game Master and Players Wanted.

Not to derail, but I've been thinking about taking a look at Swords & Wizardry to steal adventure ideas from...how is it?

As for the OP, I say give 5e a try with some good friends you know that value the same things you do. You'll be surprised at how awesome it is. Take as faith that game balance is something that's at least semi-necessary in a table-top game, but 5e does a fairly good job at that, while focusing on the story more than anything else. You all tell the story together, after all. Its not just the DM's story.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

Is this, or should this, be the goal of every RPG?

 

[Celtavian]

That's great to hear.

One of our players is finally starting to enjoy roleplay more (probably after 8 months or so), but another guy still very much only enjoys rollplay and combat.

I don't mind either way, I enjoy both, although I lean on the rollplay side more than the roleplay side of things - i.e. if I play a character with 20 charisma or 20 intelligence, I don't want to be expected to come up with amazing speeches or cunning plans as a player. You don't make a player try and chop blocks of wood with his bare hands to prove he can do feats of high strength, so I don't agree with DM's who dislike rollplaying and force players to do these sorts of things with the mental attributes.

Just give them advantage on the roll if they do a good job or come up with something awesome.

That would be a strange expectation. I know I prefer the player come up with something loosely plausible for speeches and/or plans. I also assume a high intelligence will allow me to reveal things I otherwise might not. I play up such stats as a DM even if the player is unable to do so all the time. It's part of making the player invest in the character. Though one pet peeve I do have is when a player dump stats and expects to play the character as though the low stat doesn't matter. It's why I don't bother creating stat generation systems that encourage dump statting. These low point buy systems or random generation systems that generate a lot of low rolls I don't even use. What's the point of someone rolling or choosing an 8 or 7 stat if they never play it. I'm glad 5E got rid of dump statting by eliminating negative stats. The lowest you can get is an 8. I came up with a system that prevents 8s from being taken most of the time. Though an 8 is slightly below average and that is much easier to account for than someone playing a 7 or a 5 stat as some did in Pathfinder.