D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Sunseeker]

Thats rules lawyering. Actual player agency is being free to make decisions for your character as you see fit. The consequences of those decisions being decided in play.

These are contradictory. [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] Said he wants to be able to know what he can do, when he can do it and how he goes about doing it without having to ask for the DM's permission to do the things the rules enable him to do. Noone wants to play "mother may I". I don't see how that doesn't qualify as "being free to make decisions for your character as you see fit". My decision is that, in the middle of town, I'm going to attack the nobleman who's been a royal jerk to those kids. The rules say I have the ability to attack people. If there are in-game consequences for that, so be it. But I shouldn't have to ask the DM if I may attack him. What's to stop me besides the DM saying "no" for no reason whatsoever. That's not rules lawyering.

If the DM is whimsically claiming I can't attack the noble when there in no in-game reason I couldn't that's the antithesis of player agency. That's the DM determining if you can or can not play you character in the manner they were designed based on the actions you choose for them.

Rules lawyering is arguing over minutia and verbage of a rule, typically after the DM has made a ruling on how that rule works, in order to force the outcome that you want, which is usually counter to the outcome the DM has already ruled has happened. Properly enforcing the rules makes for good gameplay. It sets easily identifiable bounds as to what can and cannot happen, that's the whole point of rules! If the DM is not properly enforcing the rules when they should, or not reliably enforcing the rules, or just not enforcing them at all, then it's not rules lawyering to correct him. Unless the social contract with the DM was "the DM is god" or "we're not worried about rules"; then anyone should feel free to make sure rules are followed. Because if the rules aren't followed, the whole system comes crashing down in a heap.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You mean anyone at the table is free to ask you to tell them how to play their character? Their choice is to surrender their choice.
Why even play at that point? They can go grab a coffee while you run all the characters.

Not play, build. I offer to help people build stronger characters. After seeing my characters in play, I usually get a fair amount of requests.

Alternatively, you could ask their help in non-optimizing your character. Same thing right? Get their suggestions on powers that seem cool. Have the table vote on your powers when you level up. That's way more fair since it's democratic and everyone has a say.

Why on earth would I do that?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

These comments always mystify me. It's almost as it someone says they use Netflix, and someone says, "Well, you still torrent movies, you just pay for them through an official and authorized provider of same."

There is no wrong way to play D&D, so long as the table is having fun. If you have a table filled with min/max players, then that's great! What often doesn't work is when min/max players play with RPers and beer & pretzel players - not that it can't work, but usually someone ends up feeling that the other people aren't playing it right.

But getting to the comment I'm responding to, it's annoying because, to a certain extent beyond beginners and young children, everyone is aware of the rules. Few people create fighters that fight one-handed with a dagger only, wearing no armor. What comments like this fail to realize is that there is a large category of players that do not optimize - either because they don't bother (beer and pretzels) or because they are aware of it and choose not to (RPers, for instance). They are not optimizing with different goals, they are specifically taking sub-optimal selections. Because it's interesting to them.

Now, if you want to expand the definition of optimization to uselessness (everyone is just optimizing for fun!) then I can't help you. Because I've met gamers that are most definitely not optimizing for fun.

It's called special snowflake optimization, where you optimize how strange, unique or interesting your character is above any other concern. I saw a lot of it back in 3E where people would use templates, monsters as PCs, and strange class combinations and feats to do this mechanically as well as RP-wise.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

These are contradictory. [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] Said he wants to be able to know what he can do, when he can do it and how he goes about doing it without having to ask for the DM's permission to do the things the rules enable him to do. Noone wants to play "mother may I". I don't see how that doesn't qualify as "being free to make decisions for your character as you see fit". My decision is that, in the middle of town, I'm going to attack the nobleman who's been a royal jerk to those kids. The rules say I have the ability to attack people. If there are in-game consequences for that, so be it. But I shouldn't have to ask the DM if I may attack him. What's to stop me besides the DM saying "no" for no reason whatsoever. That's not rules lawyering.

If the DM is whimsically claiming I can't attack the noble when there in no in-game reason I couldn't that's the antithesis of player agency. That's the DM determining if you can or can not play you character in the manner they were designed based on the actions you choose for them.

Rules lawyering is arguing over minutia and verbage of a rule, typically after the DM has made a ruling on how that rule works, in order to force the outcome that you want, which is usually counter to the outcome the DM has already ruled has happened. Properly enforcing the rules makes for good gameplay. It sets easily identifiable bounds as to what can and cannot happen, that's the whole point of rules! If the DM is not properly enforcing the rules when they should, or not reliably enforcing the rules, or just not enforcing them at all, then it's not rules lawyering to correct him. Unless the social contract with the DM was "the DM is god" or "we're not worried about rules"; then anyone should feel free to make sure rules are followed. Because if the rules aren't followed, the whole system comes crashing down in a heap.

The bolded part. Exactly that. I want to know in advance what I can do, or my rough chances of success so I can play tactically. Tactical play is difficult to impossible when it's subject to the DM's unknowable whim.

 

[iserith]

This isn't my preferred edition by a long shot. I'd much rather play 4E, 1E/2E, or 3.5E(more or less in that order) than 5E, but due to life circumstances that have nothing to do with D&D, I find myself now starting Curse of Strahd.

I played a few sessions of 5E about a year ago, and I've been in the same room where more than a few sessions were played and I kind of watched.

Here are some thoughts:

1. My main dislike of the game comes from that I find it by far the most random of any edition of D&D, and being that random I never feel in control of my own destiny. It feels like the dice matter more than my decisions in play, or my decisions in character building. In 3E or 4E, good play could be and was often more important the dice. 1E/2E could be randomly dangerous, but that element of danger is mostly missing from 5E. 1E/2E was random but lethal, and there was a level of calculated risk involved in everything you did and your decisions thus mattered. 5E is random, but things don't seem to matter much. If you fail you fall on your face, not lose/die. This wasn't at all how I played in any previous edition.

2. Given this randomness, and my powergaming tendencies, I find myself playing selfish glass cannons. I say selfish because teamwork in 5E feels like taking one for the team, and that isn't my style. Selfishness also involves being a coward and letting other people take 5E's randomness to the face, which makes me feel better as it isn't happening to me. I say glass cannon because even high defense 5E characters seem fragile. High defense in 5E only seems to make you less fragile(while still being fragile), and from a powergaming standpoint it seems like a bad investment, better to just kill enemies faster.

3. I was a Defender roughly half the time throughout the 4E era. I never felt fragile nor felt like I was taking one for the team during any of that, while in 5E I feel both are true. So I'm not playing tanks anymore.

4. Playing support seems to feel like taking one for the team as well. Some people seem to enjoy that, but it's not my style.

5. The optimization guides on forums for 5E don't really seem as helpful for 5E as they were for 3E/4E.

6. Spellcasters seem a bit weak on the whole until cantrips start to scale

I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, so perhaps it was already covered, but I think most of your concerns come from how the DM adjudicates. See the DMG, pages 236-237. If your DM is of the "Rolling With It" variety, then yeah, this game can seem pretty random. Notably, the DMG says this approach potentially has some serious drawbacks in that the players' decisions are not as important as the dice (and character builds). I advocate the "Middle Path," wherein the DM balances ruling outright success or failure with asking for ability checks.

As a player, you mitigate the effects of randomness by making solid decisions that remove uncertainty from the situation. You assess the threat, come up with a good plan, and never ask to make a check. You play to the hilt, applying your skill as a player to overcome challenges and your character's statistics as backup in case you fall short of outright success. Wherever possible, you play to your character's personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw to rack up Inspiration which further helps mitigate the negative effects of randomness down the line.

That is how you D&D 5e as a DM and player in my view. (Others may play or see it differently.)

 

[Jester David]

Why on earth would I do that?

For the same reason they want you to make a character for them: to play at the same power level as the rest of the group. I mean, that's the point, right? Get everyone on equal footing.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For the same reason they want you to make a character for them: to play at the same power level as the rest of the group. I mean, that's the point, right? Get everyone on equal footing.

That's important to you, not me. All I ask for on the equality front is equality of opportunity. What I want out of the game is to kick ass. I don't need to be better than anyone to do that. If everyone kicks ass, I still kick ass and all is well. If some people choose to not kick ass, that doesn't affect me. They should also live with their choice and not get cranky with me.

D&D adventuring is dangerous business. It can and probably should kill you. I don't understand the appeal of RPing a character that sucks at D&D.

 

[JonnyP71]

Why on earth would I do that?

Because sometimes, those moments in the game which derive from playing a sub optimal character concept can create the game memories that will last long after everyone has forgotten that time you critted the BBEG for 40 points of damage with your uber optimised Meat Shield with his +lots magic damage-dealer.

We spent a full hour of gameplay time trying to coax our Beastmaster Ranger's warpig (any optimiser will tell you the Beastmaster is a crap class) across a rickety bridge - using his favourite onions, attempting a lasso, and I won't go into detail as to what I attempted with a Mage Hand. But we remember it and we laugh about it 6 months later.

A whole quest arc developed from a Genie cursing the Champion to lose all colour from his hair - oh the horror of it! - so we had to find the great hairdresser Vidal Sassoon, as only he had the power to permanently restore it back to normal!

From entertaining and imaginative concepts, and characters the players 'care' about, so great memories are made. And we find the create concept 1st, arrange stats/feats to fit concept, approach leads to us having PCs we are more invested in.

 

[JonnyP71]

I don't understand the appeal of RPing a character that sucks at D&D.

A character cannot suck at D&D.

A player can.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*