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

[JonnyP71]

Semi-Joking... Are you sure you folks are playing DnD and not some other game?

No combat for an entire session is extreme, not just for me but imagine for most people here.... given that one of the pillar books of the game is the Monster Manual

Yes, we play D&D - such a session might include dozens of Arcana, Investigation, Insight, Perception, etc checks, roleplaying inspired by 5E backgrounds, ideals and flaws, and interaction with numerous NPCs with their own skills in Deception/Insight/etc. Whether combat occurs or not depends on our actions, and we will commonly make use of those above checks to actively avoid it. It's not a common to have no combat whatsoever in a session, but it's certainly not that unusual to be a surprise to any of us when it happens... a typical 3-4 hour session will be about 15-25% combat (1-3 encounters), the rest of the time RPing/exploring/investigating.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I am impressed. Perhaps because I've played longer, I've encountered problems at tables. I've found them to be inevitable. Even successful bands often break up! My longest group has been 23 years, but even that has had lineup changes over time.

Problems are inevitable in gaming. What I was trying to say is in my years of playing, my style of play has never been one of them.

All that said, given that you've said you enjoy dominating the social interactions as the face of the party, that you enjoy kicking all (or most) of the butt, I am somewhat surprised that you've never encountered any friction. In which case, I am happy that you've got a good group of friends that support your play style. I doubt I would have the patience.

This may come as a surprise, but most gamers are awkward and inexperienced in social situations, especially the younger ones. They don't argue much when somebody who is good with words does the talking in my experience. If you bothered to read any of my posts in this thread, you wouldn't put the words "kicking all (or most) of the butt" into my mouth. As for my groups, I have a good 4E group, and the 5E game I'm joining aside from my ex-wife's son and two people I've gamed with once or twice in Living Forgotten Realms, I've never met these people, so we'll see how that goes. My nomadic life has meant I've never had a long term group of friends. Ive never stayed in the same place long enough to accomplish that, and I have had to meet new people at new tables more times than I can count. I've never had a problem with a table yet, and I've only had a problem with two individuals and that was because of blatant cheating on their part.

 

[JonnyP71]

I am impressed. Perhaps because I've played longer, I've encountered problems at tables. I've found them to be inevitable. Even successful bands often break up! My longest group has been 23 years, but even that has had lineup changes over time.

I played from 1983 to 1994, then started again in 2012 - and have only ever had problems with 2 other individuals - one was when I joined a game in which the DM demanded total control, rolled all the dice, and told the players what characters they were playing in HIS story (I never even saw my character sheet). I didn't go back to that game. The other problem however was with a friend at University who was the stereotypical powergamer who forced his style on the group. He couldn't help it, even when I (as DM) asked him to stop and let others get a chance to shine from time to time. His style of play was arrogant, controlling and selfish, he complained whenever anyone else attempted something he didn't want them to do, and couldn't understand why the other players hadn't taken advantage of every possible tweak from the 2E splatbooks to make their characters more powerful.

That group lasted all of about 10 sessions until the other 3 guys got sick of him, and decided to end the campaign in style by collapsing a building on the whole party, killing all the PCs. We didn't restart, there was no will to, plus the problem player was the one who owned all the 2E books (my BECMI/1E stuff was in a box at my folks' place 120 miles away). And that was it for 18 years for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This may come as a surprise, but most gamers are awkward and inexperienced in social situations, especially the younger ones.

Ha! "come as a surprise" got me.

Just reading this thread it's clear that most gamers are awkward and inexperienced in social situations.

The funniest part is "especially the younger ones". Personally I find the geeky/hyperactive 14-year old archetype WAY less obnoxious than the 40+ "my opinion matters more because I knew Dave Arneson" sort. The old guy should know better, but all he's done in 30 years is trade the hyperactivity for sanctimony.

(It's also funny how many RPG forum debates eventually get around to not-so-subtle attempts to "casually mention" how long somebody has been playing D&D. As if anybody else values your opinion more or less because of it. They don't.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not saying everyone is wrong, I'm saying you and a few other close minded people in this thread are wrong. I say this in the hope and belief that most people playing D&D aren't like you.

I've been playing since the mid-90s during the 2E era, and my play style is more or less the same now as it was back then. I can honestly say I've never had a problem at a table, so you telling me my playstyle is a problem does not match my experience playing D&D.

It may not be that your actual play style is an issue so much as the way in which your play style is described makes it seem like it would be an issue.

I make combat-effective characters when I play. However, not every single decision I make is about being effective in combat. I factor other things into my decisions...such as the game outside of combat, and also less concrete things like the character I have in mind from a story perspective. For example, I very often play human characters, yet I know many optimizers who would consider that a "sub-optimal" choice simply because it doesn't offer game advantages like darkvision or something similar.

Obviously, that example is optimization taken to an extreme...I imagine all but the most hard core of optimizers fall a little short of that extreme. But there are many who do not. And I think when people see phrases like "I design my character to kick ass" and the like, it tends to come across more like the extreme rather than just someone who tries to make an effective character. So I think it's a matter of presentation as much as perception.

But the one thing that almost all optimization does, and I think that some of your replies and comments played into this, is that it creates conflict among players, and that's usually a problem for most games. Because optimizing is inherently competitive....and people don't like to be told that they made "suboptimal choices" and that they should "face the consequences of their decisions" and the like.

Optimizers very often are competing against other players and the DM to prove they know how to play the game the best. There's really no way around that...you can't have optimization without comparing the choices players make.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see where this has anything to do with D&D. You seem to be claiming that people who powergame and people who don't can't enjoy the same game. I don't agree. It might be true for you, but I see that as your problem. I don't see where it needs to be my problem as well. I don't believe there is a problem. It really sounds like you want the kids to get off your damn lawn.

One way that I think about it is that most people who power game and most people who don't power game aren't even really playing the same game - they have different play goals. Ultimately, they have fun doing different things.

In most areas, this isn't a major problem - folks who love powergaming often don't love it exclusively, and it's not like the folks who don't focus on it want to suck, so there's a lot of points of overlap on the Venn Diagram.

But much like you wouldn't go to a horror movie for yuks and you wouldn't read Haruki Murakami for dragons and wizards and you wouldn't listen to Die Antwoord to set the mood for a date (well, unless you're me and my wife, but we're weird ), there are games that serve different types of fun (different "genres," if you want). And at a certain point on the continuum, these things do conflict.

You can't easily have both "easy, clear choices in character creation" AND "granular character-building options." If you build your game for one, the other one becomes compromised in some way.

4e was very much in the power-game genre. It gave the options and the granularity and the encounter design that pushed most power-gamers' "this is lots of fun!" button.

5e is significantly less so. It will not push that button as hard. It won't deliver on your genre expectations here.

So like sometimes you laugh in a horror movie or sometimes Murakami might do something a little fantastical, 5e can contain some power-gaming. But that's not what it's "for," to a large degree (though individual DMs / groups can drift it more that way easily).

I think, if you find yourself completely unable to NOT play this Encounters game, I might suggest shifting your genre expectations.

Don't expect this game to scratch your power-gaming itch very hard. Don't show up to the horror movie expecting to laugh your butt off.

There are still itches it scratches REALLY WELL - socialization, role-playing, creative expression, even casual time-blowing. If you show up to get that out of the game, you won't be disappointed. Show up to the game expecting to hang out with some fellow D&D dorks, pretend to be a make-believe elf, and spending a few hours telling a fun story about said elf by rolling some dice. That's the good time you can find there.

If that isn't a good time for you (ie, if you NEED to be able to power this game in order to enjoy yourself), you're just signing up to not have fun. You could probably read a book or surf the internet or something and have a better time.

 

[Celtavian]

Casters still have an edge at higher levels in 5E, but not as bad as in previous editions. Claiming that Pathfinder or 3E is better in this regard is frankly ridiculous.

No, it is not ridiculous. It is empirically provable that you can build a far more powerful character in 3E/Pathfinder without spells than you can in 5E. Barbarian rage powers could be quite potent for offense and defense. Fighters could deal absolutely insane damage and get an insane AC without a spell. Rogues could also do some nutty damage without spells. Then you had hybrid classes like the Swashbuckler and Cavalier.

Casters having the edge is irrelevant. It's about being able to build a powerful character without any spells at all. That is much harder to do in 5E. The highest base AC comes from heavy armor with a shield and a shield spell or shield of faith. There are no non-spellcasting abilities that can match a shield spell. And barbarian powers from an archetype do not compare to 3E/Pathfinder barbarian rage powers.

You could build a character in 3E/Pathfinder that didn't have a single spell and make them into a power combination. Not the case in 5E. You can make an effective non-spellcasting character. He won't be optimal without spells.

 

[Mathilda]

Yes, we play D&D - such a session might include dozens of Arcana, Investigation, Insight, Perception, etc checks, roleplaying inspired by 5E backgrounds, ideals and flaws, and interaction with numerous NPCs with their own skills in Deception/Insight/etc. Whether combat occurs or not depends on our actions, and we will commonly make use of those above checks to actively avoid it. It's not a common to have no combat whatsoever in a session, but it's certainly not that unusual to be a surprise to any of us when it happens... a typical 3-4 hour session will be about 15-25% combat (1-3 encounters), the rest of the time RPing/exploring/investigating.

OK... understood... it appeared in your earlier posts on this thread that your group just RP'd and did very little combat if any.

In a home game... I totally get the deeper immersion in all those things you mention above

In Organized Play... that kind of play detracts from the goal because it eats up valuable time due to the 4 hour timeslot when playing at public events like Game Days, Gen Con etc.

If I may suggest something to you and your party.... avoiding combat may be logical in a sense but you folks may be depriving yourselves of an awesome storyline tool. Great battles are the hallmark of a lot of our favorite fantasy novels... epic battles at the table make for great stories many years after the fact. Treating your combat encounters as nuisances takes away from that and makes it less memorable.

 

[Rhenny]

One way that I think about it is that most people who power game and most people who don't power game aren't even really playing the same game - they have different play goals. Ultimately, they have fun doing different things.

In most areas, this isn't a major problem - folks who love powergaming often don't love it exclusively, and it's not like the folks who don't focus on it want to suck, so there's a lot of points of overlap on the Venn Diagram.

But much like you wouldn't go to a horror movie for yuks and you wouldn't read Haruki Murakami for dragons and wizards and you wouldn't listen to Die Antwoord to set the mood for a date (well, unless you're me and my wife, but we're weird ), there are games that serve different types of fun (different "genres," if you want). And at a certain point on the continuum, these things do conflict.

You can't easily have both "easy, clear choices in character creation" AND "granular character-building options." If you build your game for one, the other one becomes compromised in some way.

4e was very much in the power-game genre. It gave the options and the granularity and the encounter design that pushed most power-gamers' "this is lots of fun!" button.

5e is significantly less so. It will not push that button as hard. It won't deliver on your genre expectations here.

So like sometimes you laugh in a horror movie or sometimes Murakami might do something a little fantastical, 5e can contain some power-gaming. But that's not what it's "for," to a large degree (though individual DMs / groups can drift it more that way easily).

I think, if you find yourself completely unable to NOT play this Encounters game, I might suggest shifting your genre expectations.

Don't expect this game to scratch your power-gaming itch very hard. Don't show up to the horror movie expecting to laugh your butt off.

There are still itches it scratches REALLY WELL - socialization, role-playing, creative expression, even casual time-blowing. If you show up to get that out of the game, you won't be disappointed. Show up to the game expecting to hang out with some fellow D&D dorks, pretend to be a make-believe elf, and spending a few hours telling a fun story about said elf by rolling some dice. That's the good time you can find there.

If that isn't a good time for you (ie, if you NEED to be able to power this game in order to enjoy yourself), you're just signing up to not have fun. You could probably read a book or surf the internet or something and have a better time.

Nice post. Enjoying D&D in general, especially when you play in a group of strangers, really comes down to flexibility above all. Any player that is married too strictly to any one playstyle has the potential to create friction or, at the very least, not enjoy himself/herself.

Your post kind of made me think of my own preferences as a player. Sometimes I like it when my PC/party kicks butt. But overall, I like a variety of outcomes and opportunities. Once in a while, I even like it when my own PC or our party gets ravaged!