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

[thecasualoblivion]

Except how has it actually impacted you in play? Is this a philosophical objection? Are you afraid what it might mean? Or did you actually try to do something in-game where the DM said, "No, you can't do that?"

Yes, the designers have said "Rulings over rules". But all previous editions were meant to be played that way as well (maybe not 4e; I'm not familiar with it enough to say.) The only difference is that the designer have now said it explicitly. It's almost like they said, "Well, duh, of course rulings trump rules. It's always been meant to be this way." They're basically saying, "Don't take guff from powergaming rules lawyers."

And you have yet to give a single example of where the rules are insufficiently codified. (Which is ironic, because there are some spots where that is the case...I could name a few myself. But I doubt 4e was free of these nebulous areas.)

I don't really see the point. I've made myself clear, if you don't understand I don't think I can help you.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, the designers have said "Rulings over rules". But all previous editions were meant to be played that way as well (maybe not 4e; I'm not familiar with it enough to say.) The only difference is that the designer have now said it explicitly. It's almost like they said, "Well, duh, of course rulings trump rules. It's always been meant to be this way." They're basically saying, "Don't take guff from powergaming rules lawyers."

It was the same in 4e. Everything is ultimately the DMs discretion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The dispute over #1 isn't over whether or not it's a good thing, but rather that it is true. Whether it's good for the game or not is a matter of opinion. That being said I think your mistaken in that it's necessarily adversarial. From my standpoint, I want to be able to make tactical and strategic judgements that don't factor in the DM. It has nothing to do with conflict, but instead independence.

Because I want to know how something is going to work in advance, so I can make an informed decision. If I am dealing with codified rules, I can do this. If it depends on DM discretion, I can't know in advance since the DM's mind is hidden from me, and I can't make an informed decison.

Now, rules can't cover everything, and a certain level of DM discretion is inevitable, but it's a sliding scale. You can have more or you can have less. I prefer less.

Tactical and strategic judgments rely on two main components, the resources and abilities available to you based on inherent character traits and available environmental resources is one of them. The other is comprised of situational factors including but not limited to the capabilities and resources of the opposition, and possible unknown environmental factors.

When I'm playing my battle master fighter, I know exactly how my maneuvers work. What I don't know is how effective a given use of a maneuver will be in a certain situation until I attempt it. I know that when someone misses a melee attack against me, that I can choose to riposte using my reaction to make an attack. I don't know if expending the superiority die will be worth it until I roll to hit.

5E is no different than any other edition in regard to these factors in that you will generally have control over the first but not the second. You might know exactly what you are capable of doing but you won't know exactly what the effect of doing something is going to be in every situation. Yes 5E doesn't have as many options for character building as 3E or 4E did but you can still make choices to enable better performance at certain things.

What 5E has done, with regard to the DM is simply reminding him/her that they are the one running the game not the rules. This has been true for every edition ever produced but some DMs during the 3E & 4E periods had forgotten that simple truth. 5E has simply provided a pair of ruby slippers to DMs who have wandered off the path of being responsible for their own games, so that they may click their heels together and repeat 3 times " the game is ours not the rules" and be magically transported home, to a place where he/she is running the game and the rule books are subservient to that.

 

[iserith]

He wanted specific examples, but my issue was a general one, not a specific one. Specific examples would have been irrelevant.

Specifically:

1. Too much is left to DM discretion(value neutral translation--5E leaves more to DM discretion than earlier editions)
2. 5E has less player options than 3E or 4E

I don't see where specific examples are necessary for either of the above. Neither is in dispute.

End of story

On #1, I would say that the DM has always had the discretion you appear to decry, regardless of edition. It's just that in practice many rulings in previous editions were based on more granular rules sets that covered more ground. D&D 5e isn't as granular, so it has the appearance of things being left to the DM's discretion more than other editions. But in truth, the DM has always had the ability to rule as he or she likes.

 

[pemerton]

Why do you worry about having to factor in the DM?

A good DM will not stop you from attempting what you want to do, provided what you are attempting is within the bounds of reason.

<snip>

A system that lets a good DM do that to the best of their ability is a system which in turn and as a direct result, empowers the players.

Giving a DM more of a free interpretation actually does the opposite of what you are suggesting, by opening up the world, giving more options to the creative players who do not feel bound by what is written on their sheet. THAT is player empowerment.

I think there are at least three ways in which loosening the reins on the GM can limit player agency.

First, if the rules don't stipulate the DCs for various actions, that makes it harder, as a player, to build towards success in those actions. In this respect, 5e is less loose on the GM than 3E when it comes to combat (in 5e the GM is much more constrained in setting NPC/monster ACs than is the case in 3E), but generally more loose when it comes to non-combat DCs (there aren't the long lists of DCs that are found in the 3E skill rules). I think comparing to 4e is harder because the two systems tend to use quite different methodologies for setting DCs (in 4e DCs are generally set in a metagame fashion, by reference to the "level" of the NPC/monster or the ingame situation, rather than by reference to infiction considerations).

Second, if the rules don't stipulate the consequences of player action declarations in mechanical terms, that can make it harder for players to know what their PCs are capable of. An example (plucked more-or-less from the air) would be transmuting rock to mud. In AD&D the exact consequences of this for NPC mobility tend to be left up to GM adjudication, whereas 4e is much more likely to spell out that sort of consequence by reference to mechanically-defined conditions like difficult terrain, immobilisation, etc. (In AD&D the web spell is defined in this level of detail, whereas TRtM is not.)

Third, if the rules don't establish conditions for finality, then players often can't be as confident in making action declarations and extrapolating consequences. In 4e, there are rules for finality in combat (0 hp) and non-combat (skill challenges). 5e - like AD&D and 3E - tends to have the former, but not the latter.

I think [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] is mostly expressing concern about (1) and (2).

the designers have said "Rulings over rules". But all previous editions were meant to be played that way as well (maybe not 4e; I'm not familiar with it enough to say.)

And you have yet to give a single example of where the rules are insufficiently codified. (Which is ironic, because there are some spots where that is the case...I could name a few myself. But I doubt 4e was free of these nebulous areas.)

For my own part, there is a marked difference between 2nd ed, which expects outcomes in the fiction to depend mostly on GM adjudication and intuition; and 4e, which expects the GM adjudication to take part at the point of framing rather than resolution - and gives strong guidance to the GM at this point of framing - and then expects resolution to tell us whether or not the player gets his/her way.

At least as I read 5e, it leans more towards the 2nd ed approach. Whereas 4e is (again, as I read it) much closer to more "contemporary" systems like Dungeon World, Burning Wheel etc. In terms of my (1), (2) and (3) above this is about finality. 5e, at least as I read it, tends to leave finality as an issue for ad hoc GM adjudication (except when a creature has been reduced to 0 hp), which I think is an issue for player agency.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't really see the point. I've made myself clear, if you don't understand I don't think I can help you.

I'll interpret that as, "No, I can't actually offer any evidence. But I'm going to stick by my assertions anyway because I want to hate 5e."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'll interpret that as, "No, I can't actually offer any evidence. But I'm going to stick by my assertions anyway because I want to hate 5e."

I don't really see how my dislike of certain aspects of 5E is a problem that needs solving. You seem to be having far more trouble with my dislike of 5E than I, take from that what you will. I'm joining a long term campaign of 5E on Wednesday so it's something that I'll have to deal with.

If you want further explanation, read [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] above. I endorse everything in that post.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For my own part, there is a marked difference between 2nd ed, which expects outcomes in the fiction to depend mostly on GM adjudication and intuition; and 4e, which expects the GM adjudication to take part at the point of framing rather than resolution - and gives strong guidance to the GM at this point of framing - and then expects resolution to tell us whether or not the player gets his/her way.

At least as I read 5e, it leans more towards the 2nd ed approach. Whereas 4e is (again, as I read it) much closer to more "contemporary" systems like Dungeon World, Burning Wheel etc. In terms of my (1), (2) and (3) above this is about finality. 5e, at least as I read it, tends to leave finality as an issue for ad hoc GM adjudication (except when a creature has been reduced to 0 hp), which I think is an issue for player agency.

(bold added)

So I'll ask you the same question: is this merely an impression you get from reading the books, or is it something you've experienced in practice? Because I've played a fair amount of 5e and have yet to encounter the phenomenon of DMs denying player agency.

The only time I've heard players say "Can I...?" has been because they were new players unclear on the rules, and in every case the DM has responded by pointing out which mechanic on their character sheet to use.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Because I want to know how something is going to work in advance, so I can make an informed decision. If I am dealing with codified rules, I can do this. If it depends on DM discretion, I can't know in advance since the DM's mind is hidden from me, and I can't make an informed decison.

I don't see how there is a practical difference in these two things, despite the obvious philosophical difference.

With more-codified rules, you can read the rule and develop an expectation of how it will work when you try to use it in play at the table - and the DM could rule that it works differently than your expectation. The only way you can actually know how something is going to work in advance is to ask the DM in advance how they would rule on that particular thing/situation.

With less-codified rules, you can read the rule and develop an expectation of how it will work when you try to use it in play at the table (though that expectation might be "however the DM rules it works") - and the DM could rule that it works differently than your expectation. Again, the only way you can actually know how something is going to work in advance is to ask the DM in advance how they would rule on that particular thing/situation.

The only difference I can measure between the two is how likely it is that a DM deciding to rule differently than you expected from reading the rules yourself catches you by surprise.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't really see how my dislike of certain aspects of 5E is a problem that needs solving. You seem to be having far more trouble with it than I. I'm joining a long term campaign of 5E on Wednesday so it's something that I'll have to deal with.

Excellent! I hope that if you actually encounter this phenomenon of the DM denying you player agency you'll come back and report on it, so I'll have some idea of what it is you're talking about.