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

[Imaro]

I don't think the concern is forcing others to actually play in a style they don't like, but merely presenting them with an alternate style at their table.
A NIMBY sorta thing - they have a group that plays the way they like, they don't mind other people in other groups playing differently, but not at their table.

No it's not just about presenting a new style...

I think [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] shows exactly what I was talking about... how a combat-centric player could very easily force his style onto other players... by simply solving nearly every situation with an attack... in the same vein someone who enjoys roleplaying might force their style on other players by causing every situation to devolve into 3hrs of back and forth with NPC's.

 

[pemerton]

Why would I object to the word "can"

Well, upthread you expressed objections to, or concerns about, my use of the words "might" and "probably" in setting out scenarios in which different descriptors could have different consequences for resolution. So I thought the use of the same words, in the same context, in the 5e rules might similarly perturb you.

5e has been quite clear in it's empowerment of the DM to run the game in the manner he wants to and the usage of that word is exactly that... doesn't mean we don't have default rules & guidelines for when to make a Charisma check...

<snip>

In the PHB (which is really what we should be referencing since the SRD is not the "rules" for D&D 5e) under each ability check are a listing of the skills (Cha has Deception, Persuasion, Intimidate, etc.) and specific instances of when (typically) a DM has you make a check for them

<snip>

the limitations and boundaries are a known quantity with some possible wiggle room in adjudication in usage (Athletics, a Strength check, lets you swim, climb, jump and stuff along those lines...).

Your description of how ability checks work in 5e - including your presentation as the system being one of primarily skill checks rather than ability checks - is different from how I read the rules. It's even different from how I run 4e's skill system, which I would tend to treat as a bit more regimented than 5e's ability check system.

are there any rules or examples in HeroQuest or FATE as to when my "Sooo Charming" descriptor should be used?

You would use it whenever the outcome of an action declaration would depend on how charming your PC is - much as, in 5e, you would make a CHA check whenever the outcome of an action would depend on your PC's force of personality or eloquence.

 

[pemerton]

The DM's responsibility is to ensure everyone at the table is having fun.

<snip>

Most of the group enjoy roleplaying and social encounters, one player very much prefers combat. She builds her character to be very good at combat, and because she enjoys it, will try to resolve as many encounters as possible through combat.

So: we have one player who is turning most of the nuanced social challenges into a sequence of to-hit and damage rolls. The other players do not find this fun, and would have preferred to resolve the encounter through non-combat means. However once Little-Miss-Combat-Monster has pulled steel and started killing, resolving the situation through non-combat means is unlikely. Therefore much of the game is no longer enjoyable to the remainder of the group. The only rules being broken is the implied social contract amongst a D&D group that everyone is here to have fun: no cheating or other rules being broken.

It is the DM's responsibility to change this situation so that everyone is having fun again. He can't (or shouldn't!) remove player agency by simply saying "You can't do that." when the disruptive player declares that they are drawing their weapon and attacking the merchant or guard captain or whatever. Neither should they just break rules by granting arbitrary bonuses to the captain's AC for example, in the hope that the rest of the party can bring the violent member under control before she lands a hit.

Instead. as Imaro seems to be saying, the DM needs to adjust encounters

If a social rule - a rule of etiquette, or something in that neighbourhood - is being broken, then I don't see that the answer is to change encounter design. The answer seems to be to resolve the social problem via social methods.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Living creatures do not typically ignore threats to themselves, or their meals, just because they're hungry. Only stupid animals who don't tend to live much longer do this.

Nope and nope. My ghouls and ghasts tend to grab the fallen and drag it off in the middle of a fight. Not while being attacked, but if a one or two are otherwise not engaged with a paralyzed bit of prey, they're gonna have some dinner. Starving vampires aren't going to wait -- they get the chance it's yummy blood time. Long time veterans are going to make sure something's dead by giving it an extra poke before they move along -- all it takes is that one time that foe got back up behind you to teach that lesson.

If the foe is being actively engaged, yeah, it takes a great big reason to go after a fallen character, but if they have a bit of space, there's lots of good reasons why they're not going to ignore a fallen character. Not every time do you do this, but you don't take it off the table. You should also occasionally add scavengers to a fight -- foes that are significantly weaker than either side, and avoid the direct fight, but lurk around to take advantage of the fallen on either side. The lurker from 4e, for instance. Not going to start a fight, will run if confronted, but figure that your stablized but unconscious friend's just going to be alright while you go haring off after those goblins and you'll regret not keeping an eye out for the stirge.

If you don't occasionally go after downed characters, then the players start to count on 'unconscious but stable' as a safe space where they can't be harmed. Once the party gets revivify, they'll even count recently dead as a fixable condition. Add in a lowly crocodile lurking in the nearby creek while the party fights off the T-Rex Menace (tm) and they'll stop doing this after their 'safely dead' companion gets dragged off for lunch. Also, nothing drives home player hatred of a BBEG as when casually offs a fallen comrade right in front of them. So long as you telegraph that this can and will happen so that it's not a breach of understanding, there's nothing jackholish about attacking a downed character. Heck, a cleric with spirit guardians up is a death sentence to the fallen and you don't even have to do anything.

 

[S'mon]

If you have a problem with "entitled DMs" (whatever that even means), why are you playing with them? I humbly recommend playing the way you like, with like-minded individuals.

I think he does; at least I GM for neon & I do try to maximise player agency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you have a problem with "entitled DMs" (whatever that even means),

"Viking-hat" is a term I've heard used on forums, though I've only heard it used in a third-party way (e.g. speaking about people that aren't actually involved in the conversation). I, personally, would also think a DM is "entitled" when they make lengthy and sweeping declarations of what's not allowed in their games--there's this way of presenting it, I don't know how or why, that just makes it sound so gleeful, like the DM is just SO HAPPY to be able to say "no, hell no, and never darken my door again!" to players who simply find something interesting/enjoyable/etc. and express genuine enthusiasm about it. "You can't play this in my games and that is out because they're *ALWAYS* evil and I don't allow evil characters. Those are banned in all forms, and if you want to play them then you can't have any of these options. And if you come to the table with a character sheet that has any of these things because I forgot some of them, you have to make a new character." I've had people more-or-less straight up say exactly that--just with a *much* longer list of restrictions, bans, and pigeonholes.

(You also have DMs who do things like set the players up for a fall by consistently implying that a situation is other than what it is, and then rip the rug out from under the players at the last second and laugh--whether internally or externally--when the players fall for it. That might be going a step further than just "entitled" though.)

Another way to put it: the "entitled" DM is the autocrat who wants to make sure you know he's the autocrat, perhaps even one who occasionally exercises power purely to demonstrate that he has that power.

why are you playing with them?

He may not be--simply knowing they exist, just as you know that "entitled" players exist, is enough.

I humbly recommend playing the way you like, with like-minded individuals.

I have gotten lucky with most of my DMs--but having followed enough forum discussions, I can guarantee you that they exist--and it is not always possible to play with someone who isn't like that. It may not even be obvious that they are such a DM until you're already invested in the game, at which point it ceases to be just a "bad gaming vs. no gaming" situation, with all the attachments and obligations that arise due to gaming being a social activity. In my own case, for example--if my 4e DM suddenly demonstrated a huge entitled streak, I'd be between a rock and a hard place, as I'm the only heavily-armored character. My departure could mean ending *everyone's* fun, e.g. causing the campaign to fold, and I don't want to be That Guy who flips the table just because somebody else is getting on my nerves. (I'll note that I think this is fantastically unlikely, and that my DM seems like a great guy who really cares about making a mutually-fun experience. This hypothetical is just to demonstrate that, once you *start* gaming, attachments accrue.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If a social rule - a rule of etiquette, or something in that neighbourhood - is being broken, then I don't see that the answer is to change encounter design. The answer seems to be to resolve the social problem via social methods.

Thing is, the combat junkie isn't actually doing anything technically wrong. - They really do just enjoy combat more, and want to play a violent character so they get lots of it.

Unless the DM is willing to kick them out of the group - which should only happen in the most extreme of cases - the DM should cater to them as much as any one other player - their fun is still important, just not more important than the other players'. Just telling them to play a different character is an option - but may not be a good one if they tend to always want to play the same characters and are uncomfortable with other options.

Hence as mentioned the way to go about it is to adjust encounters so that the thug has a better idea of when a situation can be resolved by combat, and when to let the others talk. Hopefully they'll even start talking a bit themselves.

 

[Manbearcat]

Another way to put it: the "entitled" DM is the autocrat who wants to make sure you know he's the autocrat, perhaps even one who occasionally exercises power purely to demonstrate that he has that power.

Unthread a bit I wrote about the three components of GMing that I evaluate when I'm considering a system:

Instruction
Latitude
Overhead

What is being talked about here is latitude. An interesting thing happens with some people when it comes to D&D. There is this idea that absolute, or nearly so, latitude for the GM is orthodox or a virtue. Any constraint then becomes pejorative, cast as "player entitlement".

Following from that is, presumably, that only a heavily GM-driven game is (a) orthodox D&D, (b) your best (only?) shot at having a good game, and (c) that No Real Scotsman GM wants their latitude challenged by system-imposed constraints (regardless of the relationship to overhead).

 

[Rhenny]

Thing is, the combat junkie isn't actually doing anything technically wrong. - They really do just enjoy combat more, and want to play a violent character so they get lots of it.

Unless the DM is willing to kick them out of the group - which should only happen in the most extreme of cases - the DM should cater to them as much as any one other player - their fun is still important, just not more important than the other players'. Just telling them to play a different character is an option - but may not be a good one if they tend to always want to play the same characters and are uncomfortable with other options.

Hence as mentioned the way to go about it is to adjust encounters so that the thug has a better idea of when a situation can be resolved by combat, and when to let the others talk. Hopefully they'll even start talking a bit themselves.

I agree with this. In my regular group, I have one player who seems to be a combat junkie. To keep him hooked, I try to give him a chance to thrash some foes every week, but I also telegraph when his ultra violence is most appropriate. Interestingly, over the past 5 or 6 sessions, he has gotten better at using other skills (including intimidate and just plain interaction) to accomplish goals without killing. He still enjoys the game too.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Unthread a bit I wrote about the three components of GMing that I evaluate when I'm considering a system:

Instruction
Latitude
Overhead

What is being talked about here is latitude. An interesting thing happens with some people when it comes to D&D. There is this idea that absolute, or nearly so, latitude for the GM is orthodox or a virtue. Any constraint then becomes pejorative, cast as "player entitlement".

Following from that is, presumably, that only a heavily GM-driven game is (a) orthodox D&D, (b) your best (only?) shot at having a good game, and (c) that No Real Scotsman GM wants their latitude challenged by system-imposed constraints (regardless of the relationship to overhead).

So here's a question I'm asking due to being a bit new to the whole 5E scene:

Some system-imposed constraints for 3E and 4E were alluded to in the books, but greatly magnified by the cultures of the games among players to the point where it was that culture that restrained DMs more than the books. For 3E the books seemed to encourage playing RAW, but the overall culture of 3E players demanded it more than the books did. For 4E the books encouraged the DM to allow all player options with the mantra "Everything Is Core", but for most of the 4E community of players, a DM trying to restrict or disallow anything was met with outright hostility.

Is there anything like this for 5E? I'm not really familiar with 5E culture yet.