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

[thecasualoblivion]

I think this might be a category error. There is no unified, single culture of 5e, just as there is no single, unified culture of OSR/1e/AD&D.* And this is because of the game instructions that rely on rulings, not rules, and the explicit instruction that somethings are optional, and the inclusion of modular rules in the DMG.**

To borrow an example from the law, the law both refects and constrains the people - the law is just words, but the words have meaning. The difference in the law (the rules) of 5e both reflect and shape a diffusion of culture, which isn't the same mono-culture. Even in the much more standardized AL (for example), there will be different DMs, with different rulings, and different styles of play.

So, yes, players and DMs that loved 3e will be playing a version of of 5e that reflects their preferences. Players and DMs that love 4e will be playing a version that reflects their preferences. And players and DMs who preferred older D&D will be playing a game that reflects their preferences.

But I am not sure about your statements regarding how OSR/1e is "typically" played; having played, and observed it, for quite some time, I observed a multiplicty of play styles. Combat/Dungeon crawl. Role-playing. Careful planned combat. Reckless, "let's get it over with already" combat. Some play ToTM, some play miniatures. Gritty, high fantasy, and so on. The similarity (which was imported into 5e) was the reliance on rulings, not rules, which tended to create more leeway for DMs.

All of this means that you are likely to find tables of players from 4e with an optimizing, combat-centric focus using miniatures. And tables using a more role-playing centric focus, and ToTM. Tables where the DM allows all the optional rules (feats, multi-classing) and exotic races in the PHB, and tables where they aren't allowed. Are all within the "culture" of 5e.

There's a table for most people.



*No one uses weapon vs. AC adjustments, except @Tony Vargas.

**And I do not mean to imply that there was a single, unified culture for 3e or 4e. I would say that, to a certain extent, there appears to be a slight difference between those who preferred 3e, those who preferred 4e, and those who preferred older editions - but as with all generalizations, this will be wrong in particular applications.

I don't disagree. When I said I get an AD&D vibe from this place and don't get as much of one from Reddit or GitP, I meant all of the things you describe, with the understanding that AD&D tables varied.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BryonD]

This is the second time in this thread that posters other than me have equated impact the fiction with do stuff that the GM normally does. (It happened earlier upthread, with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].)

It seems pretty clear to me that [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] wants to impact the fiction, but as a player, not as a GM. He (? I hope I've got this right) wants to be able to confidently declare actions for his PC, with a robust sense of how those action declarations will be adjudicated, and what the outcomes will be of rolling high or rolling low. And he wants to be able to bend the fiction to his will - eg when (as is PC) he desires that a monster or NPC be dead, he wants to have a robust mechanical capability to make this so, in the fiction. Hence the significance of DPR.

This sort of desire to be able, as a player, to confidently engage with the fiction and shape it, has nothing to do with "using the powers of the DM". But, as I posted upthread, in many of the posts on this thread there is an implicit suggestion that wanting to impact the fiction in this sort of way is not a virtuous way to engage a RPG.

Which is why I was reminded of Ron Edwards's point about "moving the planchette". He is not saying anything about who has authority over backstory (what, on ENworld, is often called "narrative mechanics"). He is referring to an approach to RPGing which effaces, rather than acknowledges, that the game proceeds by way of participants making moves that shape the fiction. If we think it is a virtue to ignore the ability to make such moves in building PCs; and to ignore that we are making such moves in declaring actions for PCs; then we are - it seems - trying to maintain a pretence that the planchette moves itself.

In practice, what this tends to mean I think - at least for D&D - is that the GM does most of the moving. As we see in the suggestion that it is good RPing to choose a low-damage weapon for your fighter, which choice the GM will then make up for by throwing you a bone. Why not just let the player move the planchette him-/herself?

So you are saying defenders should be able to pick up the ball, just so long as the goalie does it more than them?
Seriously, for a second set aside the topic at hand. This analogy SUCKS.


Back on topic, the scenarios being drawn up don't align with the simplification you present here. Note that nothing in my reply associated "power of the DM" with "backstory". The ability to trump the DM unquestioned is a very unstable situation. You can create a thousand examples where it would be great for the DM to allow the player to act exactly as they describe. And a good DM will know when to get the hell out of the way. But having a thousand examples where there should be no difference between player agency and DM consent does nothing to corretc the issue with sitting down at the table knowing that the player does not need DM consent. As I said upthread, this is a "bad DM" issue, not a system issue.

By inserting backstory into your rebuttal of my comments, you have sidestepped the entire point. Which still stands.

 

[Ancalagon]

The scenario goes like this:

1. The party sees foes in the distance, who aren't aware of the party
2. Several players start discussing some bizarre, complicated plan to defeat the foes indirectly or bypass them
3. Another player decides that plan is boring or stupid, jumps up and down and yells "hey monsters, we're over here!"
4. Initiative is rolled

While I won't deny ever having been the guy in step 3, in my defense I've seen other people do it as well.

I'm familiar with this scenario. The people who are planning in step 2 are playing "combat as war". The goal isn't to have an exciting battle with a worthy (but evil) foe, it's to crush them and stay alive. Player in 3 is "combat as a sport". All the planning in step 2 is just delaying the fun.

But for the people making the plans, planning *is* the fun!

Step 3 guy can be someone who is just plain impatient *or* can be a PC optimizer. If it's the later, he's already spent a lot of time planning - he designed his PC! What feat to take, what class powers to get etc. Combat is the "test" - is the plan any good? Is the character design any good? So I can see an optimizer wanting to move to the fight already to "test" his design.

You have to realize that the player who pulls a #3 is denying the "planners" the capacity to plan, the same way a DM might be denying the player the capacity to design his or her PC by forbidding certain options.

 

[BryonD]

Here's my problem. I play TTRPGs to both kick butt and roleplay, or specifically to roleplay buttkickers(Samuel L. Jackson style, for example). If I only wanted to kick butt, I'd play Final Fantasy instead. What makes me want more player control as opposed to DM control isn't so much esoteric theories or roleplaying philosophy, but practical concerns. In order to roleplay a butt kicker, I need to be able to take actions with confidence. The less control and less transparency I have as a player, the less I can act with confidence, which either knocks me out of character or paralyzes me to the point of inaction.

Are you claiming players in my campaigns, which have gone one for decades, can't act with confidence?
I'm shocked at the thought that such a trivial distinction would "knocks me out of character or paralyzes me to the point of inaction." Thats extreme. And it ain't a system problem.

 

[BryonD]

I want to pretend to be someone else. My primary play goal isn't in creating a story, it's in pretending to be a different person.

Exactly. (Not that "creating a story" is incompatible. But I don't see you saying that. They are two different things and both, one or neither may exist)

In the real world a person can't walk into their boss and say "Give me a raise" with preordained certainty it will work every time.
They may have the professional skills to make it a certainty. They may have an offer from elsewhere and knowledge that they are needed here, so it is a certainty. They may have an incredible ability of persuasion and so it is a certainty. they may have some really good blackmail and so it is a certainty. There are all kinds of ways to have high confidence to the point of certainty.

Bot if you are roleplaying in a game of Papers and Paychecks and you character sheet says "You get a raise everytime you ask for it" then it is an extremely crappy game when it comes to roleplaying as a person in a modern career. Some people might have fun playing that, but that just means they want something else. It is still a crappy game at roleplaying this topic.

A 9th level wizard know with confidence that he can easily kill a standard goblin. By the rules, it should still be played out. A good DM may very likely move this encounter to purely narrative. But that, again, is DMing vs system.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So you are saying defenders should be able to pick up the ball, just so long as the goalie does it more than them?
Seriously, for a second set aside the topic at hand. This analogy SUCKS.


Back on topic, the scenarios being drawn up don't align with the simplification you present here. Note that nothing in my reply associated "power of the DM" with "backstory". The ability to trump the DM unquestioned is a very unstable situation. You can create a thousand examples where it would be great for the DM to allow the player to act exactly as they describe. And a good DM will know when to get the hell out of the way. But having a thousand examples where there should be no difference between player agency and DM consent does nothing to corretc the issue with sitting down at the table knowing that the player does not need DM consent. As I said upthread, this is a "bad DM" issue, not a system issue.

By inserting backstory into your rebuttal of my comments, you have sidestepped the entire point. Which still stands.

I agree with this. Yes, the OP will have to trust that the DM is going to run a game with the goal of making it fun for everybody, whereas perhaps in some other systems you don't have to trust the DM because he's more of an objective referee locked into rigid rules. If you're not willing to trust the DM...at least for one session at an AL table...then maybe 5e isn't the game for you.

Of course the DM should work with the player to figure out how to mechanically balance RP decisions, like using a family short sword. If your DM won't do that with you, you need a new DM. I'm not sure I can recall a DM, even playing pick-up AL with strangers, who wouldn't do that.

In many cases I agree with what pemerton says as well, but in this particular thread I feel he is staking out two opposite ends of a philosophical spectrum, and then saying that minor differences between D&D 5e and other games push 5e and those other games on opposite ends of that spectrum. (Or maybe he's not actually claiming that, and just using the philosophy as a magnifying glass to play Devil's Advocate....?)

I find 5e suited just fine to players contributing to the fiction, to "failing forward", and to powergaming. Is it perfect for any one of those? No. Are there other games more suited? Sure.

But to read through the rules and conclude, "there's no player agency" is utter and complete nonsense.

As BryonD says, that's an issue of DMing, not system.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think you hit upon something pretty important thecasualoblivion so I have more to say about it.

To have some kind of table harmony when there are planners on the table, a few things have to happen

1: the planning phase can't take forever. This requires discipline from both the players and a bit the DM. Sometimes the "yohoo monsters we are here!!" isn't disruption, its a god-send.

2: The people making the plans have to be, well, somewhat competent. A cunning plan that has 17 parts that all must work is not great. A cunning plan that can be trivially countered is not great either. "we will fly above the goblins and rain death from the sky !!!" "... the goblins have bows".

Good planners will also involve the "not so planny" players too. That combat monster PC is probably going to be *really* useful as part of the plan. "Ragnar, you take the left flank!"

We had a player who played a bard in 3e (not the uber weak one I've spoken about previously) who wasn't very good at sticking with the plan so after a few battles we realized that the best thing to do was to simply tell him to "disrupt the enemy as much as you can" - and well it worked for him as a player and we all had fun.

3: The DM has to be willing to go along. Sometimes a good plan = enemies completely crushed. Sometimes the enemies will have a counter that will negate the plan, but the DM should resist the impulse to "save his cool encounter" at all costs. Goblins or brigand that aren't particularly bright might honestly be unable to predict the PC's gambit, and that's ok! Clever play should be rewarded. An archmage however might have more contingencies - the plan won't always work, and that's ok too. However, if the plan *never works* well, maybe the "wohoo monsters!" guy is a realist...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Are you claiming players in my campaigns, which have gone one for decades, can't act with confidence?
I'm shocked at the thought that such a trivial distinction would "knocks me out of character or paralyzes me to the point of inaction." Thats extreme. And it ain't a system problem.

I had previously listed one of those things that prevent confidence as not being able to know the mind of the DM. Having the same DM, Players, and Campaign over a span of decades would certainly lessen that problem. It has not, however been my game experience, and it's IMHO not something the system itself should assume or require.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you hit upon something pretty important thecasualoblivion so I have more to say about it.

To have some kind of table harmony when there are planners on the table, a few things have to happen

1: the planning phase can't take forever. This requires discipline from both the players and a bit the DM. Sometimes the "yohoo monsters we are here!!" isn't disruption, its a god-send.

2: The people making the plans have to be, well, somewhat competent. A cunning plan that has 17 parts that all must work is not great. A cunning plan that can be trivially countered is not great either. "we will fly above the goblins and rain death from the sky !!!" "... the goblins have bows".

Good planners will also involve the "not so planny" players too. That combat monster PC is probably going to be *really* useful as part of the plan. "Ragnar, you take the left flank!"

We had a player who played a bard in 3e (not the uber weak one I've spoken about previously) who wasn't very good at sticking with the plan so after a few battles we realized that the best thing to do was to simply tell him to "disrupt the enemy as much as you can" - and well it worked for him as a player and we all had fun.

3: The DM has to be willing to go along. Sometimes a good plan = enemies completely crushed. Sometimes the enemies will have a counter that will negate the plan, but the DM should resist the impulse to "save his cool encounter" at all costs. Goblins or brigand that aren't particularly bright might honestly be unable to predict the PC's gambit, and that's ok! Clever play should be rewarded. An archmage however might have more contingencies - the plan won't always work, and that's ok too. However, if the plan *never works* well, maybe the "wohoo monsters!" guy is a realist...

In my case when I was the one going "whohoo monsters!", usually:

1. The planning stage took too long
2. The planners were bad at it and the plan was always too complex
3. The DM wasn't particularly willing to go along

All three at once

Sometimes I didn't go "whohoo monsters!", particularly when I didn't think we would win a direct conflict. In those cases, I often refused to participate in the plan, and would watch from the sidelines while the plan failed, and rush in to cover the inevitable escape at the last minute.