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

[pemerton]

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.

Well, in the quote I posted you did refer to a social rule being broken - whether or not that is a "technical" or other form of wronggoing I don't have a firm view on!

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

<snip>

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.

I don't see these as the only options. For instance, you might ask them to change their tastes in how they play the game.

And even if you decide not to ask them to change their tastes, you might address the issue of sharing approaches as a social matter, rather than try to regulate it via encounter design.

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.

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).

I've bundled these three posts together because the first two seem to me somewhat illustrative of Manbearcat's point, though maybe not in the way he had in mind.

The idea that the GM is in charge of deciding whether the proper approach to an encounter is combat ("ultra-violence") or is social interaction ("talking") posits a very high degree of GM control over the game. This is the sort of removal or player agency ("GM, not players, moving the planchette") that I mentioned upthread (post 642). At post 658 [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] said that this encounter-design suggestion has no bearing on "player agency during encounters", but I can't see that at all. It seems to be very much about dictating how encounters should be resolved.

How would you "resolve" this issue? Not in broad or vague terms but in specifics. Since you don't believe changing the encounters or as I view it using DM tools to mitigate this specific problem... how would you fix it?

As I said, this is a social issue. I don't have a universal flowchart that I pull out to resolve social issues in my life - it depends on who the parties are, what my relationship is to them, what their relationships are among one another, not to mention very contextual things like who is in what sort of mood at the time the issue becomes apparent.

In the past, when the players at my table have had different views about how to approach an encounter, generally they have worked it out among themselves. My interventions - which are almost always by way of over-the-shoulder style comments reminding one player or another of what might be at stake in resolving the encounter one way rather than another - are not in service of the sort of social issue you raise, but trying to amp up the tension and evident stakes of the encounter.

In a 4e session in the latter part of last year, the PCs encountered Kas (Vecna's vampire ex-lieutenant, with whom the PCs had made a deal back at paragon tier) and Osterneth (a servant of Vecna, who when she was a young apprentice 100 years in the past had been rescued by the time-travelling PCs) fighting over access to the mausoleum of the Raven Queen. A fuller write-up is here, but in short: the players (and hence PCs) couldn't decide who to talk with, who to fight, etc, and so in the end - to force some sort of resolution - I made them write down blind declarations of general intent. The result was that one player had his PC attack Kas, while the rest went for Jenna.

Over the course of that session and the next, the other PCs joined with the Kas-fighting one and left Jenna alone; then turned on her (but with the Kas-fighting one wishing her "good luck" in her attempt to get to the mausoleum first, but then being the one to shut its door against her when the PCs ultimately made it there before she did).

All four of the sessions I've just linked to involved the players having different views about how to approach the ingame situation. These have included whether to talk to NPCs or fight them, and (in the time-travel scenario) one of the players making a decision for his PC alone (who had sneaked off) which had consequences, and which he knew had the potential to have consequences, for the other PCs and hence players (namely, releasing undead spiders by taking the gems from the eye sockets of a skull). In these sort of situation I don't see it as my job, as GM, to tell them or to send them "telegraphs" as to what to do. At best, if the discussion is becoming interminable, I might force a decision to be made (eg as per the example of blind declaration; on another occasion, I ended up making them roll CHA-modified dice to reach a party resolution between two travel destinations which had been debated back-and-forth without conclusion over a couple of sessions).

I have vague memories, from a 2nd ed AD&D campaign 20-odd years ago when I was a player, of a fellow player who had a tendency to trigger traps, initiate combats etc (I think he was what the modern terminology would call an "instigator"). When his choices frustrated the rest of us as players, we talked to him about it.

 

[BryonD]

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.

OK, again you are citing issues that have nothing to do with the system.
5E isn't 4E. But expecting 4E is one thing (and would most certainly be a case of calling for a return to the smallest tent in D&D's history) and declaring that because it 5E isn't 4E it demands knowing the DM's mind is far and away another. And I'd say that is just an absurd claim.


Further, your statement remains quite extreme. I would call that statement extreme if I heard it sitting down with a group of completely new players.
I didn't say I've had the same players all of this time. Some, yes. But I've goty one guy who just joined a few months ago. No issue, not from day 1.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

OK, again you are citing issues that have nothing to do with the system.
5E isn't 4E. But expecting 4E is one thing (and would most certainly be a case of calling for a return to the smallest tent in D&D's history) and declaring that because it 5E isn't 4E it demands knowing the DM's mind is far and away another. And I'd say that is just an absurd claim.


Further, your statement remains quite extreme. I would call that statement extreme if I heard it sitting down with a group of completely new players.
I didn't say I've had the same players all of this time. Some, yes. But I've goty one guy who just joined a few months ago. No issue, not from day 1.

You're trying to pin this all on 4E, but my position also stems from 8 years of 3E and 5 years of late era 2E(which in my area resembled 3E/4E/5E more than traditional AD&D during those years in tone and attitude).

I think you're mistaken about the extreme part. It's only extreme to those stuck in a traditional AD&D bubble.

 

[Rhenny]

I wouldn't say that telegraphing when attacking opponents seems more appropriate takes away player agency. Players still can choose what to do. Telegraphing (at least for me) is not railroading. It is just a way to help players with different play styles interact in ways that are enjoyable to them without ruining it for others.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm posting sincerely.

That's not to say that I'm laying my soul bare - in my experience, anonymous forums aren't well-suited to that - but I'm not goading (or, at least, I'm not setting out to do that) and I'm not playing devil's advocate.

When I started reading this thread, I thought it was pretty obvious what [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION]causaloblivion was looking for out of the game, and why that was being looked for, and why there might be concerns that 5e won't deliver it as reliably as 4e might have. (I can't comment on how obvious the 3E contrast is, as I don't have much 3E experience or expertise.)

There were then a series of relatively hostile responses to the OP, which to my mind effectively reinforced the concerns that had initially been expressed, by emphasising the extent to which 5e hands control over the fiction, and action resolution, to the GM as compared to the players. In the current phase of the thread there continues to be the undertone that renouncing mechanical power is a virtue in a player; as well as the newly-emerging idea that it is the GM's job to "telegraph" to players how they ought to tackle an encounter.

This all reminds me very much of both the advice found in, and many of my experiences with, 2nd ed AD&D. It seems a long way both from what Gygax describes in his DMG and PHB, and from what I'm used to in my own games (which are influenced more by "contemporary" approaches of the sort that have been discussed upthread, rather than directly by Gygax).

Upthread, you yourself posted about wanting the GM to curb your decision-making in the interests of "the plot". As a player, I have had that sort of experience and ultimately it has led me to leaving games or being part of the "sacking" of a GM. As a GM - which for the past 20 years has been far-and-away my predominant role at the table - I don't see that sort of thing as part of my responsibility.

I think there is also a side-issue in this thread (or, at least, an issue that hasn't really been addressed head-on), namely, what happens if the mechanics of the system break down so that the GM cannot frame challenges with mechanical reliability? I gather that this is a recurring problem with 3E. In my experience it is an issue with AD&D above name-level (and the standard response is to shut down many spells - as per Isle of the Ape, Q1 etc). In 4e I have found it to be an issue for knowledge skills at epic tier if a player takes the Sage of Ages epic destiny.

This is essentially a system issue, not a player issue. If certain mechanical elements are known to be broken in advance (eg the Sharpshooter feat?) the best answer is to rework them or drop them from the game. (Back when I was a RM GM our group would do both these things.) If that broken-ness only emerges gradually in play and only impacts a part of the game (as has been the case for Sage of Ages), the GM might be able to work around it (as I do).

(Broken-ness can be in terms of underpower as well as overpower, too. The ancestral shortsword or weapon-renouncing monk might be examples.)

The idea that a player would be allowed to build a broken game element into his/her PC, and then expected to constrain his/her action declarations in respect of it; or the GM expected to block the use of that element from time-to-time in order to maintain balance (or, if the issue is underpower, "throw a bone" from time-to-time); is something that I see flagged in threads like this, including in this very thread. It's not an idea that I favour in my own RPGing. In play, I want my players to be pushing their PCs as hard as they can, not holding back because they're worried about the game breaking; and as GM I want to be able to frame encounters at a known degree of challenge so that I can then push that as hard as I can. I don't want to suddenly discover, part way through, that the system has let me down and hence that the stakes actually were not what I had taken them to be, and had signalled to my players.

Again, the approach that I dis-favour is one that I personally associate quite strongly with 2nd ed AD&D.

 

[pemerton]

Would it help me lie or deceive someone?

Are you deceiving them by charming them? (I think James Bond does this from time to time.)

Then yes.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm posting sincerely.

That's not to say that I'm laying my soul bare - in my experience, anonymous forums aren't well-suited to that - but I'm not goading (or, at least, I'm not setting out to do that) and I'm not playing devil's advocate.

When I started reading this thread, I thought it was pretty obvious what [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION]causaloblivion was looking for out of the game, and why that was being looked for, and why there might be concerns that 5e won't deliver it as reliably as 4e might have. (I can't comment on how obvious the 3E contrast is, as I don't have much 3E experience or expertise.)

There were then a series of relatively hostile responses to the OP, which to my mind effectively reinforced the concerns that had initially been expressed, by emphasising the extent to which 5e hands control over the fiction, and action resolution, to the GM as compared to the players. In the current phase of the thread there continues to be the undertone that renouncing mechanical power is a virtue in a player; as well as the newly-emerging idea that it is the GM's job to "telegraph" to players how they ought to tackle an encounter.

This all reminds me very much of both the advice found in, and many of my experiences with, 2nd ed AD&D. It seems a long way both from what Gygax describes in his DMG and PHB, and from what I'm used to in my own games (which are influenced more by "contemporary" approaches of the sort that have been discussed upthread, rather than directly by Gygax).

Upthread, you yourself posted about wanting the GM to curb your decision-making in the interests of "the plot". As a player, I have had that sort of experience and ultimately it has led me to leaving games or being part of the "sacking" of a GM. As a GM - which for the past 20 years has been far-and-away my predominant role at the table - I don't see that sort of thing as part of my responsibility.

I think there is also a side-issue in this thread (or, at least, an issue that hasn't really been addressed head-on), namely, what happens if the mechanics of the system break down so that the GM cannot frame challenges with mechanical reliability? I gather that this is a recurring problem with 3E. In my experience it is an issue with AD&D above name-level (and the standard response is to shut down many spells - as per Isle of the Ape, Q1 etc). In 4e I have found it to be an issue for knowledge skills at epic tier if a player takes the Sage of Ages epic destiny.

This is essentially a system issue, not a player issue. If certain mechanical elements are known to be broken in advance (eg the Sharpshooter feat?) the best answer is to rework them or drop them from the game. (Back when I was a RM GM our group would do both these things.) If that broken-ness only emerges gradually in play and only impacts a part of the game (as has been the case for Sage of Ages), the GM might be able to work around it (as I do).

(Broken-ness can be in terms of underpower as well as overpower, too. The ancestral shortsword or weapon-renouncing monk might be examples.)

The idea that a player would be allowed to build a broken game element into his/her PC, and then expected to constrain his/her action declarations in respect of it; or the GM expected to block the use of that element from time-to-time in order to maintain balance (or, if the issue is underpower, "throw a bone" from time-to-time); is something that I see flagged in threads like this, including in this very thread. It's not an idea that I favour in my own RPGing. In play, I want my players to be pushing their PCs as hard as they can, not holding back because they're worried about the game breaking; and as GM I want to be able to frame encounters at a known degree of challenge so that I can then push that as hard as I can. I don't want to suddenly discover, part way through, that the system has let me down and hence that the stakes actually were not what I had taken them to be, and had signalled to my players.

Again, the approach that I dis-favour is one that I personally associate quite strongly with 2nd ed AD&D.

I find it funny how you describe 2nd ed AD&D in this and other posts when contrasted with my own 2E experiences. As I've previously said, I played 2E over its final 5 years, and amongst the people I gamed with at the time we had completely abandoned the 2E philosophy you are talking about. I wasn't even part of that abandonment, as I joined up after it had already been discarded. Even the organized play campaign I was a part of seemed to have discarded it, though that might have just been the DM. We abandoned that philosophy in favor of a hybrid style influenced by the more modern RPGs of the era as well as the Japanese RPG video games of the 90s. Despite all of this, we stuck with 2E, adapting it to what we wanted out of D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't see these as the only options. For instance, you might ask them to change their tastes in how they play the game.

I would imagine that would go over about as well as telling them to leave the table. I mean, lets put this into other situations such as:
Movies: Boe, Joe and Sue want to go see Love Actually. Frank wants to see The Expendables.
-Bob, Joe and Sue obviously outweigh Frank's opinion, and tell him that if they want to keep hanging out, he needs to "change his tastes" and watch Love Actually with them.
Food: Bob, Frank and Joe want to get burgers. Sue was sushi.
-Once again, the outlier is outweighed and an ultimatum is issued: Eat burgers.

Obviously, it doesn't have to come in the form of an ultimatum. The Group can suggest The Outlier give what The Group is doing a try, see if they enjoy it more this time around because they're doing it with friends, or because it's New Edition. If The Outlier gives it a fair, earnest try (which probably can't be well judged by the interested parties of The Table) and still doesn't like it, The Table is left with two options: Up the ante by telling The Outlier to play in a manner they don't find fun, or back off and deal with the possibility of reduced fun for the group but increased fun for the Outlier. These need not be absolutes. Perhaps The Outlier's fun is a 10 when he gets to Play His Way, but the Group's fun is a 6. When told to play a different way, the Outlier's fun is a 5, but the Group's fun is a 7. From a utilitarian point of view, 7*3+5=26/4=6.5; while 6*4+10=34/4=8.5 ; meaning that letting The Outlier play the way he enjoys may result in a higher level of fun for the group as a whole, than telling The Outlier to play a way he doesn't find fun. Please note, this is all AssMath(TM) and should not be taken as the end-all, be-all answer. But it is not wrong to argue that one player having significantly reduced fun will bring down the table just as easily as one player having too much fun can. Of course, The Outlier is an outlier, and statistically he could be ignored. In this case, we have a result of an AFL(Average Fun Level) at Table 1 where they're telling The Outlier to play differently of 21; while the AFL of Table 2 where they're not is a 24. Divided by 3 that gives us of course, 7 and 6, only marginally different.

Now there's a whole range of what could or might be the experience at a table. Telling The Outlier to play a different way could result in The Outlier's fun being reduced only a little but, while the Table's fun is increased substantially, say, AFL 9*3+7=32/4=8. Or the Outlier could have next to no fun at all and become an even worse burden on the Table, producing an AFL of 4*3+1=13/4=3.25.

In any case, any sort of decision is like playing a game of cards, when you don't immediately win (everyone starts having an overall better time), you have to do one of two things: ante up or fold. Eventually you reach one of two conclusions: The Outlier is permanently removed from the equation, or the equation is disregarded and the Outlier is allowed to play as they please, regardless of how it impacts The Table.

For most people who aren't total noobs, players know how they enjoy the game. Asking them to "change their tastes" is a sort of passive-aggressive way of saying "we don't like the way you play, you need to change because we said so." allowing you to imply the "or else", instead of just state it outright. The fact of the matter is there aren't a lot of options. That's why it's a problem. If there were, it wouldn't be a problem. There are lots of ways to go about saying the same thing, and different people will react differently to it but there's still really only two answers: bring down the boot or let it go.

Well...that was more long-winded that I expected....

 

[BryonD]

You're trying to pin this all on 4E

Absolutely not. 4E is a strong point of reference. But my points are entirely abotu your statements and how they apply to 5E.

but my position also stems from 8 years of 3E and 5 years of late era 2E(which in my area resembled 3E/4E/5E more than traditional AD&D during those years in tone and attitude).

I think you're mistaken about the extreme part. It's only extreme to those stuck in a traditional AD&D bubble.

In your original post you stated that 4E was choice 1. And you have plenty of historic comments for reference.

And your "AD&D point" is silly and without basis. Hell, I walked away from AD&D because there were so many other games which were so much better. Nothing I've said gives merit to you making that claim.
It just seems to be an effort to change the topic to me defending against it rather than you addressing the issues with positions you have actually taken.

Play what you like. But 5E is the biggest tent ever.
Saying you want a "big tent" is a very commendable position.But using that phrase as a hollow cover for "if 5E doesn't cater specifically to my personal demands it sucks" is notsomuch.

 

[BryonD]

The idea that a player would be allowed to build a broken game element into his/her PC, and then expected to constrain his/her action declarations in respect of it; or the GM expected to block the use of that element from time-to-time in order to maintain balance (or, if the issue is underpower, "throw a bone" from time-to-time); is something that I see flagged in threads like this, including in this very thread. It's not an idea that I favour in my own RPGing. In play, I want my players to be pushing their PCs as hard as they can, not holding back because they're worried about the game breaking; and as GM I want to be able to frame encounters at a known degree of challenge so that I can then push that as hard as I can. I don't want to suddenly discover, part way through, that the system has let me down and hence that the stakes actually were not what I had taken them to be, and had signalled to my players.

Just speaking for myself here, but "duh".
While holding firmly to every statement I've made in favor of my playstyle and presenting issues with player "agency" to trump the DM, I see this statement as being the equivalent of "yeah, but I also want the game to be fun".

Your approach does not remotely have a corner on players pushing hard.