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

[happyhermit]

On the subject of GM/player "empowerment", I just re-listened to a podcast where a 4e group (that most/all have said 4e is their favorite edition) tried 5e. Years before when they started 4e, the only player who had played versions prior to 3e was always trying to do things outside "the rules" and being shot down endlessly for anything that didn't have a power card, eventually he pretty much gave up.

When they tried 5e there was one particular place where that player wanted to try something "really cool" and the GM (who likes 4e more than any of them) said something to the effect of "If you don't have the power, then you can't do it". 5e fans, both GMs and players nearly blew a gasket that the GM hadn't allowed him to attempt what he wanted, not by explaining how it wasn't possible/reasonable but by pointing to the fact that the PC didn't have the ability spelled out on his sheet or in the book. To me, this shows that the culture of 5e, at least in that particular circumstance was NOT about GM fiat, but about not being constrained to what is explicitly spelled out in the rules. The podcast was "critical hit" and there are comments on their website still.

Looking at it this way, much of 5e seems to be about less rules empowerment in general, because in this case 5e "fans" were much more upset about what essentially comes down to GM fiat than were 4e "fans".

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you have the time--it's rather a long read, so I'd totally understand if you don't--check out the "True Exotic Races" thread sometime, or better yet, a handful of threads from the temporary Warlord forum. That's the attitude I'm reacting to.

Sure they are, for a suitable definition of "they." The threads about fudging, changing HP in the middle of combat, etc. all were exactly that. Player choices only matter up to the point at which the DM decides "Eh, no, that's not what I want to happen, I'd better bend reality to make sure it happens the way I want to see it." And as soon as you cross that line, *none* of the choices matter--because they're always that entirely-arbitrary "That's not what I want to see" (whether it's "unluck got the PCs" or "the monster I made died before it showed off its cool trick") away from being overruled. It's this parentalistic "DM knows best--now run along, players, or you'll be late for meeting the orcs!" attitude that drives me up the wall.

I've seen those threads, although I generally don't comment. My experience is that online discussion about topics like that is not really indicative of actual play experience. I mean, my general stance is to allow whatever the players want when it comes to races and classes and options, especially anything where there are existing mechanics for what they want. I'm even very open to homebrew type material for options that don't exist, as long as they are reasonable. I would only say no if there was a really really strong reason for that, and even then, I don't think I would just say no to someone so much as talk to them about it, and then find the best path forward for all.

Is this really that odd to find in play? Most of my play experience is with a home game I play with a group of friends, so I am sure that flavors my view a great deal. But are people really running into DMs who scream "AGH NO DRAGONBORN IN MY GAME EVAR!!!!" in public play? I feel like that happens a lot more online than anything else. The AL guidelines exist precisely to avoid this kind of situaiton.

If you're running into this attitude in a home game, can't it be talked out?

And I assert that enjoyment of a game is impossible without agency. Otherwise, you're not playing it, you're watching it. Which can be enjoyable! But it's not the joy provided by a game.

You would be wrong. I would feel robbed. My choices do not create consequences; the *DM's* choices create consequences. The DM just happens, in some situations, to choose not to make changes. There was a very, very long thread about fudging (several, actually, as mentioned earlier) where I articulated exactly that. If the consequences only occur because the DM deigns to let them occur, they aren't the result of *my* choices anymore, and thus the entire process of learning from the relationship between choice and consequence is broken.

Well, I won't tell you you're wrong because it's your opinion. But I disagree, in general. Especially if such tactics are employed sparingly and subtly by the DM. When I advocate for the DM taking more control like this, I mean doing so only in more extreme circumstances. I really don't see it taking away player agency to prevent a TPK for instance. I mean, the players, if spared by a bit of DM fudging, would likely still walk away from the encounter thinking "wow, that was really close...maybe next time we don't charge in like that". I disagree that the outcome must be as negative as possible in order for anyone to learn a lesson.

I recognize that when the DM does this, he is reducing player agency a bit, sure. But it does not remove it entirely from that one instance, and especially not from the game as a whole.

What if the DM "interference" took the form of more story related elements, rather than rules related? Instead of having a monster miss at a key moment when the roll indicates a hit, let's say that the DM has the dwarven miners that the party ran into earlier show up to save the day and help drive the monster off? Do you view that differently or the same?

Mostly, the Race and Class chapters--the former for what it does say, the latter for what it doesn't. See my response above for more.
PHB. What it said: stuff I like isn't part of D&D worlds, unless I get special DM dispensation, while all the stuff arch-traditionalists want is fundamentally part of the D&D identity. In fact, they're a fundamental part of fantasy writing, even though two of the most popular fantasy game universes today (Azeroth, Nirn) don't feature one of those things. What it didn't say: Warlords aren't part of D&D's core identity, they're so far from it that they don't even get mentioned in the book, and Fighters are back to having their level of mechanical engagement securely capped well below the simplest of simple casters.

Again, is this what you find in practice? Or is it just that the book itself positions things with a little distinction between common and exotic races? If it's the former, then I can understand your frustration. If its the latter, I would say just ignore it.

In general, I do not disagree.

Where we might (or certainly might not!) disagree is where "the planchette" [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was referring to, GM latitude, player agency, and social contract meet...and butt heads.

Perhaps! I didn't find that Ouija board analogy all that compelling, so I'm not sure.

I framed my post the way I did for a reason. Lots and lots of GMs will stridently deny that there exists player agency subordination in certain GMing techniques (of which latitude is an utter requirement). However, if their players disagree with them, especially vehemently, there is a problem. If the players disagree and this disagreement is a violation of social contract, then that problem becomes a major one.

However.

The covert deployment of GM force * to steer story in a direction would be proper GMing if the deployment of such techniques is expected by the players (see [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s post above). If the other GMing tools, the (sometimes) difficulties of play conversation, and system tech isn't up to the task of delivering that organically, then it is not just proper, it is mandatory (therefore, good GMing).

It is all about play priorities, honesty, and social contract. If the ability for players to move the needle and drive outcomes via their play (agency) isn't the paramount concern, and something else is, then so long as that is canvassed honestly and agreed upon, then there should be no dysfunction at the table!

But we (RPG dorks on a message board) should be able to have a conversation about play priorities and how certain techniques (driven by GMing latitude and/or system opacity) affect play and player agency. Don't you think?

* Dictating outcomes. Typically by suspending/abridging the action resolution mechanics or outright using unestablished backstory, of which only you could possibly be privy to, to veto a player move because that move puts your metaplot/setting/scene in a precarious position with respect to your agenda.

I wouldn't deny that player agency can be reduced at times when the DM employs the kind of techniques we're discussing. I think it's all a question of degree. I think the DM can and sometimes must do that in order to help the game remain fun. To me, the fun is paramount. And similar to how Ezekiel said that if his agency as a player is reduced at all, he feels robbed. I think that's an extreme stance....but if the entire table felt that way, then I would be a lot less likely to do anything to subvert that agency.

That plays into the social contract angle you mention. I think that's a huge part of it. It all depends on expectations and then play that either supports those expectations or contradicts them.

This doesn't directly respond to my key point, though: if, as GM, I am never bound, then the only limit on how hard I push is me deciding not to push any harder. That is the situation that I want to avoid. And what lets me avoid it is being bound - by rules, by mechanics, by principles for introducing opposition, etc.

I don't think I have to be bound at every point. For instance, in 4e I have extreme latitude on introducing adversaries of the PCs into play (contrast, say, Marvel Heroic RP, where this may be limited by the Doom Pool). But there is also a pretty reliable encounter difficulty metric in 4e, which means I at least know how hard I have chosen to push. And, once I am actually resolving action declarations in relation to those adversaries (both my declarations for them, and the players' declarations for their PCs in opposition to them), I am bound.

If, at every point, I had to decide whether or not it was "good for the game" to actually apply the outcomes of some particular episode of action resolution to the fiction, I feel that I wouldn't really be pushing the players at all. In fact, I feel that would be very close to simply free narrating a story in response to suggestions from them.

Yes, of course. I don't think it's something that should be done at every point.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I've seen those threads, although I generally don't comment. My experience is that online discussion about topics like that is not really indicative of actual play experience. I mean, my general stance is to allow whatever the players want when it comes to races and classes and options, especially anything where there are existing mechanics for what they want. I'm even very open to homebrew type material for options that don't exist, as long as they are reasonable. I would only say no if there was a really really strong reason for that, and even then, I don't think I would just say no to someone so much as talk to them about it, and then find the best path forward for all.

Is this really that odd to find in play? Most of my play experience is with a home game I play with a group of friends, so I am sure that flavors my view a great deal. But are people really running into DMs who scream "AGH NO DRAGONBORN IN MY GAME EVAR!!!!" in public play? I feel like that happens a lot more online than anything else. The AL guidelines exist precisely to avoid this kind of situaiton.

If you're running into this attitude in a home game, can't it be talked out?

I've never encountered specifically this at a gaming table, I have encountered it during conversations at FLGS and conventions with other gamers. I think different tastes lead different people to different tables, but a lot of times the local gaming community and certainly a gaming con is bigger than one table. While this sort of situation isn't as bad as it happening at a table I was trying to game at, it's still pretty bad.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sometimes I wonder if the all the talk about 5e not being a big tent, or only supporting one style of play, or of not delivering on promises, or not giving players narrative control, not tactical enough, or whatever...is this really all just resentment that a certain class (begins with 'W'; has its own sub-forum) isn't in the game?

Maybe?

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about DM "latitude" and I'm getting the impression that this is pretty important, but I think I must have missed the definition in the thread somewhere. Could someone clarify?

And [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] could you give a specific example of a GM using too much latitude?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

'Gaming the DM' is perhaps the most potent form of powergaming there is. Game with the same people for decades and the pendulum could swing back and forth between players having the DM's number (and 'acting with confidence' because they know exactly which plot hooks to go for, which to be careful around, and which to avoid, how to declare their actions to assure success, etc etc, etc), the the DM getting wise and throwing them curves for a while...

And, yes, a game - like D&D - that absolutely requires a DM - can safely assume/require a good enough one, if only in the sense that bad play experiences are the DM's fault.

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.)

He came right out and owned the 'powergamer' label. And, yes, 3e is beyond ideal for the dedicated optimizer/powergamer. It is choice-rich in the extreme, enthusiastically paying the price in complexity to provide all those choices, and provides lavish 'rewards for system mastery.'

In the current phase of the thread there continues to be the undertone that renouncing mechanical power is a virtue in a player

A virtue of necessity, perhaps?

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.

Always a good idea to some degree in a status-quo 'sandbox' style.

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.

I'm more familiar with 1e advice than 2e, not recalling 2e being all that different. The idea, though, that the DM should set himself above the players both in imaginary authority over the world and, particularly, in rules-knowledge and 'player skill,' seems to be what he was getting at, and 5e strikes me as compatible with that philosophy, though with overruling the rules taking the pace of maintaining a mastery 'lead.'

I think there is also a side-issue in this thread, namely, what happens if the mechanics of the system break down so that the GM cannot frame challenges with mechanical reliability?

If? In that case, the DM overrules the mechanics to get the desired results.

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).

Yes, more so than you can probably easily imagine, and Yes, of course. And gotchyas, musn't sell gotchyas short for keeping AD&D challenging.

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.

Though a player did take Sage of Ages in one Epic mini-campaign I ran, I can't say I noticed the issue. Then again, failing knowledge skill has never struck me as terribly helpful/important, I quite like that in 5e I can just forgo any such pointless randomness and just deliver the desired exposition via the character with the best skill as a matter of course.

This is essentially a system issue, not a player issue. If certain mechanical elements are known to be broken in advance the best answer is to rework them or drop them from the game.

Only if you're going to run with the system open and above board. If you can overrule it at whim, you can deal with such 'broken' bits case-by-case, as best fits your campaign at the moment. So if the fighter with Sharpshooter is wildy under-peforming at some range of levels, you can back off on countering the effectiveness of his feat and let him have a few moments in the sun, for instance.

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

You can always do stuff to build them up. The weapon renouncing monk's party faces the occasional rust monster. The ancestral shortsword is possessed by an ancestral spirit and gains slowly-increasing magical properties.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about DM "latitude" and I'm getting the impression that this is pretty important, but I think I must have missed the definition in the thread somewhere. Could someone clarify?

5e has opportunities for the DM to make ruling notwithstanding the rules built-in right down to its most basic resolution system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've never encountered specifically this at a gaming table, I have encountered it during conversations at FLGS and conventions with other gamers. I think different tastes lead different people to different tables, but a lot of times the local gaming community and certainly a gaming con is bigger than one table. While this sort of situation isn't as bad as it happening at a table I was trying to game at, it's still pretty bad.

I'm sure it does happen from time to time, and I would agree it's bad. I'd expect that any public game where the DM laid down some kind of severe restrictions about races and classes and other options that should be entirely open to the players would probably not draw a lot of players. Not unless there were enough players who shared that DMs particular tastes and dislikes. At a game shop and especially at a convention, players would likely have other options.

I don't know if this mentality in a few DMs has anything to do with 5E. There are likely a couple of passages in the 5E core books that they could point to as "evidence" that their stance is correct. But that doesn't mean that the edition is to blame. It just means they're jerks.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sure. But because 5e puts "DM empowerment" front and center, it's not really meaningful to discuss its rules. The rules are, at absolute best, a loose guideline DMs may choose to follow, if and when they feel like it. Fighters' Second Wind doesn't exist because "it's unrealistic"? Perfectly fine in 5e--DM Empowerment! Dragonborn will be treated to constant racist, torches-and-pitchforks mobs because they look so weird? Perfectly fine in 5e--DM Empowerment! Nobody can play Warlocks, because all Warlocks have to be evil and the DM doesn't allow evil PCs? Perfectly fine in 5e--DM Empowerment!

Nothing about such houserules is more encouraged in 5e than in 3rd for example. Most editions have a "Rule Zero" section.
Houserules and homebrew settings have been around and encouraged for ages. If a DM uses a setting or houserules you don't like to the point where it ruins the game, don't play in their game. If no one likes those houserules or setting, the DM won't have a game.

It's a lot--a *LOT*--more fundamental than just "DMs can make house rules like they always could." It's "the rules don't matter at all unless you explicitly hear your DM say they do. And maybe not even then."

I really haven't found anything saying this. Which book is it in?

PHB. What it said: stuff I like isn't part of D&D worlds, unless I get special DM dispensation, while all the stuff arch-traditionalists want is fundamentally part of the D&D identity. In fact, they're a fundamental part of fantasy writing, even though two of the most popular fantasy game universes today (Azeroth, Nirn) don't feature one of those things.

I really haven't been following all of this thread, so I really don't know what these particular preferences of yours are. If you could spell out what these preferences that the game goes out of its way to disparage are, and how it intentionally marginalises you that would be handy, because I'm not picking up on the clues you're dropping. Which were the specific group of DMs that this was done for?

What it didn't say: Warlords aren't part of D&D's core identity, they're so far from it that they don't even get mentioned in the book, and Fighters are back to having their level of mechanical engagement securely capped well below the simplest of simple casters.

Fighters have always been a low-complexity class. Even the Bo9S gave more complexity to the magical classes, and in 4th ed, the magical powers were also often more complex than martial ones. Such is the nature of being able to break the laws of physics: you need more complex and rule-intensive mechanics to cover all of the possibilities, because there are more possibilities.
Warlords appeared in a 3.5 splatbook (as the marshal) and only in the 4th edition as a class in the PHB. They probably aren't a part of the core identity of D&D yet. A lot of what they can do is folded into the Battlemaster class options, so a full separate class that expands on those may be in the pipeline, but was probably unnecessary to start with.

Sure. But I've never seen a book that went so far out of its way to empower DM rejection of anything "new" in D&D.

How? I don't recall seeing anything in 5e that would do this that wasn't present in other editions. Even 3.5 made the point that the new classes/prestige classes/feats/spells etc in its many, many splatbooks were optional and that players required DM permission before using them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighters have always been a low-complexity class.

Not since 3.0, really. Creating an effective 3.x fighter was quite a system-mastery undertaking. 4e martial classes were every bit as complex as those of other sources with the same roles...

the magical powers were also often more complex than martial ones.

Mainly controller powers, since the martial source lacked a controller, within a given role, not so much. 4e greatly reduced the complexity of casters and of magic in general, though, so it's not like even the 4e fighter or warlord reached the level of complexity of a classic Vancian, 3.5 spontaneous or 5e neo-Vancian caster.

Warlords appeared in a 3.5 splatbook (as the marshal) and only in the 4th edition as a class in the PHB.

The Warlock appeared in a late 3.5 supplement on only in the 4th edition as a class in the PHB.

A lot of what they can do is folded into the Battlemaster class options, so a full separate class that expands on those may be in the pipeline, but was probably unnecessary to start with.

The Battlemaster has 3 or 4 Warlordy-maneuvers, compared to over 300. That's no "a lot."

Even 3.5 made the point that the new classes/prestige classes/feats/spells etc in its many, many splatbooks were optional and that players required DM permission before using them.

Ultimately it's more a matter of community zietgiest than what the book 'says.' 3.5 said 'Rule 0!' but the community was dismissive of house rules. With 5e, they're back. 5e does push the agenda, but it's the community that's come through and restored that aspect of running D&D.

Player choices only matter up to the point at which the DM decides "Eh, no, that's not what I want to happen, I'd better bend reality to make sure it happens the way I want to see it." And as soon as you cross that line, *none* of the choices matter--because they're always that entirely-arbitrary "That's not what I want to see"

What if what the DM wants to see is player choices mattering?

If the consequences only occur because the DM deigns to let them occur, they aren't the result of *my* choices anymore, and thus the entire process of learning from the relationship between choice and consequence is broken.

The relationship between choice & consequence is just DM-mediated. Know your DM and you can leverage that knowledge at least as effectively as leveraging system knowledge.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not since 3.0, really. Creating an effective 3.x fighter was quite a system-mastery undertaking. 4e martial classes were every bit as complex as those of other sources with the same roles... Mainly controller powers, since the martial source lacked a controller, within a given role, not so much. 4e greatly reduced the complexity of casters and of magic in general, though, so it's not like even the 4e fighter or warlord reached the level of complexity of a classic Vancian, 3.5 spontaneous or 5e neo-Vancian caster.

The difficulty in optimising a 3.5 Fighter was more to do with the bad position they started out in and the need to have access to many splatbooks to crib feats from. In terms of play, deciding upon your exact value of Power Attack was one of the most complex operations to perform. It also seemed that the martial powers in 4e tended to be more straightforward than many of the magical powers.

The Battlemaster has 3 or 4 Warlordy-maneuvers, compared to over 300. That's no "a lot."

It allows you to play a completely nonmagical martial character capable of holding their own in combat. Its abilities allow granting allies bonuses to attack a target, allowing allies to take additional out-of-turn moves or attacks, moving opponents around, and bolstering an allies' health through inspirational speech. That is a lot of the Warlord's "schtick" there. (Although I'm aware that there is no complete consensus of what a warlord should be able to do amongst people.)