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

[Satyrn]

It would be interesting to see that argument. I can not see more then 4e certainly.

It would be interesting. I didn't think 3e ever took away any player empowerment, no do I think more has been added since.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a thing, because people do it. There's a criticism of 5e, and a zealous defender of 5e (not thinking through what he's saying) retorts "while 5e just isn't for you!" or "5e just can't do that, it's not nth ed." Asserting failure of the 5e 'big tent' goal as a defense of 5e. I find myself having to defend the critic's right to make the criticism, while also trying to defend 5e from that criticism.

It's mildly appalling on a number of levels.

Okay, I see, your meaning and your words didn't quite meet for me. That is, when you say people use that failure as a defense, I take it to mean EXPLICITLY saying, "5e failed to be a big tent and that's WHY it's good!" Whereas you're using it in a softer, implied sense, one of "That thing you want isn't REALLY part of REAL D&D, which 5e does just fine thankyouverymuch."

Which, I agree, is absolutely a thing people do (we had a..."nice" example on page 92), and is appalling. But every edition--including the ones I like--has its "defenders" who do their cause more harm than good.

 

[pemerton]

Game systems tend not to assume play style and focus of play - the players are the ones that do that. That's exactly why there can be misconceptions like that if you play D&D it is mandatory for it to be more combat-focused than some other game.

I think the word "mandatory" is out of place here - no one has asserted it, and so using it doesn't really rebut anything that has been asserted.

I think what is being discussed is the orientation of mechanics - both PC build, and action resolution - and the sorts of action declarations they underpin.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the word "mandatory" is out of place here - no one has asserted it, and so using it doesn't really rebut anything that has been asserted.

I think "mandatory" is important to show the distinction between what a system is doing, and what players of that system might choose to do - the very core of my statement that D&D is no more combat focused than other games.

I think what is being discussed is the orientation of mechanics - both PC build, and action resolution - and the sorts of action declarations they underpin.

That is certainly what I've been discussing, at least.

 

[Umbran]

D&D is no more, and no less, combat focused than any other big-name RPG on the market.

Define term "big-name RPG". By many measures, there are only two "big name" games - D&D and Pathfinder (which is really another form of D&D, as far as rules and focus are concerned). And then your statement doesn't mean all that much.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is no more combat focused than other games.

I think that depends on which "other games" one has in mind.

In my personal experience, D&D tends to emphasise combat as the ultimate method of conflict resolution, because only combat produces finality of resolution. (4e skill challenges are an exception, but have not endured as part of the D&D resolution engine. And even in 4e, there is a greater emphasis on combat than non-combat in the way the game is presented.)

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Game systems tend not to assume play style and focus of play - the players are the ones that do that. That's exactly why there can be misconceptions like that if you play D&D it is mandatory for it to be more combat-focused than some other game.

The whole reason there are so many different systems (and more being created everyday) is to cater to different play styles. If systems didn't try to encourage particular play styles then there would be no need to have more than one game that we all play. The impetus for modern game design was the realization that mechanics have a massive impact on play and so they can be harnessed to create a specific experience, and this has unleashed a huge variety games tailored to a narrow style. Even universal systems that are intended for just about any genre will dictate how the game is played (a horror game using GURPS will unfold totally differently than one using Fate).

D&D itself was originally mechanically geared toward a very specific playstyle. That people played it many different ways wasn't because it was agnostic about playstyles, but because most people didn't have the wargaming background Gygax and Arneson did and so they didn't realize how it was intended to be played. 5e does try to be agnostic, but that isn't really possible. So while the designers may have tried to avoid encouraging one style, its mechanics are going to shape how people play. For instance, the total recovery of HP and abilities essentially every day means that frequent combat is much more of a reasonable approach than if there were serious lasting wounds that took months to heal and spells took weeks to recharge. Getting xp for winning fights also encourages combat.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Oh yes, this is so true. 5E is the first version of D&D since B/X ( NOT BECMI) to not include the mandatory hyper-specialization funnel. OD&D and B/X fighters illustrate this concept well. In these versions the fighter is a master of arms and a death dealing machine. In AD&D (1st and 2nd), 3E, and 4E the fighter has to dedicate him/her self to a very narrow, or a single type of weapon and dedicate character resources to keep up improvements in the chosen funnel in order to merely be competent.

A huge loss of versatility is traded on these specializations for what? Just being "good enough" not to suck. Of course this means that whenever the fighter is in a position in which the super specialization cannot be used ( missile combat or even melee combat without a particular TYPE of sword) then real suckage sets in to the point of why even bother trying.

The problem is that the rest of the system assumes hyper specialization to be the norm. Defenses and target numbers keep creeping up so that versatile characters have no hopes of being effective. In effect the system is forcing specialized one trick ponies. That really sucks.

I really don't see how a huge pile of character options being available, but you must choose A, B, C, D, and E not to suck is empowering in any way. It is the system telling you exactly what choices must be made in order to not suck. That is the opposite of empowerment, it is restrictive and controlling.

5E with bounded accuracy and a distinct lack of narrow funnels allows versatile characters to be awesome again. The lack of weapon specialization alone is cause for celebration. Players are now empowered to make choices for their characters without being forced onto a specific path.

This kind of depends on your approach to D&D. If your approach to D&D is that your PC is a regular person taking up adventuring, the above is fairly accurate. If your approach to D&D is that your PC is a "big damn hero" well above the capabilities of mere mortals, you look first and foremost to the specific abilities on your character sheet that can deliver power above mere mortals. Those abilities not being on your character sheet tends to be a problem for that approach.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The whole reason there are so many different systems (and more being created everyday) is to cater to different play styles. If systems didn't try to encourage particular play styles then there would be no need to have more than one game that we all play. The impetus for modern game design was the realization that mechanics have a massive impact on play and so they can be harnessed to create a specific experience, and this has unleashed a huge variety games tailored to a narrow style. Even universal systems that are intended for just about any genre will dictate how the game is played (a horror game using GURPS will unfold totally differently than one using Fate).

D&D itself was originally mechanically geared toward a very specific playstyle. That people played it many different ways wasn't because it was agnostic about playstyles, but because most people didn't have the wargaming background Gygax and Arneson did and so they didn't realize how it was intended to be played. 5e does try to be agnostic, but that isn't really possible. So while the designers may have tried to avoid encouraging one style, its mechanics are going to shape how people play. For instance, the total recovery of HP and abilities essentially every day means that frequent combat is much more of a reasonable approach than if there were serious lasting wounds that took months to heal and spells took weeks to recharge. Getting xp for winning fights also encourages combat.

I have to second this. The assertion that all systems are the same or that system doesn't matter does not match my experience. Take me and this thread. This whole thread is about my approach to gaming not being as well supported by 5E compared to earlier editions. That in and of itself is at odds with the assertion that system doesn't matter. I've tended to gravitate towards combat proficiency in my PC in just about every system I've ever played, and the results have been very different system to system.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Define term "big-name RPG". By many measures, there are only two "big name" games - D&D and Pathfinder (which is really another form of D&D, as far as rules and focus are concerned). And then your statement doesn't mean all that much.

You accidentally left Human Occupied Landfill, a.k.a. HOL, off that list.