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

[Herobizkit]

This thread is huge.

I dipped in and out and what I got is this:

thecasualoblivion loved 4e because 4e's design was inherently combat-centric. 4e Encounters games were "enter these 5 rooms boxed together and murder everything for 3 hours" as a co-op/team effort.

5's design is "let's get back to the role-playing side of gaming". AL games try to involve players in a collective story-telling environment while also having some combat.

As I see it, thecasualoblivion says "no thanks" to the story and waits politely while everyone elfs it up until his sword is ready to take on the combat challenges.

His/her preference of play style is a completely valid play style, but one that is not reflected in the spirit of 5e's "back to the story" style, hence their frustration.

I totally get it. We have a kid in our game who flakes out whenever anything non-combat hits the table. We hate him for it. But his Challenge/Submission styled arse still wants to come to the table and be part of our mostly Narrative/Expression group and that's fine. The DM knows not to prep anything story-related for him and the player is perfectly fine with that. Sometimes we're not, but that's because we tend to bounce off each other for improv and having one non-invested player makes it harder for our own immersion/story.

D&D allows for a bunch of playstyles and a decent DM will try and provide for as many as possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I tend to view it as a combination of approaches with one of the goals of play being to turn your adventurers into big damn heroes. This element has been present from the beginning. In OD&D the level title for an 8th level fighter was " superhero". You can't be more explicit than that.

One has to examine what a "mere mortal" actually is in a given system first. 3rd edition gave everyone a class, so in theory there were 15th+ level commoners around. 15th level farmer Joe could whoop some butt compared to 1st level adventurers. Whereas in 5th edition, a commoner is the standard for regular people. They only get a handful of hit points and don't get to gain levels. Even a 1st level character of any class is far tougher than a commoner and will only get stronger with level gains.

In 5E a mere mortal person is never going to have more than a handful of hit points. When the ogre comes to raid the village and the PCs are the only people to be hit by that terrible club and NOT drop dead instantly, its a pretty strong indication that they are well above normal folk.

 

[Rhenny]

Here's an applicable anecdote from my last game session. We play online via fantasy grounds. During the game, one of my players left the game while the party was interacting with their prisoner, then the constable and some refugees from a devestated location a day's journey to the south. He messaged me and told me straight up he got bored during rp. I thought he was out for good, but when we began a combat encounter 25 minutes later, he joined in. When I responded to his message, I told him that in my campaign I try to add a little bit of everything (combat, exploration and rp/interaction). I guess he's ok with it, but I know he'll check out if we have more extensive periods of interaction.

In this case, it isn't necessarily the system that he dislikes it is the style of game that has more interaction and story elements. On the other hand, the system makes it pretty easy to run my games with more balance in the 3 pillars so the system contributes to creating the type of game I want to run.

 

[pemerton]

thecasualoblivion loved 4e because 4e's design was inherently combat-centric.

During the game, one of my players left the game while the party was interacting with their prisoner, then the constable and some refugees from a devestated location a day's journey to the south. He messaged me and told me straight up he got bored during rp.

These two posts reminded me of an episode in my 4e game when the PCs had to interrogate a prisoner.

As I see it, thecasualoblivion says "no thanks" to the story and waits politely while everyone elfs it up until his sword is ready to take on the combat challenges.

I don't know what [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] thinks of "story", or would think of something like the interrogation scenario I've just posted.

But I haven't seen anything in this thread about thecasualoblivion saying "no thanks" to story. The complaints of boredom have been about empty rooms, not "story" (whatever exactly that is).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This thread is huge.

I dipped in and out and what I got is this:

thecasualoblivion loved 4e because 4e's design was inherently combat-centric. 4e Encounters games were "enter these 5 rooms boxed together and murder everything for 3 hours" as a co-op/team effort.

Condescending, and fairly inaccurate. I liked 4E because it did combat well, not because it was combat centric. There were non-combat reasons as well. The character building side of 4E was very good, and 4E focused on being "big damn heroes" from level 1, as opposed to mundanity.

5's design is "let's get back to the role-playing side of gaming". AL games try to involve players in a collective story-telling environment while also having some combat.

Roleplaying was just fine in 4E, and I'm not seeing any more of it in the 5E I've played so far. If you couldn't roleplay in 4E, I see that more as a you problem.

As I see it, thecasualoblivion says "no thanks" to the story and waits politely while everyone elfs it up until his sword is ready to take on the combat challenges.

When did I say this? I did say I specifically didn't like going over mundane mostly empty rooms with a fine tooth comb, but there is much more to the game and to roleplaying than that.

His/her preference of play style is a completely valid play style, but one that is not reflected in the spirit of 5e's "back to the story" style, hence their frustration.

How exactly is 5E back to the story? When did the story ever leave?
.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I tend to view it as a combination of approaches with one of the goals of play being to turn your adventurers into big damn heroes. This element has been present from the beginning. In OD&D the level title for an 8th level fighter was " superhero". You can't be more explicit than that.

One has to examine what a "mere mortal" actually is in a given system first. 3rd edition gave everyone a class, so in theory there were 15th+ level commoners around. 15th level farmer Joe could whoop some butt compared to 1st level adventurers. Whereas in 5th edition, a commoner is the standard for regular people. They only get a handful of hit points and don't get to gain levels. Even a 1st level character of any class is far tougher than a commoner and will only get stronger with level gains.

In 5E a mere mortal person is never going to have more than a handful of hit points. When the ogre comes to raid the village and the PCs are the only people to be hit by that terrible club and NOT drop dead instantly, its a pretty strong indication that they are well above normal folk.

All of that is kind of beside the point. The point isn't becoming a superhero at some point in the game. The point is approaching the game as a hero and focusing on your hero abilities to interact with the world. You described having the freedom to do most anything as empowering. In my experience, that sort of thing tends towards the mundane, as opposed to the heroic, and doesn't empower me whatsoever.

 

[JonnyP71]

Here's an applicable anecdote from my last game session. We play online via fantasy grounds. During the game, one of my players left the game while the party was interacting with their prisoner, then the constable and some refugees from a devestated location a day's journey to the south. He messaged me and told me straight up he got bored during rp. I thought he was out for good, but when we began a combat encounter 25 minutes later, he joined in. When I responded to his message, I told him that in my campaign I try to add a little bit of everything (combat, exploration and rp/interaction). I guess he's ok with it, but I know he'll check out if we have more extensive periods of interaction.

In this case, it isn't necessarily the system that he dislikes it is the style of game that has more interaction and story elements. On the other hand, the system makes it pretty easy to run my games with more balance in the 3 pillars so the system contributes to creating the type of game I want to run.

If a player did that in one of my sessions he would be out for good! As a player I prefer RP/exploration to combat, but as a DM I try to ensure a session is as evenly balanced as possible, so that everyone gets a chance to do something they most enjoy. If one player left during the bits he/she didn't like then I'd see that as extremely rude, intolerant, and disrespectful towards everyone else in the game. The same goes for people who switch off and play with phones/laptops etc when it is not their turn.

You play all of it, or none at all.

(The only acceptable exception imho is if the party is split, and are having to resolve sections independent from one another)

 

[dave2008]

Roleplaying was just fine in 4E, and I'm not seeing any more of it in the 5E I've played so far. If you couldn't roleplay in 4E, I see that more as a you problem.

When did I say this? I did say I specifically didn't like going over mundane mostly empty rooms with a fine tooth comb, but there is much more to the game and to roleplaying than that.

How exactly is 5E back to the story? When did the story ever leave?
.

That was a complaint a lot of people had with 4e, but I agree with you on this one. I had as much story and RP in 4e as I had in 1e and have 5e.

 

[dave2008]

All of that is kind of beside the point. The point isn't becoming a superhero at some point in the game. The point is approaching the game as a hero and focusing on your hero abilities to interact with the world. You described having the freedom to do most anything as empowering. In my experience, that sort of thing tends towards the mundane, as opposed to the heroic, and doesn't empower me whatsoever.

Well that is kinda player specific. I did an adventure in 4e with my regular group where we took away all the power cards. They only had basic attacks (casters too). The players had to make up every attack, action, spell and I just adjudicated as DM. For some of them it was completely liberating, others not so much. However, the freedom of do-whatever-you-want lead to some of the most exciting and heroic actions we ever had for those who like to play that way. But it that is not your thing, I've seen how it doesn't work as well.

 

[dave2008]

The point is approaching the game as a hero and focusing on your hero abilities to interact with the world.

Doesn't 5e suggest that you start at 3rd lvl if that is what you want? At least that was a suggestion by one of the designers if it is not in the actual books. By 3rd lvl you are far beyond the capabilities of commoners and quite heroic. Of course how you define "heoric" is important as different people have different ideas. I expect your view of a hero (or being heroic) is different than mine.