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

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Being a hero has nothing whatsoever to do with what stupid pet tricks you call pull off mechanically. It is about stepping up and doing what most people wouldn't do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Being a hero has nothing whatsoever to do with what stupid pet tricks you call pull off mechanically. It is about stepping up and doing what most people wouldn't do.

c.f. Sam Gamgee. True Hero.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Being a hero has nothing whatsoever to do with what stupid pet tricks you call pull off mechanically. It is about stepping up and doing what most people wouldn't do.

It also has little to do with being a murderhobo hiding behind waves of hirelings, being paranoid to the point to tapping every floor tile with a ten foot pole.

Neither does it have anything to do with being a corpse cold on the floor because you suck at fighting monsters

Neither does it have anything to do with your DM fudging things that your special snowflake doesn't die of incompetence.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It also has little to do with being a murderhobo hiding behind waves of hirelings, being paranoid to the point to tapping every floor tile with a ten foot pole.

Which edition (or which game?) are you characterizing that way? I hope not 5e...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Being a hero has nothing whatsoever to do with what stupid pet tricks you call pull off mechanically. It is about stepping up and doing what most people wouldn't do.

That highlights a difference between RL heroism, which is so often posthumous, and fictional heroism. D&D is primarily inspired by fictional heroism, being a fantasy RPG and all.

Most of the drama in the edition wars was over tradition, change and identity, as opposed to play style.

I'm not going to dispute or agree with that, but a lot of it (whatever was behind it) was couched in terms of 'playstyle.'

My major beefs with 5E are lack of character customization compared to other games(including rpg video games),

Obviously intended, as it fights 'player entitlement' and 'powergaming' and makes the game 'simpler' (uncalled for parenthetical, though - can we, please, never compare D&D to a video game again?).

DM empowerment,

Which 5e treats as antithetical to 'player empowerment' in the for of those player options you'd've liked to've had. I don't agree with that treatment, per se, but I do find that DM Empowerment really does border on the panacea it's made out to be. 'Bad' DMs being the obvious fly in the ointment.

randomness(which I am learning is a direct consequence of bounded accuracy),

and a de-emphasis on combat. Note that the comparison between combat between 5E and 2E is an interesting one, which I will expand upon at the end.
The combat de-emphasis really is hard to get around, especially given my note on AD&D at the end of this post

Before we get into the 2e comparison: 5e de-emphasizes combat mainly by making it shorter (in terms of both rounds and table-time) or in order to make it shorter. It's not that hard to get around - from the Empowered DM's side of the screen - just design larger, more challenging, combats that require more tactics, cooperation (or optimization, including DM-abetted customization), and resources to get through, and run fewer of them each day. There's a few optional module you can flip on - some basic grid rules, gratuitous facing, universal marking, &c.

I think two editions and how many years of D&D where there was 'resistance' to house rules has definitely carried over to the 5E era to some degree. In addition, one thing I will give 5E credit for is that it doesn't have glaring issues that almost demand fixing like AD&D and the 3E era tended to have.

5e has DM intervention built into the basic resolution system, so the foundation for tinkering is very much there, it can just be in the moment as easily as in a sheaf of written house rules.

I feel this way more than anything because of a computer game called Curse of the Azure Bonds.

Nevermind.

It also has little to do with being a murderhobo hiding behind waves of hirelings, being paranoid to the point to tapping every floor tile with a ten foot pole.

Old-school/CaW styles and 'classic feel' aside, 5e doesn't have to be like that, and isn't as inclined that way as the classic game may have been for some groups.

Neither does it have anything to do with being a corpse cold on the floor because you suck at fighting monsters

RL - or 'gritty realistic' - heroism can be all about the circumstances under which you assume corpse-ness.

Neither does it have anything to do with your DM fudging things that your special snowflake doesn't die of incompetence.

Hey! It's not 'fudging' it's Empowered-DM-moderated-flexible-resolution. And you're not supposed to be peeking behind the screen... Bad! Bad player! No XP!

;P

 

[ExploderWizard]

It also has little to do with being a murderhobo hiding behind waves of hirelings, being paranoid to the point to tapping every floor tile with a ten foot pole.

Correct. The original D&D game assumed that players would assume the role of adventurer. Being a hero is something situational that may come up depending on the style of game. An adventurer can be a hero, but not all heroes are adventurers.

 

[MoonSong]

I get that you're probably going to come back with 'but my approach requires DM-independent support' or something like that. All I can offer is that whether your options feel DM-independent depends very much on the attitudes at the table (which, yes, are influenced by the attitudes of the broader community). So, yes, it may be hard to find/foster more player-empowering attitudes/styles in 5e circles, but not because the system, itself, makes it impossible, just because there's been a pendulum swing away from player-empowerment and towards DM-empowerment. Perhaps ironically, but conveniently, a DM can use the latter to re-emphasize the former

The feel is still the same and so are the consequences, be it the system or the culture around the system, I still don't get to play the kind of character I want to play. Actually if it is culture it is worse than if it was just the system.

OK, I can see that. The potential negatives of DM Empowerment, like the potential positives, are, naturally, a function of the DM in question. Find the right DM and you can get the right experience out of 5e. Or just run it, that's what I do.

But if I run it I don't get to play...

One difference I have found among modern editions is whether I enjoy them more as a player or DM. 3.x I quite enjoyed playing, but didn't much care for running. 4e was fun to play and very easy to run. 5e is a blast to run, but so far hasn't not appealed to me from the other side of the screen.

you see? it is not the same, so suggestions like "run it so you can play it how you want" don't really help.

One thing that I can't help but wondering about when the 'style' complaint comes out is what people really want for their style. Is a system that allows their style enough, or does it have to actively 'support' that style, does support really mean reward, can it 'support' other styles, or does it have to be style-exclusive, etc?

For me, if a system merely allows my style - doesn't actively discourage/punish it, doesn't radically over-reward others, doesn't force a given style - I'm not seeing a lot to complain about.

Well, I don't need so much explicit support, but enough things spelled out and as little "anti-support" as possible. I don't need it to exclude anything else, or even for my style to be encouraged, just so in general that the system doesn't encourage penalizing it. But it is just me, I think that anybody else would say different things.

 

[Manbearcat]

True, but taking a specific assertion, extrapolating it to an extreme and ludicrous interpretation, and then ascribing that viewpoint in an attempt to discredit the original asserter (or, better yet, tacking a question mark to the end of the assertion so that you can disingenuously claim innocence) is a common* tactic around here.

*Where common means "cheap, tawdry" as much as "frequently encountered."

Some dude: "I had a mouse as a pet when I was a child."

Some other dude: "So you endorse the Black Plague as a form of population control?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

But if I run it I don't get to play...

A win-win, yes.

you see? it is not the same, so suggestions like "run it so you can play it how you want" don't really help.

I didn't (quite) mean it that way. More like "run it so others can play how you (and they) want." And, no, it's not some selfless sacrifice to DM, even if it is occasionally under-appreciated. Running should also be fun in its own right.

Well, I don't need so much explicit support, but enough things spelled out and as little "anti-support" as possible. I don't need it to exclude anything else, or even for my style to be encouraged, just so in general that the system doesn't encourage penalizing it. But it is just me, I think that anybody else would say different things.

I appreciate hearing it, though. I do get the sense that what people mean by 'support' varies wildly - leading up to the playtest, a lot of it sounded like 'support' had to be pretty exclusive or specific.

 

[MoonSong]

A win-win, yes.

I didn't (quite) mean it that way. More like "run it so others can play how you (and they) want." And, no, it's not some selfless sacrifice to DM, even if it is occasionally under-appreciated. Running should also be fun in its own right.

But it is completely different, I doesn't matter what kind of game I run, it has zero relevance on the kind of game I get to play. I doesn't matter how mice I play as a DM or how much I empower players as a DM, I still don't get to play what I want to play or how I want to play. More so if the community is way off of my own preferences.

"If you can't play how you want, run it how you want" doesn't really help. DMing and playing are completely independent experiences and very different -like night and day-. And it is actually not that good for me, seeing others play how I would want to play is only salt on the wound, and why would I run the kind of play I would want to play? the players are the ones who matter, they are the ones playing. Dming is its own kind of reward, the kind of experience doesn't change it as long as the players enjoy it.