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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Sure, but if the community isn't running the kinds of games you'd rather play in, and you do enjoy DMing, DM in that community. You're still participating, and you're still having fun.

"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?

If you want to run differently from how you'd want to play, by all means.

BTW: There's a logic I've never seen work: if you run the game you want to play, other players will want to run it. Usually, IMHX, they end up wanting to run something else. If you're rejecting that, I get it. But don't give up on the game just because you find it more fun to run than to play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

That's the real rub. If you intend on being a hero who faces real risk, you really aren't going to survive a D&D campaign for very long. The math is stacked against you.

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.'

That it was.

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?).

Intended or no, it's really not something that can be fixed. As for the video game thing, I know it's a dog whistle that gets certain people up in arms, but it's a real thing. I and a lot of people play both. I started playing tabletop RPGs during the 90s while also playing computer and console RPGs at the same time. During the 90's, video games were doing more interesting things mechanically and character customization wise than tabletop games of the era and that was a formative experience for me. They are as much the basis of my need for character customization than any tabletop game.

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.

Maybe from a DM perspective, but from a purely player's perspective I'm not feeling it.

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 just don't think the base mechanics are good enough compared to other editions/systems for that to be worthwhile.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

A lot of 'support' people demanded during the playtest was nothing more than the exclusion of support for other people or things said people didn't want.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

Sure, but if the community isn't running the kinds of games you'd rather play in, and you do enjoy DMing, DM in that community. You're still participating, and you're still having fun.

If you want to run differently from how you'd want to play, by all means.

BTW: There's a logic I've never seen work: if you run the game you want to play, other players will want to run it. Usually, IMHX, they end up wanting to run something else. If you're rejecting that, I get it. But don't give up on the game just because you find it more fun to run than to play.

It's as controversial as anything else I've said in this thread, but there is a thing called the DMPC for running and playing at the same time. There are ways to do it less wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe from a DM perspective, but from a purely player's perspective I'm not feeling it.

Just have to find the right DM.

I just don't think the base mechanics are good enough compared to other editions/systems for that to be worthwhile.

The base mechanics are hardly different. d20 resolution, stat mods, cyclical initiative, hps, etc.

It's as controversial as anything else I've said in this thread, but there is a thing called the DMPC for running and playing at the same time. There are ways to do it less wrong.

The DMPC is almost as notorious as the Mary Sue. I could see that going particularly badly wrong in 5e, with the DM called upon to make so many judgment calls and rulings.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Just have to find the right DM.

Meh, I'd rather just play something where my enjoyment doesn't depend so much on the DM.

The base mechanics are hardly different. d20 resolution, stat mods, cyclical initiative, hps, etc.

There's a lot more to it than that.

The DMPC is almost as notorious as the Mary Sue. I could see that going particularly badly wrong in 5e, with the DM called upon to make so many judgment calls and rulings.

I hadn't thought of that. With so many judgement calls in 5E compared to other games it's a particularly bad fit, as a DM run character would have a big advantage there.

 

[MoonSong]

I hadn't thought of that. With so many judgement calls in 5E compared to other games it's a particularly bad fit, as a DM run character would have a big advantage there.

It wouldn't really be a game anymore.

 

[Sunseeker]

The DMPC is almost as notorious as the Mary Sue. I could see that going particularly badly wrong in 5e, with the DM called upon to make so many judgment calls and rulings.

This is sort of a false attack on the DMPC, since all characters are typically mary-sues. There are many people who outright state they have no interest in playing anything other than themselves in a D&D (or other RPG) fantasy. I don't blame them. We all live typically mundane lives in a mundane world where we eat, sleep, work and then we die. So when we step into a D&D (or other RPG game) we want to do all the things we can't do IRL: sling spells, call upon the gods, clash swords with demons and typically people want to be pretend it's them doing all this, even if their character is called Rastlin or Tanis or Tasselhoff: David Tasslehoff.

Sure, the DMPC creates problems when they're doing things the rules typically wouldn't allow the players to do, or things that don't exist in the rules at all. I've played with those people. I'm still playing with some of those DMs and it is annoying. The idea that bad gaming is always worse than no gaming is completely untrue since it's not a black-and-white experience.

Playing a 5/10 game can still be more enjoyable than playing no D&D at all for 5 years. Turn that around and then only get to be DM for another 5 years. Eventually, you're so desperate to play you'll take that 5/10 game with the bad mary-sue DMPC and the weird furry overtones.

A DMPC can be just fine as long as they stick to the rules. Sure, they're probably going to plot-device it up a bit, but provided that beating the bad guy doesn't rely on the DMPC being the chosen one, who cares? If you're concerned about "rulings" then just don't do a lot of things that require new rulings. It's not hard to do. If you do, use them as examples for other players do follow. "Hey I used *special skill* to jump across the cavern, it worked for me so it will work for you!". Apply your rulings fairly and your DMPC will die when other PCs die, and your PCs will get to do cool stuff the same way your DMPC does.

Sorry this is really just a pet peeve for me because I often DMPC and I make a concerted effort to behave. Because I want to play far more than I want to DM and I haven't played in long enough that I'm only a hair's breadth away from playing in that game with the weird furry overtones and the mismatched-eyes and striped-socks DMPC. But DMing seems to be the only way I get to ensure the quality of the games I'm in and NO, DMing is not a substitute for playing, it DOESNT satisfy the desire to play and it's fun and rewarding in a completely DIFFERENT way.

DMing is not playing. It never will be. One is not a replacement for the other.

 

[dave2008]

I just don't think the base mechanics are good enough compared to other editions/systems for that to be worthwhile.

Can you expand on that? The 5e base, to me, is more robust than 1e & 2e, and at least on par with 3e and maybe slightly behind 4e IMHO. But I guess depends on what you mean by base. But in terms of content in the core 3, what I would call the base, 5e is very robust.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Is this directed at 5e? My experience in 5e is that PCs kick ass and take names. You get a little bit of optimization and you need to do DM gymnastics to challenge the PCs with "deadly" encounters. Regrettably I find 5e PCs to have a relative power level similar to 4e PCs. I was hoping it would be a little less susceptible to PC and especially part optimization. Fortunately 4e taught me how to handle these challenges. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to use them in 5e.