D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Emerikol]

For me, I have been able to play old school style from 1e all the way into 4e though I found 4e to be very hard. It got progressively hard period so even 3e was harder than 2e which was harder than 1e. I didn't play 5e mostly because of mechanical objections not style but I suspect it may have gotten at least a little easier.

One aspect of my games is fear. So to the degree defeating the monsters is easy, I have to work harder to make sure it isn't so easy. Sometimes it's just not playing the monsters like idiots and other times it's having the monsters react after the PCs leave and return. I also like aspects of D&D monsters that have all disappeared because players apparently don't like those features. e.g. level drain, stat drain, etc... And while I've pondered it back and forth a good bit, I've kind of come around to liking gold for x.p.

One thing I don't see much when people describe their games is resource management fear. My wizards would never drop a spell on a pack of goblins the fighters can handle easily. Of course if it's an unlimited cantrip they would do that. I don't like unlimited magic. The fighters never felt useless or worthless in my campaigns. Thieves could use some work but I think I know what to do there.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So in my view, D&D being the flagship 2nd favorite game of so many people, should provide the least objectionable mechanics possible because their fans will force fit their playstyle onto flexible mechanics. I think WOTC hasn't always chosen that path.

I disagree. I think 5e does a better job of supporting a variety of playstyles than earlier editions.

When I started playing D&D, if you wanted to play an elf or dwarf, you couldn’t even choose your class. Your race was your class. Later, the designers chose to punish players who chose different race-class combos by implementing level limits.

In 2nd edition, if you didn’t roll well on your stats, you could be forced to play a fighter because that is the only class you qualified for. Rangers, bards, druids and paladins had extremely high stat requirements that prevented many people from playing them.

3rd edition continued the trend of the designers telling you how to play your character with restrictions on paladins (must be lawful good), bards (can’t be lawful), barbarians (can’t be lawful) and monks (can’t be chaotic).

Guess my people’s champion monk who fought against corrupt authorities isn’t acting in a sufficient monk-like manner.

 

[Umbran]

You're just a troll. I'm mostly going to stop responding to you now.

Mod Note:
How about you completely stop responding to them, before you are tempted to toss insults again and one of us has to remove you from the discussion?

 

[payn]

I disagree. I think 5e does a better job of supporting a variety of playstyles than earlier editions.

When I started playing D&D, if you wanted to play an elf or dwarf, you couldn’t even choose your class. Your race was your class. Later, the designers chose to punish players who chose different race-class combos by implementing level limits.

In 2nd edition, if you didn’t roll well on your stats, you could be forced to play a fighter because that is the only class you qualified for. Rangers, bards, druids and paladins had extremely high stat requirements that prevented many people from playing them.

3rd edition continued the trend of the designers telling you how to play your character with restrictions on paladins (must be lawful good), bards (can’t be lawful), barbarians (can’t be lawful) and monks (can’t be chaotic).

Guess my people’s champion monk who fought against corrupt authorities isn’t acting in a sufficient monk-like manner.

I get what you are saying, but I gotta say again, for like the thousandth time, being lawful doesn't mean you must respect every law ever written.

 

[Oofta]

People have explained what they meant.

Language is not always literal. Like @soviet pointed out with your use of dog whistle. It's plainly false that language can be a dog whistle... so why use such a phrase?

We use phrases like that, and language in general, to convey ideas. You didn't follow what was meant by the "D&D is everyone's second favorite game" comments... but people have since clarified. You can onboard that information and let everyone get back to whatever actual discussion can be salvaged... or you can continue to rail against something that's already been explained, and complain about having to repeat yourself while you're at it.

Better to just drop it, right?

If "D&D is everyone's 2nd favorite game" doesn't mean something like "Because D&D isn't my favorite game, the only reason people don't agree with me that there are better games out there is because of ignorance" I see no reason to use the phrase. Say "D&D is many people's 2nd favorite game" and there's no issue.

 

[TwoSix]

I dunno if it's just down to the Satanic Panic, though that was surely a factor, but there's no doubt that the brand is far, far better known than any other TTRPG. Like, it's not even a conversation. The reason D&D Club is D&D Club is because it's the only name students will know. And their parents, who, somewhat ironically, have done a full 180 since the Satanic Panic days. These days, most parents are thrilled that their kid is playing D&D.

Of course, some parents might have trouble signing the permission slip for "Blades in the Dark" club or "Shadow of the Demon Lord" club or "His Majesty the Worm" club.

 

[Umbran]

Then don't use the phrase. To me? It's an obvious dog whistle.

Just say what you mean. "Some people play D&D even though it isn't their favorite game."

Um...
You are, in effect, extolling someone else to only be literal, while using "dog whistle" which is itself a metaphor.

How about we spend a little less time trying to control how each other speak, and more time trying to be understanding?

 

[TwoSix]

If "D&D is everyone's 2nd favorite game" doesn't mean "Because D&D isn't my favorite game, the only reason people don't agree with me that there are better games out there is because of ignorance" I see no reason to use the phrase. Say "D&D is many people's 2nd favorite game" and there's no issue.

I'm not on board with "Since I interpret phrase X as meaning this, no one else should use it".

"5e is everyone's favorite game" is obviously farcical. "5e is everyone's 2nd favorite game" is also just as obviously farcical. "Blank is everyone's blank" is always going to be a non-serious statement, because no one would reasonably assert to know everyone's preference to that level of granularity.

As an astute reader, when you see someone make an obviously farcical statement, it's on you to try to determine the subtext of what's really meant. Assuming that statement is literal and is being made in bad faith should be one of the last options considered.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not on board with "Since I interpret phrase X as meaning this, no one else should use it".

"5e is everyone's favorite game" is obviously farcical. "5e is everyone's 2nd favorite game" is also just as obviously farcical. "Blank is everyone's blank" is always going to be a non-serious statement, because no one would reasonably assert to know everyone's preference to that level of granularity.

As an astute reader, when you see someone make an obviously farcical statement, it's on you to try to determine the subtext of what's really meant. Assuming that statement is literal and is being made in bad faith should be one of the last options considered.

Excusing something as a joke does not change it's intent or meaning. It's not hard to write "D&D is many people's 2nd favorite game".

 

[TwoSix]

Excusing something as a joke does not change it's intent or meaning. It's not hard to write "D&D is many people's 2nd favorite game".

What? The exact point of a joke is that your intent is different than what you're saying. That's literally how sarcasm works.