D&D General ENWorld is better that the pundits…change my mind

[AnotherGuy]

I don't really read through 2014!5e or 2024!5e optimisation discussions, save on a very casual basis, so I can't really speak to the added value that collegial disagreement or adversarial discourse might provide there.

In discussions outside of char-op, I think it is valuable to have a diversity of views, although I agree with @overgeeked that a lot of conversations here end up as argumentative nerds trying to get in the last word against each other and allowing themselves to get bogged down in quagmires of what comes across as mutual attempts at fisking. Even when I'm broadly in agreement with one poster over another, it's tiring to read. (The thread about Mearls critiquing legendary resistance would be a good example, methinks.)

A lot of those argumentative discussions also give birth to some wonderfully creative ideas and as someone who is not bound to RAW and always in search of inspiration and creativity, I find Enworld extremely useful on that front.

 

[payn]

Which I just...don't understand.

D&D is a team game. It has been since at least 2e, probably earlier. The rules are not designed for, as some on here term it, "character vs character" combat. The vast majority of groups do not particularly well-tolerate that particular kind of conflict. So...the game is about working together. Nearly all people who play it today are, specifically, looking to work together to achieve their overall ends.

Given that, why would it be bad to design the rules so that working together is distinctly rewarded, and being selfish and disconnected is ineffective?

Like what you're saying is that, even though most people who play it want to work together to achieve a common goal, they also want to somehow do that by...being lone wolves who are ruthlessly focused on being individually as unstoppable as they can possibly be with no consideration for how it meshes with their teammates.

That's fundamentally irrational. It's wanting a triangle, and then demanding that the triangle have the freedom to have four sides.

It’s not about demands it’s about folks being so casual they can barely get their own character to function let alone everyone else’s. Despite all the charops discussions a lot of people have steep learning curves to the game. The default is so the most casuals can succeed in the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In discussions outside of char-op, I think it is valuable to have a diversity of views, although I agree with @overgeeked that a lot of conversations here end up as argumentative nerds trying to get in the last word against each other and allowing themselves to get bogged down in quagmires of what comes across as mutual attempts at fisking. Even when I'm broadly in agreement with one poster over another, it's tiring to read. (The thread about Mearls critiquing legendary resistance would be a good example, methinks.)

Perhaps so. Personally, I just...naturally take a detail-oriented approach and attempt to respond to claims as they are made. When possible, I strive to capture the whole of each point, and when I fail to do so, I attempt to make up for it.

It’s not about demands it’s about folks being so casual they can barely get their own character to function let alone everyone else’s. Despite all the charops discussions a lot of people have steep learning curves to the game. The default is so the most casuals can succeed in the game.

Then...

Shouldn't the design be to make basic teamwork a breeze...?

Like if it's a teamwork game, and everyone playing knows it's a teamwork game, and you want to appeal to casual players who aren't going to be deeply invested in the mechanics...why would one ever respond to that with, "Ah, yes, that means we need to make the mechanics so teamwork isn't actually much better than just ruthless personal optimization"???

Not to mention the never-ending tension between constantly preserving mechanics which are actively harmful to the experience of players who are highly casual, while apparently trying to bend the whole game's design around making the game highly welcoming to very casual players.

 

[payn]

Perhaps so. Personally, I just...naturally take a detail-oriented approach and attempt to respond to claims as they are made. When possible, I strive to capture the whole of each point, and when I fail to do so, I attempt to make up for it.


Then...

Shouldn't the design be to make basic teamwork a breeze...?

Like if it's a teamwork game, and everyone playing knows it's a teamwork game, and you want to appeal to casual players who aren't going to be deeply invested in the mechanics...why would one ever respond to that with, "Ah, yes, that means we need to make the mechanics so teamwork isn't actually much better than just ruthless personal optimization"???

Not to mention the never-ending tension between constantly preserving mechanics which are actively harmful to the experience of players who are highly casual, while apparently trying to bend the whole game's design around making the game highly welcoming to very casual players.

There is so much assumption here and discounting of others I don’t really know how to respond. I think you have a precise idea what you want but not a very good understanding of anyone else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is so much assumption here and discounting of others I don’t really know how to respond. I think you have a precise idea what you want but not a very good understanding of anyone else.

Do you disagree that D&D is and has been presented as, played as, and seen as a teamwork-based game for, at the very least, the entirety of the new millennium thus far?

 

[Clint_L]

A lot of time, the advice I see is white room theory or pushing something really hard on a 1% or so difference or mostly a matter of preference. Sometimes though, it does feels spot on.

Overall though, I find my own experience with something is the best teacher - discovering what I like and don't like rather than just blindly following someone else's advice. While D&D is a game, sometimes the best move isn't the most optimal one or may be too circumstantial to work/not work depending on how the group works and what the DM is running.

I've learned that if I want to know the optimal build for a class/sub-class, I should pay particular attention to one particular pundit on this site, @ECMO3. I'm not a hardcore optimizer, but I enjoy thinking about these things, for whatever quirky reasons my brain has, and they both do the math and, very importantly, also test it in frequent games, often at high levels where I seldom play.

Off site, I like Teantmonk and a few related YouTube channels for similar. But on Enworld, I think @ECMO3 is the best optimizer that we have, and they take the time to explain both the math and the context.

 

[payn]

Do you disagree that D&D is and has been presented as, played as, and seen as a teamwork-based game for, at the very least, the entirety of the new millennium thus far?

I’m not playing this game with you.

D&D is a complex game that folks with decades of experience often forget. It can take years for folks to master a single character in a game with high levels folks often never achieve. Adding a necessity to work in concert with other characters adds to that complexity.

It doesn’t mean the game caters to hyper optimized godwizard lone wolfs. It means folks can focus on their own characters alongside others as they learn how they can work in concert to better effect since it isn’t the baseline.

 

[Seramus]

If we were about to hit 2016, I could absolutely buy this.

The system has been out for over a decade. 5.5e--so-called "D&D 5e (2024)"--isn't so different from 5.0, "D&D 5e (2014)", that we are talking about people being terribly unfamiliar with the system, unaware of what could possibly be achieved, terrifically shy, unwilling to consider the merits, unwilling to consult with friends, or--crucially for where I'm coming from--unwilling to advocate online that you should focus first and foremost on teamwork because it's really crazy good actually.

I dont know where you play, but I see new players all the time. I onboarded one for their very first roleplaying game just last month. That was Daggerheart technically, but they were excited to try out the hobby. Half the point of D&D clubs is drawing in new players (the other half creating a sanctuary for existing players to gather). Online groups are overflowing with new people, an order of magnitude more than just a decade ago.

I honestly don't know how to respond to the rest of your post. Your anecdotal experiences are so alien to my own anecdotal experiences that we seem to be living in completely different spheres. I don't know which of us, if any, is the outlier.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which I just...don't understand.

D&D is a team game. It has been since at least 2e, probably earlier. The rules are not designed for, as some on here term it, "character vs character" combat. The vast majority of groups do not particularly well-tolerate that particular kind of conflict. So...the game is about working together. Nearly all people who play it today are, specifically, looking to work together to achieve their overall ends.

Given that, why would it be bad to design the rules so that working together is distinctly rewarded, and being selfish and disconnected is ineffective?

Like what you're saying is that, even though most people who play it want to work together to achieve a common goal, they also want to somehow do that by...being lone wolves who are ruthlessly focused on being individually as unstoppable as they can possibly be with no consideration for how it meshes with their teammates.

That's fundamentally irrational. It's wanting a triangle, and then demanding that the triangle have the freedom to have four sides.

Players dont really plan what to play in a party. Combos in see are more what the party can do.

If I could design a whole party team synergy would beat 4E st least in terms of killing stuff faster.

Party would probably be something like fighter, paladin, cleric, lore bard, sorcerer.

Going in blind with random DM. 3 strikers, 2 controller/leaders. Bard could be a druid, sorcerer could be a monk or another striker.

 

[Zardnaar]

It’s not about demands it’s about folks being so casual they can barely get their own character to function let alone everyone else’s. Despite all the charops discussions a lot of people have steep learning curves to the game. The default is so the most casuals can succeed in the game.

This. The casuals dont care and even the veterans dont care that much.

Wife can powergame very well buy she usually plays a weaker character vs the best. Eg she played celestial Warlock vs another one. Next character is a knowledge cleric.

I'm kinda if similar. Pick something fun but I'll powergame it up to a point. 5.0 I played Champion fighter and a monk. No one else would at least those builds.

A big reason 4E tanked was the designers thought theorycrafting on forums was what was the typical 3E was.

It wasn't mostly casuals. My table was the odd one out and even then we didnt go as far as we could have. And we had 50 odd 3E books as well.

I suspect most groups lean towards casual side with maybe a splatbook vs 10.

Most recruits I find are newbie/casual. I've got 1 powergamer and two veterans.