D&D 5E How has your gaming style evolved over the years?

[Sacrosanct]

I am an old school player. Started in 1981 and when 3e and 4e came out, we stuck with AD&D. This entire time, we've rolled stats, including HP. We are huge proponents of rulings over rules, and "just because you don't have a power/ability, doesn't mean you can't be creative and try things." We are proponents of the champion fighter for reasons like that. We were not fans of skill/feat/modifier bloat of 3e, and preferred theater of the mind over tactical grid play.

However....

It hit me the other day how some of that seems to be changing. One of my favorite classes is the battlemaster fighter. I prefer to use feats in 5e, and I have no problems playing dragonborn or tiefling races. We use minis a lot more than before. 5 years ago, I never would have said any of this. We played D&D the same way for 30 years, over several editions, and only now it's changing. So I gotta say, it seems that my vocalized aversion to feats and unusual races wasn't necessarily an aversion to the concept, but to the way they were handled. There's no other way to explain it.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only old school D&D player who has shifted by biases. Judging by internet debates, it seems like it

So I ask, in what sort of ways has your preferred gaming style changed, and was it because of the ways an edition handled things differently (like me with 5e), or was it more of a group shift just because it's the next new thing, and you've always keep up to date with the way the current edition handled things?

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, in fact I was very much the opposite of you. I started in late 3rd and quite enjoyed 4th, I enjoyed the AEDU system and the tactical gamplay, being a RTS fan for years before. I liked the grid, I liked literal depictions of the battlefield. I like minis a lot.

However I've got a literally smaller table now than I used to, with less space, so the tactical grids have largely gone by the wayside with more representational mapping. We still use minis, but we're less concerned about the grid and they're mostly to get a good idea of how many guys we're up against and where they're positioned in a relative sense. Using no map I've often had people attempting to make melee attacks on casters up on cliffs...from the bottom of the cliff. So I'm somewhere in between.

A map helps I think, even if it's rough. Minis are fun. But I'm much less hard-and-fast on grid and tactics. I would be less strict on the rules, but I've too often had players who misunderstand them. I had to really crunch down on one of my better players who completely misunderstood how one of his class features worked, I think he's unhappy with that ruling, but the alternative was madness.

 

[JeffB]

What I run and what I prefer are not always the same. My ruleset tastes have changed dramatically, unless we are talking RQ/CoC

I enjoy modern abstract narrative story focused games- dungeon world, herowars/quest. Also I know that something like FFG Star Wars would float my boat though it is crunchy.

In the Realm of D&D, I have very much become an extremist in the past 5 years or so. In that, I prefer the extremes...very modern like 4e and 13th Age where its a fresh take or going back to my roots of the LBBs or Moldvay/Cook/Marsh or very focused OSR variants like AS&SoH. Its the inbetween stuff....1/2/3/PF/5e where Im just not excited with them as rulesets because they tread so much of the same "play experience" ground. Ill gladly play them, but Im not excited to run them.

Where I still remain a grognard/old school is in the fluff and adventure style category. I am more open to the more modern...I dig Eberron and Dark Sun, and Golarion, and even the original Exalted...but The Wilderlands, Oerth, and modern old style like The Haunted Highlands , Thule and Kalamar are much more my thing. I dont like APs and long drawn out Epics/Saving the world, I prefer shorter self contained episodic adventures...The Lost City, Palace of the Silver Princess, Castle Amber, a Kelnore Frontier Fort, Blacktooth Ridge or any number of Gary's adventures.

Edit- my style hasnt changed...Im still all about story and exploration of the unknown, not about rules and crunch....but my systems for getting where I want to be have changed alot overall.

 

[Raith5]

Looking back at my over 30 years of D&D I realise the immense influence of various editions on my gaming style/preferences at various points. From the old school dungeon crawls of 1e D&D when I was a kid, the detailed worlds of my very long 2e campaign, crazy character customisation of 3e characters, and the gonzo high fantasy of 4e. While I have enjoyed all of this, the high points of all of this was low/mid levels of 3e and all of 4e where the gaming system worked so well the facilitate a fun experience.

I have say the older I get the less interest I have in old school gaming style or gritty gaming styles (though I have a preference of generic fantasy worlds like Greyhawk rather Eberron, Dark Sun and spell jammer etc). These days i dont have much time to game so I want to have high consequence social and combat encounters rather than spending days upon days going through hundreds of encounters in the Temple of Elemental Evil like I did when I was 15..

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My style has changed from that of a stereotypical 10 year old "roll-player" who- from 1977-1985- never met a stereotype he didn't conform to, to more of a "role-player" as time has passed.

 

[strider13x]

Went from AD&D playing really loose (I was like 10), to 2nd edition following all the rules (pre-skills and powers era). Moved to HERO System for the crunch. Mostly missed 3e, then rediscovered D&D just before 4e Essentials because my son was 7 and old enough to try. This is where my rpg world expanded! I started focusing away from exploiting the mechanics and moved to telling a good story, we used skill challenges as combat encounters with failures costing surges and saving gridded 4e combat for boss fights. Our interpretation of HP shifted away from meat (thanks to bloodied). Then once the playtest hit we really jumped in both feet in explaining HP as skill and luck, and focusing less on fighting and relying more on Charisma and creative ideas to solve problems. In some ways I'm full circle, playing more like I did as a kid (loose) but paying more attention to the rules (even though we keep them in the background). My son helped remind me why I enjoyed role-playing! It's not about the chess match, it's more co-op storytelling. Funniest part about that statement is I'm about to run Mines of Madness for the group (mmwwwaahhhhaaahahaha!)

 

[Bawylie]

I cut my losses faster now. If something doesn't work, I drop it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm not sure my play-style for a particular game has ever changed much (well, other than getting better at it than when I started at 12 or 13 years old). In other words, I like my D&D the same as I liked it back in 1989. I just like the 5e rules better to give it to me than the 2e (or any others).

But I enjoy a wide variety of play styles for entirely different games. In fact, I'm not sure I'd actually enjoy my D&D play-style in anything but D&D. It's an essential part of D&D to me, and D&D without it just isn't right.

I seem to be rather odd in that I like each RPG I play to be played its own way. It's no more odd to me than liking my burgers one way, pizza another, sushi another, etc. Different foods, different preferences. It actually kind of bugs me when I see people wanting to make D&D fit all of their gaming needs--in the same way it would bug me to see someone try to pound in a nail with a screwdriver. It's painful to watch. I'd just want to grab it out of their hand and say, "Dude, here is a hammer--it's what you use for that."

 

[Psikerlord#]

I started out in school with 2e and very much a min maxer rules lawyer with nil story side, we were killing monsters and taking their stuff. Progressed through 3e, 4e, and now 5e. Lots of other systems in between, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Dark Heresy, Immortal, Cyberpunk, others I've since forgotten. When I play, I don't min max anymore and focus on "cool moments". Same when I GM really, I'm going for cool moments we'll remember. I still care about rules and rough balance, but only as far as it benefits the experience.

My preferred playstyle started out rules lawyery, theatre of the mind. It then progressed to gridded maps and still rules lawyer. It has in more recent years evolved to settle on theatre of the mind or rough map (no grid), major focus on DM rulings over rules and improvisation, and nil rules lawyering. Turns out, my preferred system is something like a hybrid between OSR and modern D&D. I prefer short, snappy adventures, with a focus on the PCs as adventurers and treasure hunters rather than world saving heroes - but I've always preferred that, so that hasn't changed. I dont like dungeon crawls like Undermountain or drawn out APs.

I want more freedom than that, and a well designed RPG system, with enthusiastic players and GM, has everything required to deliver.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm old school (but flexible), started with basic and then 1e a long time ago. I've generally upgraded to each new edition as it has come along as both a player and a DM.

My game preferences have changed tremendously over the years. As a teen and young adult, I was much more interested in fast action, combat and playing to level up (powergame, munchkin).

Now, I'm much more interested in the story of the game and the roleplaying. I still like combat and fast action, but I prefer to mix it up with more social interaction, exploration and clever play to avoid combat whenever possible.

I prefer playing without a grid (theater of the mind), but when there are a lot of PCs and or foes, it is easier to keep everything in the head on a grid. Sometimes, I like to play those scenarios with a full map; other times, I just put down tokens/minis for the PCs and monsters to represent relative distances rather than having players move their tokens/minis in a tactical, space counting way.

Lately, I've been too busy to create my own adventures so I've been relying on published stuff, although I always modify as we play, sometimes improvising in the game session itself.

I love when players want to do interesting actions even when they are not optimized, and I try to encourage that by awarding inspiration. I also run my foes the same way. They are not always cool-headed, tacticians. Sometimes they try to run and take OA, or if routed they turn tail and run. Other times, they set up more elaborate ambushes or fake retreats to get PCs to chase, and sometimes they just try more outrageous actions that flop dramatically. It's all about the fun and what makes a more interesting story. I always tell my players don't do what's "right." Do what's most interesting and fun, and of course, play to your PCs personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

I play the same way. That's not to say that I play sub-optimally or silly. I don't do that. I do, however, do what I think would be more interesting so sometimes it isn't optimal, yet it still has a chance to be effective, and it will always fit the development of the character.

Most of all, I like variety.