D&D 5E Play experience contributing to D&DNext expectations

[Melkor]

Now, that title seems like it goes without saying, but, in reading the various threads on the development of D&DNext, one thing has continuously been brought to my attention.

It would seem that my group's play experience is not similar to a lot of other gaming groups out there, and that really tempers my opinion of what I want to see in D&D next.

From what I am reading, It seems like a lot of players have played in games with Dungeon Masters who seem to derive pleasure from playing adversary to the players, killing their characters, and "winning" at D&D (instead of providing a great story and shared experience for the players).

I guess I have been lucky to have had good DMs over the course of the last 25 years or so that insulated me and my gaming groups from a lot of the negative experiences I see people talk about in their own games - Especially with regards to game balance, higher level spellcasters overpowering all other characters, etc.

The DMs I have played under tended to use common sense rather than the rules as written where the latter create terrible situations. They would reward creativity. They would punish lack of common sense, or stupid action, but generally wouldn't let one bad roll ruin an epic campaign.

Am I in the minority here?

Please feel free to share your "DM horror stories," and how those affected your views of the various editions leading up to D&DNext, and how they are influencing what you want to see in Next.

 

[Yora]

No, most people tend to avoid associating with unlikeable people.

What is your question regarding D&D 5th Edition, or what subject do you want to be discussed?

 

[hafrogman]

I don't think it takes a "bad" DM to have problems crop up, just one who doesn't quite meet "great". If you have always played with DMs who can adjust on the fly to rebalance and react to the more or less free-form nature of D&D, then you are indeed lucky. But in my neck of the woods, finding anyone willing to DM at all is a blessing. I wouldn't stay in a game with an antagonistic DM, but I'll stick with a dry or inexperienced DM just so I can keep playing.

So anyways, my horror stories aren't DM horror stories, they're just player horror stories. Players who love to role play, and create fun and interesting personalities for their characters. They just happen to be mechanically "flawed" characters as well. And when that happens, when combat crops up, they shut down, become bored, disengaged. And no matter how much or little of the game is spent in combat, having a chunk where players wander off and get distracted because nothing they do has a significant impact isn't good for immersion, the group or the survival of the game.

This is why the design principle of "presumed competence" is one that I enjoy. I want a player who prioritizes their character in an entirely flavor-oriented design to be able to meaningfully contribute to every aspect of the game. This means two things to me. One, making sure that every character CAN contribute, and two, making it non-trivial for a broader character to invalidate their contributions.

That way, next time my friend wants to make a bard, because she likes the concept, we don't have to gently remind her how frustrated she's always felt in the past when her combat options devolved into "I sing".

 

[Doug McCrae]

Different GMs have different strengths. I've had a lot of good GMs, some of them were terrible at the game balance, challenge-the-players side of things, but were amazing at creating imaginative, engaging content and portraying NPCs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

From what I am reading, It seems like a lot of players have played in games with Dungeon Masters who seem to derive pleasure from playing adversary to the players, killing their characters, and "winning" at D&D (instead of providing a great story and shared experience for the players).

I see an element of that as well. There's also the assumption that players are working as hard to destroy the game as they can. And that when players and DMs come into conflict, the players somehow win, despite the DM's rather obvious advantage.

It's relevant because of the game design philosophy that arises from it: the effort to ensure competitive balance and to make the game idiot-proof. The latest effort to accomplish those things hasn't exactly been successful on any level.

The DMs I have played under tended to use common sense rather than the rules as written where the latter create terrible situations. They would reward creativity. They would punish lack of common sense, or stupid action, but generally wouldn't let one bad roll ruin an epic campaign.

Of course, the issue is always that "common" sense is a misnomer. I hope that most people out there are trying to enjoy the game instead of winning it, but I don't know that this is the case.

 

[Melkor]

I see an element of that as well. There's also the assumption that players are working as hard to destroy the game as they can. And that when players and DMs come into conflict, the players somehow win, despite the DM's rather obvious advantage.

It's relevant because of the game design philosophy that arises from it: the effort to ensure competitive balance and to make the game idiot-proof. The latest effort to accomplish those things hasn't exactly been successful on any level.

Of course, the issue is always that "common" sense is a misnomer. I hope that most people out there are trying to enjoy the game instead of winning it, but I don't know that this is the case.

I must spread experience around before adding to yours again, but thanks for stating/asking what I was trying to say better than I could.

 

[dkyle]

From what I am reading, It seems like a lot of players have played in games with Dungeon Masters who seem to derive pleasure from playing adversary to the players, killing their characters, and "winning" at D&D (instead of providing a great story and shared experience for the players).

I guess I have been lucky to have had good DMs over the course of the last 25 years or so that insulated me and my gaming groups from a lot of the negative experiences I see people talk about in their own games - Especially with regards to game balance, higher level spellcasters overpowering all other characters, etc.

The DMs I have played under tended to use common sense rather than the rules as written where the latter create terrible situations. They would reward creativity. They would punish lack of common sense, or stupid action, but generally wouldn't let one bad roll ruin an epic campaign.

I think you are misunderstanding what you are reading.

My desire for a balanced, well-designed ruleset has nothing to do with the quality of DMs I've played with. In fact, I've DM'd DnD more than I've played it, and game balance is even more important to me as a DM than as a player.

I do not want balanced spellcasters because I've seen rampant overpoweredness. In fact, I'm an optimizing powergamer myself. It is precisely because an imbalanced game turns my preferred playstyle into a game-breaker that I desire balance. My ideal is a game where I can optimize to my hearts content, and not break the game, or ruin anyone else's fun.

Any time I have to reign myself in to avoid playing my character in a way that breaks a game based on a broken ruleset, that's an immersion breaker. And that means I have less fun. It's only logical that a person in a life-or-death occupation like DnD adventuring would want every advantage they can get. If they are passing up ways to be more effective, because being as effective as they can be hurts someone's feelings, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

As a player, and as a DM, I don't want things played with "common sense". I want them played by rules. If the rules as written are broken enough that "common sense" is necessary, then I want better rules. Not because of bad DMs, but because I have far greater investment in a world that operates on mechanics that I can understand and have my character manipulate, than on the whims of the DM.

Ultimately, I want balanced rules because I enjoy games with balanced rules, more than games where the DM has to fix everything on the fly, no matter how skilled that DM is.

 

[Melkor]

My ideal is a game where I can optimize to my hearts content, and not break the game, or ruin anyone else's fun.

I truly hope that D&DNext can accomplish that without punishing a player that might not want to fully optimize their character with just the right choices and combos because that isn't their style of play.

If they are passing up ways to be more effective, because being as effective as they can be hurts someone's feelings, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Some players simply care more, for example, about telling the story than they do about optimization (particularly tactical optimization)...That's not necessarily saying they are "passing" on ways to be effective, but they might not actually care enough to look through several books worth of Feats/Powers/etc. to make the optimal choices. For them, the game is about the story.

If they play with a DM that optimizes every encounter they are up against, then they will certainly be at a disadvantage tactically if they don't do the same.

If they play with a DM that understands their playstyle, and wants to create a great mutual play experience, then he/she will take that into account when designing encounters in a way that the ruleset never could. That DM would also take into account your desire to optimize, and work to include both players. To me, that is something that rules just can't accomplish, though I do think striving for some amount of balance is admirable when designing a system.

Again, I guess I have been fortunate enough to play with DMs that did not create situations where a player who wanted to play a story driven character, and cared much more about that than trying to optimize their character tactically, was punished for doing that.

 

[dkyle]

I truly hope that D&DNext can accomplish that without punishing a player that might not want to fully optimize their character with just the right choices and combos because that isn't their style of play.

Successfully accomplishing my ideal requires this very thing. If my optimization produces a character that blows away a non-optimizing player's character, then I am breaking the game, and ruining someone else's fun. I do not want that.

Some players simply care more, for example, about telling the story than they do about optimization (particularly tactical optimization)...That's not necessarily saying they are "passing" on ways to be effective, but they might not actually care enough to look through several books worth of Feats/Powers/etc. to make the optimal choices.

I was talking about my characters in that quote. If I have to make my character make bad decisions just to avoid hurting my fellow players' feelings because of a poorly balanced game, that's metagaming, not roleplaying.

For them, the game is about the story.

For me the game is about the story. Some simply care more than others about how mechanically effective their character is within the story.

If they play with a DM that optimizes every encounter they are up against, then they will certainly be at a disadvantage tactically if they don't do the same.

Again, I guess I have been fortunate enough to play with DMs that did not do this to the point where if a player wanted to play a story driven character, and cared much more about that than trying to optimize their character tactically, They weren't punished for that.

A well balanced game gives the DM sound tools to create the encounters of the difficulty they desire. There is no requirement that balanced rulesets be played with aggressively optimized encounters. Balanced rulesets, in fact, make it easier to calibrate encounters to the level of rules mastery of the group.

 

[MacMathan]

Suffice to say, yes you are lucky if you only play with uber DMs and a group of players who are all looking for the same experience in a way that only draws on one or two of the player motivation types that are compatible. Of course with that I imagine any system you play will be great fun