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

[El Mahdi]

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.

I think it would be a given that peoples play experiences would influence their hopes and expectations for 5E. But I disagree significantly with your implications.

I prefer a DM that focuses on presenting a story and an enjoyable shared experience, but those two things are not necessarily mutually compatible.

There are groups (players and DM's) which would not consider a game that presents an interesting story as an enjoyable shared experience.

There are Players as well as DM's, that want an adversarial DM. That want to focus on strictly the gameplay (tactics, strategy, "winning") and wholeheartedly despise any "story" being part of their games.

And those are perfectly viable styles, and do not necessarily mean a lack of "common sense". They are no less a viable and acceptable style than yours and mine's preference of a good story based presentation.

The problem only comes when there is a conflict of expectation within a group. I think most gamers (i.e.: gamers that don't spend as much time thinking and talking about games, like we do here at ENWorld - and we are the minority...) don't necessarily understand the different styles of gameplay. The negative play experiences come from players and DM's that have differing expectations of the game, a lack of communication in expressing them, and a lack of a language to express them.

 

[Melkor]

I think it would be a given that peoples play experiences would influence their hopes and expectations for 5E.

Right. I mention that in the first sentence.

And those are perfectly viable styles, and do not necessarily mean a lack of "common sense".

For the record, the "common sense" portion of my post was not an insult aimed at people who play with adversarial DMs, it was simply me describing how the DMs I have played under do not punish people simply for bad luck, but only when they make really, really bad choices in game...And even then, usually after being given some kind of fair warning.