D&D General Rant: Sometimes I Hate the D&D Community

[Oofta]

One of the things that won me over to playing 4e, as I was very comfortable playing 3.5 with all the books I had amassed- sure the game had lots of warts, but enough options existed that I could cobble together something remotely balanced and fun out of it- and it was a game I knew well, unlike this strange new game that seemed half-baked, was it's public play.

D&D Encounters was a blast, and got me out of the house every Wednesday to head to my local game store. And it was a gateway to Living Forgotten Realms, which represented the majority of my ttrpg gaming for a few years.

Why do I bring this up? Because 5e is atrociously bad for public play. The game is impossible to run "as written", and, if each individual table has it's own rulings to follow (or worse, in the case of my FLGS, tries to use RAW and developer tweets as rules over any kind of common sense, lol), it quickly becomes a headache.

Does my character work the same way at table A or table B? I only occasionally had to worry about that in 4e, but man oh man, is it a pain in 5e. After a year, I was done. IMO, 5e can only be played in a home game successfully, which is sad, since I like meeting and playing with other gamers often.

I rather enjoy AL games. If there's ever anything I suspect could be ruled multiple ways I'll ask the DM before the game starts. I can't remember the last time I had to do that because AL forbids house rules, I have no idea where this total chaos you seem to encounter comes from.

 

[Nikosandros]

It's everybody's second favorite system!

It's mostly true for my gaming groups. A great "compromise" edition

 

[James Gasik]

It's everybody's second favorite system!

I really like that quote, payn. It's so true! How often do you hear "5e would be great, but..."?

 

[James Gasik]

I rather enjoy AL games. If there's ever anything I suspect could be ruled multiple ways I'll ask the DM before the game starts. I can't remember the last time I had to do that because AL forbids house rules, I have no idea where this total chaos you seem to encounter comes from.

I'm glad your experience was better than mine. The issue I had was mostly that the FLGS had one guy who organized the game, and he insisted we play by the rules unless there was a developer tweet or errata that covered it.

When I tried running, more than once I would be challenged about a ruling, to have people run to the organizer, or frantically reach for their phones, because surely this is covered!

While I'm just trying to get as much done in the time allotted as possible, so I don't have the time to stop the game to do all that, thank you very much.

And every time a ruling came up that countered mine, I'd be told we have to go with it. Very obnoxious. And heaven forbid I make a change to the adventure to make it more challenging!

No matter how many times I pointed out that I'm allowed to do so by the AL rules, the same couple of people would always gripe that I was trying to kill their characters.

Never no mind I only killed one guy because he thought his 1st level Monk could take on a Troll (albeit a weakened one) in Sunless Citadel!

At any rate, it came to a head for reasons that I can't blame WotC for, lol, (though I do blame them for the way the Dragon fight in Forge of Fury turned out), but I was already soured by the experience at that point, so I ended the adventure (Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan) and never went back.

 

[Oofta]

I'm glad your experience was better than mine. The issue I had was mostly that the FLGS had one guy who organized the game, and he insisted we play by the rules unless there was a developer tweet or errata that covered it.

When I tried running, more than once I would be challenged about a ruling, to have people run to the organizer, or frantically reach for their phones, because surely this is covered!

While I'm just trying to get as much done in the time allotted as possible, so I don't have the time to stop the game to do all that, thank you very much.

And every time a ruling came up that countered mine, I'd be told we have to go with it. Very obnoxious. And heaven forbid I make a change to the adventure to make it more challenging!

No matter how many times I pointed out that I'm allowed to do so by the AL rules, the same couple of people would always gripe that I was trying to kill their characters.

Never no mind I only killed one guy because he thought his 1st level Monk could take on a Troll (albeit a weakened one) in Sunless Citadel!

At any rate, it came to a head for reasons that I can't blame WotC for, lol, (though I do blame them for the way the Dragon fight in Forge of Fury turned out), but I was already soured by the experience at that point, so I ended the adventure (Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan) and never went back.

Sorry you had a bad experience, but I don't think that has much to do with the edition of the game.

 

[James Gasik]

Sorry you had a bad experience, but I don't think that has much to do with the edition of the game.

Maybe? It just felt like having harder rules helped this sort of thing out more. Not that 4e was exempt from bad rules (Stealth's numerous confusing rewrites and how Animal Companions worked before the Sentinel Druid caused a lot of headaches), but overall, reading the ability explained the ability, and corner cases that forced on the spot rulings were less prevalent.

OTOH, I'm willing to admit that the difference was the people I played LFR with were more experienced than the people who I played AL with.

 

[payn]

Maybe? It just felt like having harder rules helped this sort of thing out more. Not that 4e was exempt from bad rules (Stealth's numerous confusing rewrites and how Animal Companions worked before the Sentinel Druid caused a lot of headaches), but overall, reading the ability explained the ability, and corner cases that forced on the spot rulings were less prevalent.

OTOH, I'm willing to admit that the difference was the people I played LFR with were more experienced than the people who I played AL with.

I ran into a lot of this too in Pathfinder Society. Organized games kinda need that structure for consistency, which makes sense. However, there are a legion of players out there that take advantage of it and it gets constraining for a GM and is annoyingly charop driven. You really have to change your expectations of what a game is and how it will be played whenever you go organized, IME.

 

[payn]

I really like that quote, payn. It's so true! How often do you hear "5e would be great, but..."?

The funny thing is nobody seems to agree what that great thing would be is. I mean, I love bounded accuracy, but a lot of folks seem to hate it. Other folks are annoyed by its rulings over rules design philosophy, dont mind that either. I do hate the skill system it feels like a tacked on after thought, but some folks seem to see Ronco "set it and forget it" style skills as a feature. Also, a lot of folks like the easy leveling and grande but fewer feats selection, but I miss it from 3E/PF1 so much.

Despite some of these arguments and disagreements they don't seem to generate the divisiveness of past editions. Folks can pinch their nose and go with it if that's what the group wants. I say this as somebody who has a hardcore viewpoint of D&D and I will admit 5E seems to be the best for newbs and casual players. Which, likely makes it a great option for mixed levels of experienced gamers to get together and play.

 

[ad_hoc]

I recently joined a 5e game. As part of actually trying to grock this thing 5e) I have been reading the threads about 5e rules. (Yes, I've also been reading the rules.) From reading of the threads I have to ask, does anyone playing 5e actually like it as a system?

Many posters here wax lyrical and lovingly about favourite campaign settings, lineages, classes, and of course the great moments in their games. But very few posters speak kindly of the actual system.

Am I wrong in this supposition?

I do. I think it's great. Far and away my favourite RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The funny thing is nobody seems to agree what that great thing would be is. I mean, I love bounded accuracy, but a lot of folks seem to hate it. Other folks are annoyed by its rulings over rules design philosophy, dont mind that either. I do hate the skill system it feels like a tacked on after thought, but some folks seem to see Ronco "set it and forget it" style skills as a feature. Also, a lot of folks like the easy leveling and grande but fewer feats selection, but I miss it from 3E/PF1 so much.

Despite some of these arguments and disagreements they don't seem to generate the divisiveness of past editions. Folks can pinch their nose and go with it if that's what the group wants. I say this as somebody who has a hardcore viewpoint of D&D and I will admit 5E seems to be the best for newbs and casual players. Which, likely makes it a great option for mixed levels of experienced gamers to get together and play.

I wonder if part of the reason people with such different rules likings "pinch their nose and go with it" as you say is the all-pervasive presence of 5e in the gaming community. In short, almost everybody wants to play "the world's greatest role-playing game", and very few comparatively want to play anything else. You make it work because everyone wants to play 5e.