D&D 5E Some things I don't care for in the D&D culture

[Lucas Yew]

Well, while it is quite abstract compared to the 3.X ones, 5th Edition does have its own share of accurate simulations, like letting a highly trained fighter march 30 feet and kill 4 mooks in line with one blow each, per any six seconds. I'm still frustrated by those people who believe this is impossible in real life, whereas even a guy like me who is physically the polar opposite of a professional soldier can attempt it, barring a shaky accuracy.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The only thing I really dislike about general D&D culture is the deep, abiding assumption by players and DMs that they're doing it wrong if things happen that the DM doesn't have a plan for.

 

[MechaPilot]

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering
The importance for rules to "realistically" portray what "could happen" in a given situation
The concept of speccing and character builds in D&D

Those are the things that have been keeping me away from modern editions of D&D and I want to see what thoughts different folks in the community have about them. Thanks.

Rules lawyering can get annoying, but that's generally where table policy comes into play. I don't get into lengthy or heated rules debates at the table. I make a decision and if a player objects I listen her brief and polite objection before deciding to change my ruling or make it final. Once it's final, it stands until the end of the session (where it can then be discussed outside of the heat of the moment and with time to cross-reference anything that needs it).

Reality isn't something that I'm huge on. D&D was never intended to be a simulation of realistic events, and I feel that not only does D&D accomplish that task poorly, but it also drains any of my enjoyment from the game. Instead, I opt for a more cinematic reality that is more loose on simulating reality.

I don't care about character builds one way or another. Are you having fun playing your character? Does your character have a personality beyond its build? As long as those questions are both answered yes, use whatever build you please.

I left balance for last because everyone seems to actually like balance, its just a matter of what kind of balance one likes. Earlier editions had balance set up so some characters were great early on and other characters were great later on. I call this campaign balance, because it assumes equal contribution across a campaign. That kind of balance created an overlap area of contribution that is commonly called the "sweet spot." Attempting to balance things at each step along the way is an attempt to stretch that sweet spot as far as possible. I think that's a laudable goal regardless of what one thinks of the results.

I will add that the things that I hate most about D&D culture appear to be manifestations of D&D internet culture. I have never seen anyone belittle anyone else's choice of edition or playstyle before visiting online D&D forums.

 

[Jessica]

I'm an MMO fan and I like having options for my characters for "builds" and "specs" or whatever, but that's not because of super optimization. It's because it lets me put my own personal touch on my character's mechanical feel. I play a Tiefling Psion/Vampire in 4e. I play a Tiefling because I fell in love with them after the PHB Races book came out(especially the fluff for House Kahlir) and them being great Psions is just a bonus. I spent quite a few hours on my character poring over every source book I could find planning out my character to make it feel most like how I imagine my character to be. I want my Tiefling to play how I imagine a telepathic bloodsucking diplomat should play.

In 5th edition, I do sometimes power game a bit. But like people point out I make sure not to step on other people's roles too much and use my power gaming for the good of the group. My current character is a level 7 High Elf Necromancer and I provide a small number of zombies to help protect the backline, I have a small number of skeleton archers in the back to provide more artillery, and I use the massive amount of control/utility spells I've memorized to let the melee run crit trains on the humanoid enemies(I don't think anyone begrudges how strong my character is when it's helping their character to just crit the living hell out of something). Whether in 4e or 5e, I tend to play reasonably strong controllers and any optimization I do turns into a benefit for the whole party.

On the subject of D&D having these D&Disms that hurt it's ability to be generic fantasy, I really dislike the turn it's taking. I remember back when I started with 2nd edition, when you read classes the examples they used were like icons from Robin Hood or Greek Mythology or Arthurian tales or other real world mythology. In some books or Dragon articles they might reference Grey Mouser or Fafhrd or Conan or other popular fantasy characters. It felt like D&D was the game you played when you wanted to play a fantasy game in a fantasy setting. Now it feels like as time goes on, D&D becomes more self referential. D&D isn't focused on being the best RPG for playing in a fantasy world that it can be. It seems to be focused on being the best RPG for playing in a D&D world that it can be. It feels like D&D stopped being influenced by popular fantasy and just started being influenced by itself. I mean sometimes D&D takes risks and comes up with some awesome new stuff that breaks new ground, but a lot of times it feels like it's primarily focused on updating everything that has been in D&D previously. It feels hypocritical at times because I really want to see an update for my favorite stuff from previous editions, but at the same time way back when it felt like any given new release was exciting because it might release something new that we have never seen before. Now there is this expectation that the next X amount of releases are going to retread old ground before they might even begin to do something really new.

When it comes to what I hate about D&D culture, it's usually dull, mindless, moronic evil that sometimes permeates the community at times. There are a lot of people who call others garbage for doing something in a way that's different from how they would have done it. There are people who are absolutely hostile to new people or new ideas. I mean look at how condescending the conversation about MMO players can be. I raid a lot on WoW(and I also used to be a pvper as well) and I also play a lot of TTRPGs. My enjoyment of both play off of each other. I like TTRPGs for how player driven they can be and how you have so much freedom to do what you want. I like MMORPGs for how they can provide fun and interesting challenges that focus on high levels of team work and personal skill. Out of both I expect a good story, a social experience, and fun gameplay. I hate that MMO is a dirty word among many in the D&D community. I came from D&D first before I ever played MMOs, but so many MMOs have been able to help me enjoy D&D on a different level than I did previously while D&D influenced my enjoyment of MMOs. The two things aren't at odds with each other imo. They are synergistic.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The only thing I really dislike about general D&D culture is the deep, abiding assumption by players and DMs that they're doing it wrong if things happen that the DM doesn't have a plan for.

I tend to think something is going wrong if my party always acts in ways that I have predicted--or rather if I have everything planned out ahead of time. But then again, I love to improvise--it's probably my favorite part of DMing--and it is the style that is least hampered by creative players.

Now it feels like as time goes on, D&D becomes more self referential. D&D isn't focused on being the best RPG for playing in a fantasy world that it can be. It seems to be focused on being the best RPG for playing in a D&D world that it can be. It feels like D&D stopped being influenced by popular fantasy and just started being influenced by itself. I mean sometimes D&D takes risks and comes up with some awesome new stuff that breaks new ground, but a lot of times it feels like it's primarily focused on updating everything that has been in D&D previously. It feels hypocritical at times because I really want to see an update for my favorite stuff from previous editions, but at the same time way back when it felt like any given new release was exciting because it might release something new that we have never seen before. Now there is this expectation that the next X amount of releases are going to retread old ground before they might even begin to do something really new.

I take the opposite preference on this, and think D&D is at its best when it is trying to be the best D&D than when it is trying to do something new. However, I can sympathize with that not necessarily having been my view back in the TSR days.

So what has changed?

I think it really comes down to backwards compatibility. AD&D (1e+2e) lasted for a looong time, as editions go. They built up this multiverse with a lot of settings and ways they were connected. For a lot of us, that became D&D for us. New settings came out, and you could, if you so chose, get on a spelljamming ship, or hop through a portal and go there. It was all a part of D&DLand.

So now we have a situation where D&D = D&DLand for a lot of people. Then they release a new set of rules, and for the majority of players, those rules are...better. I just can't play AD&D anymore--I got sick of the rules before the edition was even over (I actually stopped playing it in the 90s because the rules bothered me). So new rules are coming out, and I think, "Yay, now I can travel back to D&DLand!"

Except, I can't. Not without a bit of effort at least. The great wheel was more or less intact, except they gutted out some of the fun stuff. Half the compaign settings got, at best, authorized fan support, and the monsters you wanted right now were sprinkled over years and years of products, with initial releases filling up that space with the 'new and exciting.' New and exciting was great in 2e, because everything was going to be new and exciting, since publication continuity was still linear and unbroken. Once 3e came around my thought was, "Dangit--forget this new crap until you have updated D&DLand to this new rules set!"

So it's not that the new stuff isn't interesting, it's that we never asked for the old stuff to be thrown out when the mechanics updated. I want D&DLand, and I don't want to have to spend massive amounts of time doing it myself (monsters are probably one of the most needed official updates), so I can keep playing the same game I was with newer and better mechanics.

It's kind of like WotC is saying, "Okay, finish up your old campaign. D&DLand is no more. Try this sequel now!" What?! I didn't want a new game. It's New World of Darkness replacing Old World of Darkness--that isn't an edition change, that's a new related game. (4e, of course, was even worse than 3e in that regards).

5e is definitely a step in the right direction. They've recognized my demographic exists and realized that embracing D&DLand, along with the things that later editions added to it is better than just making a new related game world. There are still some issues with unfortunate and unneccessary continuity (I'm looking at you, Yugoloth backstory fiasco.) But in general, I don't have to do much to run D&DLand in 5e. All I really need now (other than psionics and some gestalt multiclassing rules) is another monster manual that includes many of the essential planar monsters to fill out the Great Wheel, and some other iconics (like gem dragons and more fey), and some basic spelljamming stuff, and I'm good to go with D&DLand in my favorite ruleset (5e). Then feel free to add all the worlds and settings you want. I can hop a ship and go there.

 

[dd.stevenson]

When it comes to what I hate about D&D culture, it's usually dull, mindless, moronic evil that sometimes permeates the community at times. There are a lot of people who call others garbage for doing something in a way that's different from how they would have done it. There are people who are absolutely hostile to new people or new ideas. I mean look at how condescending the conversation about MMO players can be. I raid a lot on WoW(and I also used to be a pvper as well) and I also play a lot of TTRPGs. My enjoyment of both play off of each other.

I might be mistaken since I have no data, but my impression has generally been that the MMO hate is mainly a messageboard phenomenon. Certainly most of the players i know love both (though there IS a general distaste for players who try to play TTRPGs like they're MMOs.)

I tend to think something is going wrong if my party always acts in ways that I have predicted--or rather if I have everything planned out ahead of time. But then again, I love to improvise--it's probably my favorite part of DMing--and it is the style that is least hampered by creative players.

Nod. But in all fairness, even today's DMG doesn't do a great job of teaching DMs how to improvise; the best 5E era resource I've seen so far has been Rodney's UA article, which as an improv guide leaves some things to be desired. And for much of its lifetime D&D was ambivalent or even downright hostile to players wanting to leave the beaten path.