D&D 5E The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument

[Gardens & Goblins]

What is best in life?

To crush playstyles I do not like, see them driven before me and to hear the lamentations of their significant others.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Elfcrusher

I tend to agree with your general premise BUT...

Isn't wanting others called out for using such an argument really about wanting to stop them from imposing their playstyle on you? I definitely find some irony there.

 

[Lanefan]

But is it really that small, considering how WotC bases some of their publishing decisions on how it will effect AL play? That sounds like the number of AL players and the financial clout they wield is far greater than you are giving them credit for.

This isn't new: back in the day the RPGA often had way more clout than its membership numbers would suggest.

They want AL to be the baseline, and as such it only makes sense they'll pay more attention to what the people playing that baseline (i.e. AL players/DMs) say about the system than what the rest of us say.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I find this section concerning, to the extent that I'm wondering if I'm reading it correctly. It sounds to me like you would desire (the continuance of) an external constraint that gives your personal preferences leverage over the personal preferences of your best friend. Is that correct? If so, wouldn't that mean you were systematically valuing your own preferences over the preferences your friend? How is that compatible with friendship?

(sarcastic response removed in the hopes that I misinterpreted what you are saying)

Frankly I'm puzzled that you find this to be true when talking about a game. Let's say you and your best friend disagree about some aspect of D&D...say whether a Whip should be a finesse weapon...and Mike Mearls called you up and said, "Xetheral...this is a tough one. We need you to make this call for us." Would you really choose your friend's side because that's what friends do?

 

[Guest 6801328]

@Elfcrusher

I tend to agree with your general premise BUT...

Isn't wanting others called out for using such an argument really about wanting to stop them from imposing their playstyle on you? I definitely find some irony there.

No, not at all. If people disagree with my notions about where D&D should go, design-wise, I want to hear about it. I don't think it's imposing their playstyle on me to say, "I hope they never include your idea and would vote against it in a survey." I want to hear why they disagree because I do find it illuminating to learn how other people view & play the game, even when I' m not persuaded.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not sure I follow how if you're not using feats, you're sitting next to someone who does...How is that possible?

Yes. Feats are optional. As is 3e-5e-style multiclassing.

They aren't a "player-by-player option" to choose to use for their character or not. They are to be used, across the board, in a given GAME or not. They are an option for the DM to decide/declare [with players' input or not] in character creation whether players will have the option to use Feats in a given game/campaign.

Otherwise, how is there any fairness among/between characters?

Imagine player A does not like feats and always takes ASIs even in games where feats are available. They feel feats codify things which are best left to DM's discretion. So if that player wants to, in appropriate circumstances, try and block the effects of a dex-save-for-half effect with their shield for example, they can try for it with some sort of roll.

But, with the introduction of feats into the game like Shield Mastery, the overall change to the game is such that the DM is no longer inclined to let Player A try such a thing without the feat - even if that same DM would otherwise be inclined to let Player A try such a "trick" with something like a very high acrobatics check in the right circumstances.

Player B however loves feats, and takes Shield Mastery in that same game.

Do you see now how feats can be a "player-by-player option" to choose to use for their character or not? Player A chooses to never use feats, and Player B chooses to always use feats, and Player A feels Player B's choice makes Player' A's options reduced during the game. Player A views it as a "fairness" issue. But-for Player B choosing to use feats, the DM would have let Player A try something they now cannot try to do in the game without also selecting a feat.

 

[happyhermit]

I find this section concerning, to the extent that I'm wondering if I'm reading it correctly. It sounds to me like you would desire (the continuance of) an external constraint that gives your personal preferences leverage over the personal preferences of your best friend. Is that correct? If so, wouldn't that mean you were systematically valuing your own preferences over the preferences your friend? How is that compatible with friendship?

If I like sports team X and my friend likes sports team Y and they happen to want their favorite team to win I don't go all "What kind of friendship is this? Why are you valuing your preferences over mine?". Same goes for if some rule were to be up for changing, etc. Friends can be on opposite sides of an issue and it shouldn't be a big deal, especially if it's recreation related.

 

[Xetheral]

(sarcastic response removed in the hopes that I misinterpreted what you are saying)

Frankly I'm puzzled that you find this to be true when talking about a game. Let's say you and your best friend disagree about some aspect of D&D...say whether a Whip should be a finesse weapon...and Mike Mearls called you up and said, "Xetheral...this is a tough one. We need you to make this call for us." Would you really choose your friend's side because that's what friends do?

Thank you for changing your reply.

In the specific hypothetical you've presented, if I was asked to make a decision for D&D as a whole, I'd consider whether my preference or my friend's preference was likely to be more widely shared by the rest of the fan base, and then decide based on what I thought was best for the game as a whole. I certainly would not promote my opinion over my friend's opinion simply to stymie him and make it less likely his preference is realized at our table.

By contrast, you said:

It may be my DM is my best friend and loves option X, and if it becomes an official option he's going to use it in our game. And I really don't want that.

That sounds like you're saying you would actively hope that the rules continue to prevent your friend from ever adopting an option he loves. I don't see how such a desire is compatible with considering him your friend, so I wanted to clarify whether I was understanding correctly.

If I like sports team X and my friend likes sports team Y and they happen to want their favorite team to win I don't go all "What kind of friendship is this? Why are you valuing your preferences over mine?". Same goes for if some rule were to be up for changing, etc. Friends can be on opposite sides of an issue and it shouldn't be a big deal, especially if it's recreation related.

I entirely agree with your last point, but I don't think the analogy you chose illustrates the relevant situation very well. Here are few analogies I think are more apt:

1. Friend X hoping that their favorite team always wins and Friend Y's favorite team never wins.
2. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite sports team is disqualified, so that Friend X's favorite team can win by default.
3. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is cancelled so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show, which airs at the same time. (Or, for a more modern audience, Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is dropped from the streaming service so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show.)

My best friend's preferences are as entitled to respect as my own are. When they happen to be mutually exclusive, I'd want to discuss and compromise. I'm not going to hope for an outside restriction to ensure that my preference is always the one that is realized.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you for changing your reply.

In the specific hypothetical you've presented, if I was asked to make a decision for D&D as a whole, I'd consider whether my preference or my friend's preference was likely to be more widely shared by the rest of the fan base, and then decide based on what I thought was best for the game as a whole. I certainly would not promote my opinion over my friend's opinion simply to stymie him and make it less likely his preference is realized at our table.

By contrast, you said:



That sounds like you're saying you would actively hope that the rules continue to prevent your friend from ever adopting an option he loves. I don't see how such a desire is compatible with considering him your friend, so I wanted to clarify whether I was understanding correctly.



I entirely agree with your last point, but I don't think the analogy you chose illustrates the relevant situation very well. Here are few analogies I think are more apt:

1. Friend X hoping that their favorite team always wins and Friend Y's favorite team never wins.
2. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite sports team is disqualified, so that Friend X's favorite team can win by default.
3. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is cancelled so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show, which airs at the same time. (Or, for a more modern audience, Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is dropped from the streaming service so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show.)

My best friend's preferences are as entitled to respect as my own are. When they happen to be mutually exclusive, I'd want to discuss and compromise. I'm not going to hope for an outside restriction to ensure that my preference is always the one that is realized.

Can I just say one thing and I'll be on my way. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen. Trying to get nitty gritty and analyze friendships over a few posts on the internet is absolutely silly. Heck analyizing someone elses friendship and concluding that they must not really be friends is pretty much being a doosh for the lack of a better word.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That sounds like you're saying you would actively hope that the rules continue to prevent your friend from ever adopting an option he loves.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I thought it was clear that in this hypothetical my friend and I had opposed preferences, not that I was neutral on the issue and just wanted to deny him his preference.

Anyway, I'm regretting using the "best friend" example at all.

(I'm sort of regretting starting the thread, really. Just venting over a pet peeve. Never really does much good, does it?)