D&D 5E Things 5E has taught you about your playstyle.

[Minigiant]

Oh another thing we learned is that we always wanted to do humanoid noncasters as bad guys.

Previous editions had made noncaster villains either weak, boring, or dull mechanically.

Now I can finally run the evil super monk and crazed serial killer ranger and not have it fall flat or rely on blatant cheating.

 

[Sadras]

It doesn't happen like that for me unfortunately. A lot of preconceived notions and expectations from previous editions + rules lawyerly mentality = lots of arguments in 5e at my table.

I'm sorry this is happening to you.

We aren't in the mentality yet that the DM is the rules, we are still in the mindset that the book is the rules.

This is one way of seeing it - and if it works great, but personally I have found, that when disagreements about a rule hit the table where neither party can convince the other, it is better to put all your heads together to work towards a reasonable solution/ruling that accommodates everyone and then continue playing with the understanding that you, as DM at any stage, can veto any rule you are not comfortable with and that you may after the session post on Enworld to obtain proof and clarity of how something should work.
Most importantly do not let the negative cut into your game time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Most importantly do not let the negative cut into your game time.

One of the things that I've found helpful: remember the point. The point of the game is not to get the rules right. The point of the game is to enjoy yourself. It's worth getting the rules wrong or going with an interpretation you don't agree with to have fun with friends. Presumably, if you're playing D&D, you like to have fun with friends, and part of the reason you're playing D&D instead of doin' other stuff is because fun with friends comes from bein' an imaginary elf. So don't let the rules get in the way of that. It's not very important. What's important is fun with friends!

 

[ExploderWizard]

One of the things that I've found helpful: remember the point. The point of the game is not to get the rules right. The point of the game is to enjoy yourself. It's worth getting the rules wrong or going with an interpretation you don't agree with to have fun with friends. Presumably, if you're playing D&D, you like to have fun with friends, and part of the reason you're playing D&D instead of doin' other stuff is because fun with friends comes from bein' an imaginary elf. So don't let the rules get in the way of that. It's not very important. What's important is fun with friends!

This is all too often forgotten.

In the context of having fun with friends, discussions and occasional differences of opinion regarding the rules can be a good thing. A bit of openness for interpretation means that player creativity and input can have a larger impact on the play of the game which is something I find desirable. Hundreds of pages of rules detailing exactly what is and isn't possible to the nth degree is not very compatible and friendly to game play driven by the imagination of the participants.

 

[IchneumonWasp]

I learned that I actually enjoy playing non-spellcaster character more than spellcasters. Fighters are awesome.

 

[Blue]

Funny though, because three different youtube channels I've watched of 5e (one of them quite popular) they have exactly the same issue. Arguments over stealth rules, arguments over sneak attack, arguments what spells can be twinned, and so forth and so forth. Same channels run 4e and pathfinder - no issue.

A lot of this is also because 5e is new, so DM's don't have that established authority of "I've been DMing for x number of years now". Players feel they're just as experienced as the DMs and can challenge them, and more players are DM's themselves so everyone has their own idea of how the game should be ran.

But the vague ruleset does leave itself open for arguments. Pathfinder? Not an issue because there is 600 pages of rules alone in the players guide, so there is a very clear contract of how the game should be played. 5e? Not so much.

One part of the social contract for games of this type I put up front when I DM is that after a brief time to discuss if there are rule disagreements or we can't find the rules, I'll make a ruling so we can move on with the session and we can address it off-line. There needs to be player trust that I won't just randomly kill them over a debated rule. But by bringing it up ahead of time they know that whatever placeholder ruling I use isn't setting precedent and we can discuss, but at the table we'd rather play then argue.

Though I did have a discussion right before a session about expectations for level for replacement characters brought in, and everyone was very cautious that session that I expected deaths. I didn't, it's just that is the sort of thing I like to get set before it's affecting someone and emotions are on the line.

 

[Blue]

My "playstyle" changes from game to game depending on how I perceive it's best to play with a given rules set and genre. I don't approach D&D 5e the same way I approach D&D 4e. I don't approach D&D 4e the same way I approach D&D 3e. And so on. Dungeon World, 13th Age, Fate, Marvel Heroic... different games, different playstyles.

I think that keeping the same playstyle from game to game is inviting trouble to the table.

I'm with you - there are lots of good games out there, and we're picking one to run a campaign in because of what it brings, not in spite of it.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I remember some of the rather horrible 3E and Pathfinder rules interpretation wars. So, so much hate unleashed in those...

I'm hoping that 5E avoids most of that.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

So far, from both playing and DMing 5E, I've learned that I much prefer the Advantage/Disadvantage system to stacking bonuses of previous editions. Back in the day, I used to enjoy the theorycrafting of building up a character who had "combos" of different spells, abilities, and features to let me get large bonuses in different areas and be awesome. Such as a character designed to be great at sneaking, breaking into places, and stealing stuff. Or characters designed to be defensive 'tanks' with options to boost their AC, punish targets that try to run away with AoO's and such things.

Eventually, the table play became less satisfying to me than the concept. Keeping track of all the bonuses, from multiple different sources and often with different durations, was an absolute nightmare. It also completely sucked me out of an RP mindset. I kept trying to get into my characters and narrate my actions, or keep things interesting for my PC's by narrating their foes, but so much time was taken going over buffs and adding bonuses and rolling attacks and oh wait he gets a +2 bonus from that aura and - I was losing my interest and focus FAST.

This has completely turned around with 5E. I've been having an absolute blast both DMing and playing. Mechanics are simpler in both creation and use, but decisions are still important. I have more time to narrate and RP what my character and NPCs do, without making my turns take literal minutes of just adding bonuses and rolling dice.

In a nutshell, I learned that my playstyle favors more narrative gameplay and is easiest to maintain when the mechanics of the game are simpler than past editions.

 

[Eirikrautha]

See, 5e seems to recognize the fundamental paradox of DMing. Strong rules systems attempt to reduce the uncertainty in the game, and hope to reduce the chances that a DM can ruin the game for you. The paradox is that the same strong system also makes it impossible for the DM to make the game exceptional as well. As you reduce the risk of bad DMing, you reduce the ability of the DM to make the adventure epic.

I like the fact that 5e is willing to let the DM aspire to greatness, rather than shackling him to the role of mere referee. The last few iterations of D&D (and Pathfinder) have felt far more like D&D: The Boardgame than what I played back in 1e. Sure, there might be fewer arguments about rules (notice I said "might" ... I'm not convinced it's actually true), but at what cost? I'd much rather have the chance of unforgettable and risk the occasional lousy than trade it for guaranteed mediocre...