D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Blue]

"Can I hit that guy hard enough that his breastplate comes loose and he doesn't benefit from that for his AC for the rest of the fight?"

(Most DMs say no way)

In a game like 4e, you just declare "I am using my Daily Power Crack the Shell," and roleplay out the attack and consequences.

Rule 0 still applies, but this time it's, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] points out, earlier in the process (when the PC levels up and takes the power) rather than at the moment of using the power in order to maintain control of the narrative.

Umm, there's no need to ask the DM that, because he doesn't have a power int he first place to allow him to do it.

If the question really is "can I get super extra powers just by asking the DM", that's a whole different take than that he wants his powers to be reliable and not require "whim" like he's said several time.

 

[iserith]

By the way, somebody compared 4e to Dungeon World but I really struggle with that comparison.

Dungeon World has even fewer specific abilities than 5e. Almost everything you do (or try to do) falls under a very general/broad skill, like "Defy Danger" or "Spout Lore", and every character can use any of them. The DM then has nearly unlimited authority to interpret the dice results.

I only vaguely recall the post you mention, but it may have been in reference to how constrained the DM is with regard to the rules. Dungeon World GMs are very constrained by D&D standards. The rules in the GM section of the Dungeon World specifically say how the agenda, principles, moves, fronts, etc. are a prescription for how they are to run the game rather than tips or guidelines on how best to play. A common perception is that D&D 4e DMs are constrained in a similar fashion and, while I find this to be true in practice (even when I run D&D 4e), it's not true by the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Huh?

It's an example that gives way more agency to the player (She decides the's going to lower the AC of the enemy, rather than play "Mother May I?" with the DM), and it's a design decision made by the designers!

I think we're using "player agency" much differently. It seems like you are using it to mean "range of available mechanical options".

So if, in 4e, a player doesn't have that particular daily ability, wouldn't he/she have to play "Mother May I?" in order to try it? And what would the DM say? "No", right? So that's absence of player agency (by your apparent definition).

Is there a move in 4e that allows a player to stab an enemy in the eye, messing with their depth perception and giving them a penalty to range shots? (Sorry, I'm not familiar with 4e so I don't know what whacky abilities are in there.) So if a player wants to do that, and the DM gets to decide yes/no, that's lack of player agency?

That's a very weird definition of player agency.

I use "player agency" to mean "the player and nobody else decides what the player does and thinks". So the player might say, "I try to cut the leather straps on my opponent's breast-plate so that his armor falls off" and the DM says, "Ok, make a roll". Whether or not it works, whatever DC the DM gave it (or if he's even giving it a DC at all) that's player agency: the player dictated what his character was doing, and the character did it. It's when the DM says, "No, you can't even try that" that player agency is lost.

Some people like to argue, "Ok, then I'll have my fighter cast fireball, and if you say no that's taking away my agency." No, it's not. The player should be free to wave his arms around and try to repeat the words he heard the wizard say. That's player agency. Whether it works or not has nothing to do with agency.

 

[Eric V]

Umm, there's no need to ask the DM that, because he doesn't have a power int he first place to allow him to do it.

If the question really is "can I get super extra powers just by asking the DM", that's a whole different take than that he wants his powers to be reliable and not require "whim" like he's said several time.

Ummm...this is the OP's point. In some versions of the game, he can pull off stunts he's seen in countless movies and novels. And he just declares it. And it's one of several maneuvers he can choose when he levels up. There's optimization to be had. In the current version of the game, he has to ask if he can try such a maneuver (or not even bother asking in your game, apparently) and there is no choice to be made leveling up, so we arrive at the crux of his problem.

 

[Eric V]

I think we're using "player agency" much differently. It seems like you are using it to mean "range of available mechanical options".

So if, in 4e, a player doesn't have that particular daily ability, wouldn't he/she have to play "Mother May I?" in order to try it? And what would the DM say? "No", right?

No idea what each individual DM would say (I knew one who would only allow Daily power choices that the PC tried out as hoc in the game before getting them...he called it "training" in the maneuver before it becoming reliable, which is to say, the official power), but the point is that the option is there for the PC to choose if he/she wants. Yes, there's opportunity cost (a must, or the choices mean nothing) but that's part of the player agency.

 

[Blue]

Ummm...this is the OP's point. In some versions of the game, he can pull off stunts he's seen in countless movies and novels. And he just declares it. And it's one of several maneuvers he can choose when he levels up. There's optimization to be had. In the current version of the game, he has to ask if he can try such a maneuver (or not even bother asking in your game, apparently) and there is no choice to be made leveling up, so we arrive at the crux of his problem.

I'd like to hear it from the OP, not what you believe his point is. I don't remember that has he said in this thread that he wanted access to powers that aren't in 5e, I've only heard that from you. He has said several times that he wants his abilities to work without it being considered DM whim. We've asked and asked for examples which would help clarify.

If he's talking reliably getting extra effect out of what he can do just because he asks for it, then this becomes a much easier thread. "5e Adventure League (the CoS game he's been talking about) doesn't support that. Next question."

 

[ExploderWizard]

The thing for me for 5E is that I can't count on the DM.

If you ever find yourself in that situation then just don't play. I assume any new DM I sit down to play with is going to run a fair and fun game and keep playing unless they prove otherwise. Worse case scenario- the DM is a complete tool. Hey you just played one session, nothing stopping you from not returning to that table.

OXMG, what about it? Every since "Pursuit & Evasion of Pursuit" in the 1e DMG, D&D has consistently and utterly failed to give PC parties a viable 'run away' option. Seriously. DM-hand-waving required. In theory, 4e Skill Challenges offered a way to finally handle escaping an encounter as a viable/playable option. They were never that well-presented, though, and were initially as broken as any sub-system I'd ever seen (early SCs actually got /easier/ as you raised the primary indicator of difficulty, 'complexity').

I am baffled at what you consider a "viable" run away option. The AD&D rules worked out quite well when actually utilized. Dumping food & treasure, along with other distractions combined with not being stupid provides a party with decent chances to evade. There isn't an " I evade using X" power, the players actually have to think on their feet.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think we're using "player agency" much differently. It seems like you are using it to mean "range of available mechanical options".

So if, in 4e, a player doesn't have that particular daily ability, wouldn't he/she have to play "Mother May I?" in order to try it? And what would the DM say? "No", right? So that's absence of player agency (by your apparent definition).

Is there a move in 4e that allows a player to stab an enemy in the eye, messing with their depth perception and giving them a penalty to range shots? (Sorry, I'm not familiar with 4e so I don't know what whacky abilities are in there.) So if a player wants to do that, and the DM gets to decide yes/no, that's lack of player agency?

That's a very weird definition of player agency.

I use "player agency" to mean "the player and nobody else decides what the player does and thinks". So the player might say, "I try to cut the leather straps on my opponent's breast-plate so that his armor falls off" and the DM says, "Ok, make a roll". Whether or not it works, whatever DC the DM gave it (or if he's even giving it a DC at all) that's player agency: the player dictated what his character was doing, and the character did it. It's when the DM says, "No, you can't even try that" that player agency is lost.

Some people like to argue, "Ok, then I'll have my fighter cast fireball, and if you say no that's taking away my agency." No, it's not. The player should be free to wave his arms around and try to repeat the words he heard the wizard say. That's player agency. Whether it works or not has nothing to do with agency.

The best definition of "agency" I've ever read is "the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention." D&D and other TTRPGs are fundamentally a game about Choose Your Own Adventure with infinite resolution--but Choose Your Own Adventure is not satisfying unless you know what you're choosing. "Do you push the mysterious red button or the black button?" doesn't feel like an exercise player agency even if the DM has predetermined that the red button gives you +10,000 XP and the black button disintegrates you, because the player has no clue what is going on. Agency therefore requires the player to have some set of reasonable expectations about the results of his choice (even if the DM occasionally deliberately subverts those expectations).

More here: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/10/on-theory-defined-player-agency.html

But using the term "agency" to refer to the mechanical complexity of the fiat actions which a player can declare (a la "Crack the Shell" referenced in the quote in #322 upthread; sorry I don't know the original post number of the quote) is to misunderstand what the word means. 5E players have exactly as much agency in this regard as players of any other edition. Agency is not really a property of a ruleset when it comes to D&D; it's more a property of your DM's adventure design and approach to fudging/etc.

Also, this post is fantastic:

If 2 paths are given, and each has a different perspective or experience, and this is communicated to the player, then as long as the expectations are maintained; agency is maintained.

Let's drill down on this example a little bit:

Two paths diverge in a wood, at the end of both (where they meet again) there is a boss fight with an ogre.

If the left path is creepy and spooky and the player takes the left path and it's filled with skeletons, agency is maintained. If the left path is creepy and spooky and then the player walks down it to discover rainbows and unicorns agency is not maintained. The same as if the path were bright and sunny, and you keep getting attacked by ghosts and undead. Players were unable to take an action that matched their intent.

The fact that both paths end in a boss fight with an ogre is meaningless, especially in a video game. Chokepoints with boss fights are basic expectations in video games.

Significant Choice

The significance of the choice the player makes is not related to the agency of the player. What determines if a player has agency is if they A) have an intent and B) are allowed to take action that matches that intent. That is the determinator of agency.

What's important here is that they, on some level, understand the consequences of their choices beforehand. That allows them to have an intent. They have (or gather) information that allows them to make a choice where they have some idea of the outcome.

 

[Prism]

And even if there isn't a single thing you can do in 5e that it's in 4e, there are still a universe of possible actions that aren't in either game. So the difference is a matter of degree and not a fundamental distinction.

There are of course a huge variety of non codified actions that you can perform in any edition. However 4e doesn't often play like that and to be honest doesn't need to. The game is focused on giving the players the power to dictate their own character actions, how those action affected the monsters (no DM input needed) and fairly often the ability to dictate the monsters actions too. The system gives the players great control of combat situations and through skill challenges out of combat also.

Eric V's crack the shell example is but one of many that can litter every combat. If the fighter wants to ensure that most if not all of the enemies cluster around him, therefore keeping the other party members safe, it is very difficult as a DM to do much else than play to the fighters powers. If you plan to have a sneaky monster sneak up on the party wizard during the combat for a devastating attack, there are so many reaction type abilities that players could use to prevent you doing that. The players are definitely more empowered to control the situation than in 5e. For me, as a DM it got quite frustrating. The players tend to like it though

 

[Guest 6801328]

There are of course a huge variety of non codified actions that you can perform in any edition. However 4e doesn't often play like that and to be honest doesn't need to. The game is focused on giving the players the power to dictate their own character actions, how those action affected the monsters (no DM input needed) and fairly often the ability to dictate the monsters actions too. The system gives the players great control of combat situations and through skill challenges out of combat also.

Eric V's crack the shell example is but one of many that can litter every combat. If the fighter wants to ensure that most if not all of the enemies cluster around him, therefore keeping the other party members safe, it is very difficult as a DM to do much else than play to the fighters powers. If you plan to have a sneaky monster sneak up on the party wizard during the combat for a devastating attack, there are so many reaction type abilities that players could use to prevent you doing that. The players are definitely more empowered to control the situation than in 5e. For me, as a DM it got quite frustrating. The players tend to like it though

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.