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

[Neonchameleon]

It always depresses me how many entitled GMs there are that seem to find it their sovereign right to cripple any hope I have of immersion.

If I do not know in reasonable detail what my character can do then I can not immerse in that character. I'm someone who quite literally doesn't know whether they can walk a tightrope under average conditions. (Hint: for me, neonchameleon, the answer is definitely "no" - but like a lot of skills it's generally something you either can do with a pretty good chance of success or something you can't; there are fairly ordinary people out there who practice slackline yoga). I've a pretty good knowledge of what I can do - and to set out to deny me that is to set out to deny me the ability to roleplay anyone other than an amnesiac or someone newly hatched.

3.X went overboard on its benchmarks and got them backwards (the benchmarks should be things you can do at a given skill level - so with a +5 in acrobatics or balance you should be reliably able to walk a tightrope without rolling) but the attempt was there (even if walking an ordinary tightrope is a surface less than 1" wide and by the epic rules is DC 40 in 3.5, RAW - one of the obvious places where the DC system messed up).

If I don't have a clear idea of what my character thinks they can do I can't immerse in that character. If what my character thinks they can do is seriously flawed then my character can do then my character is delusional - and I'd rather know in advance that I've set up a delusional character.

As for getting on the same page, the default page should be "Playing naively, fairly, and with intent to put up a strong showing". No, Pun-Pun counts as neither naive nor fair. The default assumption for game design should be always that where the PC has control of the choice, making the right one (as in picking equipment) is literally sometimes a matter of life or death so they should be assumed to not want sub-standard equipment. And that playing hard but honourably and respecting the intent of the rules while doing things like picking the spells that look best is the easiest default to settle on. For one thing it's a pretty obvious benchmark and playing less intensely than that is a challenge to say how and for people to match themselves to the group.

This doesn't say that games where players don't play at least naively strongly shouldn't exist. But everyone who's saying they like playing sub-standard characters should by doing so be openly acknowledging that they play their own version of the game and that that is not and should not be the default for open groups. For that matter they should also realise that "I'm roleplaying someone who likes walking into the jaws of death with sub-par equipment" says a lot about the character they are roleplaying. It's an intense character choice they are making there (a valid one - but an intense character decision all the same and should be treated as such).

On the running away: The scenario was during an ambush, not 2/3 into a fight that has gone horribly wrong.

Ambushes are bad. You are fighting at a time and a place of the enemy's choosing. Clearly the enemy thinks it has a good chance of winning, otherwise they would have left the party pass - 3 grubby goblins aren't going to attack a group of 6 heavily armed and *dangerous looking* travelers. The enemy has chosen this position for the ability to strike by surprise but also because the position is advantageous - it has features which protect the ambushers or hinder the party. The enemy is ready with all their gear and magic at hand.

Unless this is one of those particularly dastardly ambush where the escape route has been cut off, sheer common sense demands a fighting withdrawal. The enemy has you *where it wants you* and thinks it will win. Why on earth would you want to play that game?!? Get out, now. Don't wait to see. Even if all you do is back off a bit - and hoping the enemy will foolishly pursue (right into your fireball) - you might at leas get even grounds vs the murder gauntlet.

So... Why do PCs often *not* run from this situation? Well...

1: The players are dumb. Maybe, but probably not.
2: The DM plays the ambushers stupidly - as in they are launching attacks on people they really shouldn't, they don't ask themselves "can we win?" - AND the players know this.
3: The players are metagaming. "Surely the DM wouldn't set a deadly ambush on our way to the great dungeon of doom? This is just a "warm up fight", we can take this".

So it's not an edition problem, it's a bad gaming problem.

4: Either I'm overconfident or I think they are overconfident. Or both. Unless they came armed for me personally, I think that we're a tougher nut than they expected to be able to crack and the mistake is actually theirs.
5: Because running is the single most stupid choice on the table. If we run we get hit in the back. And unless I'm playing the monk or the wizard they can run us down and put spears between our shoulderblades.
6: It's better to live on our feet than die on our knees. And if I didn't make that decision I wouldn't be an adventurer.
7: I think they are bluffing.
8: They prepared the ambush - what on earth gives me the impression that the apparent obvious escape route is safe rather than another part in their trap?

Historical battles had the majority of their casualties inflicted after the rout started. When instead of trying to advance against enemies with weapons in hand they were skewering the slowest in the back. Indeed, all else being equal, staying to fight the ambush is probably the smart tactical choice and running is a choice that will almost certainly get the slowest of our party members killed.

Ambushes are bad. But running away from one when you are part of a group normally makes things even worse.

 

[happyhermit]

I feel you've somewhat missed my point. It relates back to the discussion with @Elfcrusher about player agency. I'm also not sure how you are both denying making value judgements and saying that decisions make less sense. That looks like a (negative or pejorative) value judgement to me.

I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding exactly. I will try to clarify. Metagaming decisions tend to result in decisions that make less sense for the character, and that matters to some people more than others. There is a different approach that has (for some) pretty much solved any such problems, without adding any unnecessary complication to the system. Player agency as defined elsewhere (making meaningful decisions with a reasonably idea of the chance of success and the consequences) is at it's maximum in this situation. IMO.

A lot of people tend to make the mistake of assuming that "matches my preferences best" equals "biggest tent".

A smaller amount of people tend to make the mistake of assuming that simply stating something makes it fact, and that others should accept it as such. You said 3e was the biggest tent, and gave no reasons. I pointed out that 3e made totm difficult, RAW.

To you, that makes my argument less valid, because I gave an example that supports my argument

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If I do not know in reasonable detail what my character can do then I can not immerse in that character.

As a kid, my friends and I thought we had so much "immersion" playing cops-n-robbers. If I'd only known then, that I was doing it wrong, without a 9-page character sheet detailing all my abilities...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would argue that 5e probably has the biggest "tent" that D&D has designed, based on the fact that it isn't actively hostile to any style of play that D&D has ever catered to. Especially when one takes into account optional rules in the DMG.

I think 'actively hostile' is a bit of a stretch to pin on any prior edition. Now, the community at the time the edition was current may be another matter. 3.5 explicitly spelled out Rule 0, just in case you had any doubts about whether you could go ahead and change rules to fit your style, that's stopping at least a bit short of open hostility to other styles - but the community at the time was RAW-happy, and that could be quite hostile to, or at the very least dismissive of, anything requiring 'house rules.' 4e was comparatively (for D&D) robustly balanced, and open to re-skinning, so unless your style of play depended upon marked class imbalance, it could probably accommodate you without too much difficulty - but there was a tremendous level of hostility in the community the whole time it was the current edition.

5e is both very open, even insistent, about DMs being free to change/ignore/override the rules, which helps it accommodate any style, at least, as you say, to the extend of not being hostile, and it's community has suffered from a much lower level of hostility, as well. If that hasn't pitched a big enough tent, there just may not be enough canvas in the world.

Now, it wouldn't actually bother me if certain play-style were discouraged necessarily... but 5e really doesn't.

I guess it depends on what you consider necessary. If you consider DM Empowerment and player Empowerment to be antithetical, some sort of 0 sum kinda thing, then it's necessary to discourage (or at least, subordinate) styles that depend on player empowerment. That includes the system-mastery-rewarding style of 3.x, and the kind of more 'narrativist' player-driven-storytelling styles that 4e hinted at supporting (but is really more the realm of indie games).

Thing is, the DM can always just choose to change the system to support whatever style he has in mind.

I find this very interesting actually. You seem to like more codified rule-sets and 4e in particular (I could be wrong but it seems like that is what you have been saying).

4e was a good edition of D&D, but I started with 1e, and the observation I'm making applies to all editions.

It's just the nature of players. If a player knows the system that will be used to resolve a potential action, he'll approach that action differently than if he doesn't. Similarly, if the player knows the DM well, that will color how he approaches actions. If players are used to DM-mediated actions giving better results than those resolved via an explicit system, that will inform their decisions, too.

Given the two seemingly very different experiences and preferred play styles (which again I may be wrong and you prefer 5e)

You're reading too much into commentary about rules.

My preferred style is improv. I don't generally prep encounters or write up NPCs or monsters in detail (unless it's just trivially easy to do so, and even then, I won't stick to what's written down), don't use published adventures unless the venue expects it, and generally like to riff off what my players show interest in. It's a fun style, and 5e is ideal for it (perhaps more properly, the attitude 5e promotes is ideal for it). But it's not the only style I'll run or play under, and it doesn't prevent me from having informed opinions about rules, nor from accumulating over 30 years of personal experience seeing how players react to different situations, from both sides of the screen, nor from seeing correlations between the two.

And, yes, when a system presents clear options players will weigh the likelihood of success and make a decision, and when the system leaves vague areas that depend on the DM for resolution, players will avoid or seek out those grey areas depending on what they know of the DM's attitudes, and what they think of their chances working within the clearer areas of the system. Not always consciously in a decision tree like that, but players get a feel for what works and what doesn't. In systems with a lot of codified rules, gaming the system works - until an errata nerfs your exploit or the DM has had enough of it, anyway. In systems that depend heavily on DM interpretation, gaming the DM works.

Indeed, the assumption that skill rolls were auto-wins "Yo, no way the King can beat my DC! He has to hand over his crown, queen and kingdom!" started in 3e,

For Diplomancy it certainly did, thanks to that one table of static DCs. That was really kind of a "one mistake..." thing, though, since 3e didn't have huge numbers of static difficulties, in general the DM was free to set appropriate DCs.

"if you succeed on the roll your stated outcome happens". While not bad per se, it is unique, and as such presents unique compatibility issues between DMs and Players who are conditioned to that roll/reward system and those that aren't.

What you leave out is that the DC to get that stated outcome is set by the DM, and just might be "40 more than you could ever possibly roll." ;P

4e just put it in the compendium (which is what everyone I've ever played 4e with used)

DDI Compendium or Essentials Rules Compendium?

On the running away: The scenario was during an ambush, Ambushes are bad,sheer common sense demands a fighting withdrawal.

Certainly if that's what the DM believes it demands, that's what it demands.

So it's not an edition problem.

It's really not an edition problem: every edition has suffered from it. It's a D&D problem.

True. If I had the choice between playing organized Adventure League 5E, or staying home and reading a Jim Butcher or David Weber book, I'd pick the book. It's more exciting.

It's a matter of taste. I'd prefer a David Drake.

But I'll happily set it aside to run 5e. And, hopefully, deliver a higher level of entertainment than the 'too easy' baseline.

It always depresses me how many entitled GMs there are that seem to find it their sovereign right to cripple any hope I have of immersion.

If I do not know in reasonable detail what my character can do then I can not immerse in that character.

Oh noes! Not the all-important, crystalline, immersion!

5: Because running is the single most stupid choice on the table. If we run we get hit in the back. And unless I'm playing the monk or the wizard they can run us down and put spears between our shoulderblades

There /should/ be times when withdrawing makes sense and discretion is the better part of valor. D&D just doesn't do a great job modeling those times, if it did, they wouldn't be such a bad idea, by the numbers, when they're appropriate.

6: It's better to live on our feet than die on our knees. And if I didn't make that decision I wouldn't be an adventurer.

A certain kind of hero or adventurer, anyway.

Historical battles had the majority of their casualties inflicted after the rout started.

True, but historical battles make a pretty grim basis for a game. 300 was a great movie (OK, yeah, and ahistorical in the extreme), but it was a TPK.

You said 3e was the biggest tent, and gave no reasons. I pointed out that 3e made totm difficult, RAW.

More difficult than what? Other editions of D&D? Not really. D&D has always used nice, precise ranges and areas and movement rates which make TotM a PitA without a lot of arbitrary DM hand-waving. Funny you should mention 'RAW' though, the community's insistence on RAW probably shrank that tent a good deal.

 

[Krachek]

Challenge in DnD demands DM and players cooperation and sharing a common style.
DM can always overwhelm or underwhelm players.
Too much logic, paranoid or over confident players is never good for challenge.
It's the middle way that make good challenge.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a kid, my friends and I thought we had so much "immersion" playing cops-n-robbers. If I'd only known then, that I was doing it wrong, without a 9-page character sheet detailing all my abilities...

This is a near perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. As a kid playing cops and robbers literally the only thing you don't know about what you can do is whether the kid you're playing with is going to be a jackass and no-sell your shot. Everything else is within your sphere of understanding and you do not have to go to a third party and ask for approval before doing things. If you're going to do things in a game of cops and robbers, you just do them. It's not Cops, Robbers, and Internal Oversight you need to ask in advance.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

This is a near perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. As a kid playing cops and robbers literally the only thing you don't know about what you can do is whether the kid you're playing with is going to be a jackass and no-sell your shot. Everything else is within your sphere of understanding and you do not have to go to a third party and ask for approval before doing things. If you're going to do things in a game of cops and robbers, you just do them. It's not Cops, Robbers, and Internal Oversight you need to ask in advance.

One player in our cops-n-robbers games was always designated 'the judge'. So we did have a rules adjudicator when things got fuzzy. Still didn't wreck our immersion...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's a matter of taste. I'd prefer a David Drake.

I really enjoy Drake's RCN series.

Back on topic: I saw a quote in Tony's post from someone who said that running is a tactically stupid choice because "if we run we get hit in the back." Such people do not know how to powergame 5E. Use one of your attacks (or help from a buddy) to knock an enemy prone, and the rest of your attacks to attack him at advantage. Then retreat 30'. He gets exactly one opportunity attack on you, at disadvantage for being prone, while you just got a full attack sequence at advantage, minus whatever it took to push him prone, on him. You're doubling or tripling your efficiency in this combat (depending on how high your Athletics skill is and how many buddies you've got), compared to just flailing away with your attack rolls every round.

Fighting retreats are a terrific tactic in 5E even if you're just a bog-standard melee fighter or paladin with Str 18 and Athletics proficiency.

 

[Umbran]

(even if walking an ordinary tightrope is a surface less than 1" wide and by the epic rules is DC 40 in 3.5, RAW - one of the obvious places where the DC system messed up).

Um, when Nik Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon, he did so on a cable that was 2" wide. If you are trying for realism: tightrope walkers do not typically walk on the thin stuff an adventurer carries around for climbing out of pits and tying up bad guys. Our game worlds typically have pretty much one all-inclusive "rope" while in the real world we use different rope for tying up bundles, climbing, tightrope walking, and mooring large ships.

Historical battles had the majority of their casualties inflicted after the rout started.

True, as I understand it, but I don't know if it is applicable, as historical battles are with hundreds and thousands of men, and your adventuring party is maybe a half-dozen. And, you know, the historical battles didn't have magic, and all.

There are better arguments than this historical analogy. Like, how any group in combat, no matter the size, gains much of its power and ability from mutual support of the members (which is why treachery is so devastating). If you break and run, you stop supporting each other, while the enemy does not. This means you lose tactical strength, and they don't, which is probably not a good bet when you aren't *sure* you can break off the fight entirely by doing it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm going to answer the first quote in my response to Tony.

A smaller amount of people tend to make the mistake of assuming that simply stating something makes it fact, and that others should accept it as such. You said 3e was the biggest tent, and gave no reasons. I pointed out that 3e made totm difficult, RAW.

To you, that makes my argument less valid, because I gave an example that supports my argument

I think 'actively hostile' is a bit of a stretch to pin on any prior edition. Now, the community at the time the edition was current may be another matter. 3.5 explicitly spelled out Rule 0, just in case you had any doubts about whether you could go ahead and change rules to fit your style, that's stopping at least a bit short of open hostility to other styles - but the community at the time was RAW-happy, and that could be quite hostile to, or at the very least dismissive of, anything requiring 'house rules.' 4e was comparatively (for D&D) robustly balanced, and open to re-skinning, so unless your style of play depended upon marked class imbalance, it could probably accommodate you without too much difficulty - but there was a tremendous level of hostility in the community the whole time it was the current edition.

5e is both very open, even insistent, about DMs being free to change/ignore/override the rules, which helps it accommodate any style, at least, as you say, to the extend of not being hostile, and it's community has suffered from a much lower level of hostility, as well. If that hasn't pitched a big enough tent, there just may not be enough canvas in the world.

I don't know about that Tony, there has been a lot of hostility in this thread. Hostility towards taking a 3E or 4E approach to playing 5E, and hostility towards any sort of criticism of 5E. Maybe not the level of hostility of the 4E edition wars, but comparable to the hostility during the 3E era amongst the 3E community IMO.

As for my claim that 3E was the biggest tent for D&D, it dominated the RPG world more than any edition before or since. 5E exists alongside Pathfinder, 4E holdouts, and IMO more people playing AD&D/retroclones than during the 3E era, while in comparison 3E was the overwhelmingly dominant D&D. In comparison to previous editions, 3E dominated the wider RPG world to a greater extent than AD&D ever did.

As for the rules themselves, they tried to be everything to everyone, and had some mixed success in that regard. People certainly used 3E for a wider range of play styles than anything before or since.

Also, look at the online community, I was present for the online community during 3E's era, and it was a lot livelier than it is now. Enworld itself is a lot quieter now than I remember it back then.