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

[SkidAce]

My point, and then I'm out.

Say that other games are better suited (positive input) for a particular style all you like.

Stop telling me that D&D is not for "X" (negative input).

We mostly play DnD*. We have used it for every genre and every style. We like it as a framework. It is capable and compatible with any style of play you can mention.

We like playing this way. We like the tropes, the monsters, the world, etc. D&D is our go to game.

Game on!




---
* please don't make the mistake of assuming we don't know X cause we haven't played it. We've played "everything".

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Common misconceptions are still misconceptions.

D&D is no more, and no less, combat focused than any other big-name RPG on the market.

I can't agree with this at all. I've played oWoD and nWoD extensively, and would definitely argue both are far less combat focused than any edition of D&D at a system level.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I can't agree with this at all. I've played oWoD and nWoD extensively, and would definitely argue both are far less combat focused than any edition of D&D at a system level.

I've played those extensively too - it's a large part of how I know that they have just as much focus on combat, at a system level, as D&D does.

 

[Jester David]

Common misconceptions are still misconceptions.

D&D is no more, and no less, combat focused than any other big-name RPG on the market.

I'd disagree with that. Both the Storyteller system games (various WoD games), FATE, and the AGE system all put equal weight on non-combat aspects. Shadowrun has a lot of stealth and skill usage. Combat can be entirely negative in Call of Cthulhu. To say nothing of Dread.

The big names used to be very combat focused, but that's really shifted over the years. FATE and its Dresden Files game really put narrative resolution on the map. So much so that 5e actually moved away from its combat focus slightly (downplayed in 4e) and brought some attention back to the exploration and interaction pillars.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...all put equal weight on non-combat aspects.

...so does D&D.

Not in the word or page count spent on the topic, but on the "here's a thing you might do while playing this game" way, and that's the one that actually matters - since even Call of Cthulhu, where you accurately pointed out that getting into combat is designed to easily be very negative for the characters, dedicates an entire chapter to combat resolution, and has combat-oriented details found in other chapters too.

 

[Jester David]

...so does D&D.

Not in the word or page count spent on the topic, but on the "here's a thing you might do while playing this game" way, and that's the one that actually matters - since even Call of Cthulhu, where you accurately pointed out that getting into combat is designed to easily be very negative for the characters, dedicates an entire chapter to combat resolution, and has combat-oriented details found in other chapters too.

Having rules for combat doesn't mean it puts nearly as much weight on combat as D&D*
It is not a binary position where it is either "has combat rules, is all about combat" and "has no combat rules, and is not about combat". It's a case of how much of the game, the characters, and the assumed adventures are focused on combat. How much non-combat choices feature into mechanical choices each level and how much time each session is spent in non-combat situations.

You can certainly play FATE or WoD or even Call of Cthulhu as asskicking games. You can play Vampire akin to Angel where the group is a bunch of bad-A vampires beating up other monsters. But you can also use the D&D ruleset for a game of courtly intrigue and assassination where if you have to roll a combat dice you've already "lost". But that doesn't mean those are the assumed play styles and focus of the game.

*Also treating "D&D" as a single thing and not 6+ variants on the game

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You can certainly play FATE or WoD or even Call of Cthulhu as asskicking games. You can play Vampire akin to Angel where the group is a bunch of bad-A vampires beating up other monsters. But you can also use the D&D ruleset for a game of courtly intrigue and assassination where if you have to roll a combat dice you've already "lost".

Correct. Glad to see you agree with my earlier statement to that exact effect.

But that doesn't mean those are the assumed play styles and focus of the game.

Game systems tend not to assume play style and focus of play - the players are the ones that do that. That's exactly why there can be misconceptions like that if you play D&D it is mandatory for it to be more combat-focused than some other game.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

We recently went a session-and-nine-tenths without a combat and they were the most fun sessions we had.

But the players were happy to crank out the attack rolls again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That DMs have their authority so clearly enshrined does not, as far as I can tell, have any meaningful bearing on what playstyles they choose.

True, only on their right to choose, not which choice they make.

Because they can freely get it super, SUPER wrong just as easily as they can freely get it super right. The whole "most DMs don't understand iterative probability, and thus most efforts at playing a stealth game are fore-ordained to fail."

Stealth has always been problematic that way, the more so when it was separate hide/move-silently. The group check and skill challenge concept from 4e addressed problems like that, and 5e has retained the Group Check, which is ideal for dealing with the problem of multiple characters trying to sneak...

I...don't think I'm understanding you correctly. Your first bit here says it was a goal(/justification) of 5e to be a 'big tent.' Then your second bit says that defenders of 5e use the failure of that goal as a defense of 5e? I just...what? How is that even a thing?

It's a thing, because people do it. There's a criticism of 5e, and a zealous defender of 5e (not thinking through what he's saying) retorts "while 5e just isn't for you!" or "5e just can't do that, it's not nth ed." Asserting failure of the 5e 'big tent' goal as a defense against some minor criticism or personal opinion.

With defenders like those, it's a good thing 5e doesn't have 'hater5...'

(...and no cracks about 5e not having 'Defenders.')

 

[Shasarak]

I could argue that 5e has given more empowerment to players than 3.x or 4e ever did.

It would be interesting to see that argument. I can not see more then 4e certainly.