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

[dave2008]

You ran your whole 4e campaign by page 42? That's kinda awesome, actually.

Did you have anything defining what a given character might be capable of? (For instance, a very similar approach was taken by Mage: the Ascension, but it did have 'spheres' that categorized the kinds of effects that were possible, and characters could combine spheres to do basically anything).

Clarification it was a single adventure, not a whole campaign. Since it was one 4+ hour adventure we didn't really stretch the possibilities, but it worked and was fun. We had already played 4e for a year+, so they had an idea of what to expect from a power level perspective. I basically told them: tell me what you want to do and I will tell you if it is something you can do at-will, encounter, daily, or not at all. Based on those parameters I could determine damage/effect/ to hit/ DC, etc. by level. Some players would fall back on actions they knew from the powers they had used before, but some went hog-wild in creating new actions/abilities. I tended to get more cinematic descriptions of the actions then what was on the power though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Unless I missed it we where talking about being heroic, not less "mundane." It seems you have made a slight twist to the goal post; though it could be our different views on heroism and what is heroic. It seems, please correct me if I am wrong, that you want characters that are super "humans", who can do things above and beyond the normal. I don't have any issue with that and find it fun as well; however, I don't necessarily find that heroic. I find it more heroic when a simple "mundane" farmer picks up a sword or staff or whatever to fight for what he/she believes in. A hero, to me, is someone who fights despite be "mundane." It is less heroic to me to play as a superhero; after all, the cards are already stacked in your favor.

Still, I think your concept of mundane play comes down to play styles and less the system. I know people who are much less mundane in an open system like 5e than they are in a more codified but expansive system like 4e. And I have seen just the opposite as well. Some people thrive with clearly defined options and others do with a less restrictive rule set. To be clear it is not like you couldn't improvise in 4e, but some felt like they had to use their "powers," and thus did not improvise. And in my experience the most un-mundane (spectacular?) actions have occurred when improvising, no mater the edition/system.

I view them as separate. I don't care for the meatgrinder levels, and as far as I'm concerned they are something to either gloss over or preferably skip altogether. They aren't a part of D&D I care about, and when I talk about D&D I'm invariably not talking about them. So when I'm talking about heroic, that part of the game isn't going to be a part of it.

As for the definition of heroic, you could look at it as something you do or who you are. I look at it as who you are. D&D PCs are special, a cut above the norm. 1st level isn't a farm boy, it's the day after graduating Ninja school. The farm boy isn't a PC, unless they have uncanny natural ability on par with having graduated ninja school, in which case they aren't really a farm boy anyway.

Given that starting off weak and fragile is a non-consideration to me, the issue of mundane vs heroic is a matter of what a PC can do.

As for heroic/mundane and codified vs freedom actions being separate, I can see your point but to me they are connected. This is because I don't find the mundane in RPGs to be appealing, and in my experience freeform play tends towards the mundane side of things. Maybe there are DMs somewhere where this is less true but I haven't gamed with them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why is that? They are too easy, too hard, die to quickly? Or is it about the PCs and not the monsters?

It's kind of both. PCs lack interesting things to do, monsters tend to be boring, and it's all over too fast.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Which'd be a failure of the 'big tent'/'support for more playstyles' goal of 5e. Especially considering that you consider two prior editions - 3e & 4e, themselves very much at odds during the edition war - to both be adequate to your needs.

5e is DM-empowering and classic-game evoking, certainly, but I don't believe it's as atavistic as you fear. With the right DM, using the right modules and the right approach, the kind of experience you're looking for can certainly be delivered by 5e.

I get that you're probably going to come back with 'but my approach requires DM-independent support' or something like that. All I can offer is that whether your options feel DM-independent depends very much on the attitudes at the table (which, yes, are influenced by the attitudes of the broader community). So, yes, it may be hard to find/foster more player-empowering attitudes/styles in 5e circles, but not because the system, itself, makes it impossible, just because there's been a pendulum swing away from player-empowerment and towards DM-empowerment. Perhaps ironically, but conveniently, a DM can use the latter to re-emphasize the former.

Here's the thing: 5E would not be my choice for the sort of game 5E seems to be trying to be. My game for that would either be a heavily modified 2E or a heavily restricted 3.5E. 5E to me is less appealing than either of those for that sort of game.

 

[dave2008]

It's kind of both. PCs lack interesting things to do, monsters tend to be boring, and it's all over too fast.

Got it. As a DM I had the same problem with 4e. I had to beef up my monsters to make them interesting and stick around long enough to be worth it. So, that at least is not 5e specific, but perhaps you perceive it is worse in 5e.

My PCs currently seem to be doing the same things in 5e that they did in 4e, but they are not power gamers. So I am sure your experience is different.

 

[Tony Vargas]

*sigh* I know people have said it in the past. I was referring specifically to a couple of people characterizing the approach of 5E as "back to the story."

Where do you think they're implying it came 'back' from. The assertion that it's once again possible to RP carries with it the assertion that at some point it wasn't possible. That was never the case.

No, I said allowed and I meant allowed. At the design level. There are swingy/unbalanced spells and monster abilities that are written into the rules of 5E

I'll concede that balance was not a design priority of 5e, but neither was dictating flavor mechanically. If a spell or monster is 'swingy' or questionably balanced in 5e, it's more likely it was done to evoke classic feel than to dictate story elements to the DM.

Clarification it was a single adventure, not a whole campaign. Since it was one 4+ hour adventure we didn't really stretch the possibilities, but it worked and was fun. We had already played 4e for a year+, so they had an idea of what to expect from a power level perspective.

Ah. Still sounds like an intriguing exercise.

As for the definition of heroic, you could look at it as something you do or who you are. I look at it as who you are. D&D PCs are special, a cut above the norm. 1st level isn't a farm boy, it's the day after graduating Ninja school. The farm boy isn't a PC, unless they have uncanny natural ability on par with having graduated ninja school, in which case they aren't really a farm boy anyway.

Heh. When I read farm boy, I immediately thought 'but, Luke Skywalker!' ;P

Given that starting off weak and fragile is a non-consideration to me, the issue of mundane vs heroic is a matter of what a PC can do.

It's also a matter of behavior. Heroes in genre take extreme risks and consistently succeed in spite of them. That is, yes, a matter of extraordinary ability. It's also a matter of attitude. In classic D&D, 'skilled play' often meant cautious, pragmatic, and even paranoid play, and those aren't things exactly conducive to genre heroism. It's more the stuff of anti-heroes, if that.

As for heroic/mundane and codified vs freedom actions being separate, I can see your point but to me they are connected. This is because I don't find the mundane in RPGs to be appealing, and in my experience freeform play tends towards the mundane side of things. Maybe there are DMs somewhere where this is less true but I haven't gamed with them.

Defined vs free-form (not nearly the same thing as freedom) is mainly about what kind of player skill applies. The former provides opportunities for system mastery (with greater rewards the less robustly balanced the system is), the latter makes 'gaming the GM' more significant.

Here's the thing: 5E would not be my choice for the sort of game 5E seems to be trying to be. My game for that would either be a heavily modified 2E or a heavily restricted 3.5E. 5E to me is less appealing than either of those for that sort of game.

Well, it is trying to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, so that's 5+ different editions it's trying to be simultaneously, while specifically evoking the feel of the 2e & earlier editions, and specifically having 'fast combat' among other things. I don't see how anything other than the strong emphasis on DM Empowerment was going to in any way deliver on that.

But, I guess that depends on what it seems to be trying to be from your PoV. Because it probably is trying to be that, just not only that....

 

[dave2008]

I view them as separate. I don't care for the meatgrinder levels, and as far as I'm concerned they are something to either gloss over or preferably skip altogether. They aren't a part of D&D I care about, and when I talk about D&D I'm invariably not talking about them. So when I'm talking about heroic, that part of the game isn't going to be a part of it.

As a DM I typically have my meatgrinder levels start at 10+. That is when I really start to lay the smack down on the PCs and TPKs are a constant hazard if they aren't careful. I've always gone light on low level PCs. So I guess I like them (meatgridner levels), just not at low levels.

As for the definition of heroic, you could look at it as something you do or who you are. I look at it as who you are. D&D PCs are special, a cut above the norm. 1st level isn't a farm boy, it's the day after graduating Ninja school. The farm boy isn't a PC, unless they have uncanny natural ability on par with having graduated ninja school, in which case they aren't really a farm boy anyway.

Given that starting off weak and fragile is a non-consideration to me, the issue of mundane vs heroic is a matter of what a PC can do.

Like I said different definitions of what a hero is. I personally find a character with the standard array of stats fairly heroic (if, like I do, you assume a commoner is straight 10s or there about). But to me it is more about their actions. Which is still about who you are. You chose to fight the zombies, goblins, giant rats - that is what makes you heroes, IMO. Nothing wrong with your approach, i would just define that as the superhero play style (which ties nicely into your Mundane concepts).

This is because I don't find the mundane in RPGs to be appealing, and in my experience freeform play tends towards the mundane side of things. Maybe there are DMs somewhere where this is less true but I haven't gamed with them.

I've never played an RPG that was mundane to me ( I think we have different definitions there as well). Also, I have never seen improv. as a DM issue, but a player issue. Though I am sure it can be a DM issue, its just I (DM) have to do it all the time anyway because you pesky PCs are always foiling my best laid plans, so I it comes fairly nature to me now. On the otherhand, some players just don't like, don't know how, or have the experience to create their own actions.

 

[dave2008]

Ah. Still sounds like an intriguing exercise.

It was, some liked it and some didn't.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's also a matter of behavior. Heroes in genre take extreme risks and consistently succeed in spite of them. That is, yes, a matter of extraordinary ability. It's also a matter of attitude. In classic D&D, 'skilled play' often meant cautious, pragmatic, and even paranoid play, and those aren't things exactly conducive to genre heroism. It's more the stuff of anti-heroes, if that.

All very true, and something I had left out.

Defined vs free-form (not nearly the same thing as freedom) is mainly about what kind of player skill applies. The former provides opportunities for system mastery (with greater rewards the less robustly balanced the system is), the latter makes 'gaming the GM' more significant.

Its more than just skill, it's also inclination. With defined abilities, I'm inclined to be aggressive and assertive. With free-form, I'm inclined to be passive and disengaged.

Well, it is trying to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, so that's 5+ different editions it's trying to be simultaneously, while specifically evoking the feel of the 2e & earlier editions, and specifically having 'fast combat' among other things. I don't see how anything other than the strong emphasis on DM Empowerment was going to in any way deliver on that.

But, I guess that depends on what it seems to be trying to be from your PoV. Because it probably is trying to be that, just not only that....

It doesn't really succeed in what you describe IMO. Given that I take a negative few of "old school" feel and DM Empowerment, when I look at 5E what I see is a D&D that tries to be light on its feet and stay out of the way of play. For that purpose, I'd be more inclined to run 3.5E E6 with triple hp at first level, or the high powered 2E me and my friends ran in the 90s, maybe with a few modern tweaks we didn't have inspiration for back then. That or run 13th Age, which I have done.

**EDIT**

On a side note, I should point out that I have been talking in this thread from an almost entirely player-centric perspective. Over the years though, like most people I believe in this forum, I've been the DM more than I've played. I'm sitting in the player seat now mostly because the Edition Wars really burned me out on D&D, and I almost walked away entirely during the 5E playtest. If it wasn't for personal relationships with my 4E group, I would have. That being said, since that burnout, I haven't been the DM for more than the odd LFR module, and avoided even that as much as I've been able. So right now, I'm more or less purely a player. That being said, when I was the DM, I tended to be so from a player's perspective, and preferred games run on the player's side of the empowerment spectrum.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I've never played an RPG that was mundane to me ( I think we have different definitions there as well). Also, I have never seen improv. as a DM issue, but a player issue. Though I am sure it can be a DM issue, its just I (DM) have to do it all the time anyway because you pesky PCs are always foiling my best laid plans, so I it comes fairly nature to me now. On the otherhand, some players just don't like, don't know how, or have the experience to create their own actions.

Low level, low powered AD&D and 3E met my definition of mundane. It's why I rarely played those systems as such. 5E seems so far along the same lines, but I have a feeling it will become less mundane more quickly than vanilla AD&D would. In AD&D however, I would feel better about running it higher powered than vanilla(back when we ran it, we almost always did just that) than I would with 5E. Higher stats would interfere with the ASI/feat system, and I wouldn't feel as comfortable messing with the healing system or magic item rarity as I would with 2E.

As for other systems, d20 modern and Call of Cthulhu kind of stand out as ticking my mundane box. CoC was an interesting dilemma. I liked the horror aspect of it, but was bored simply by being a regular person and the horror didn't make up for it. I came to the conclusion that playing modern setting games where we weren't Vampires or had super powers wasn't for me.