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

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry, but this is kinda funny to me. "Taking a 3e or 4e approach to playing", seriously, you are suggesting that there was an approach to playing, defined by the edition.

It's not an unusual suggestion. Folks have gone out of their way to define into being play-styles that are ideally supported by one edition or 'impossible' under another.

What? What play-styles were used in 3e that have not existed before or since?

It's unlikely that there have been any 'new' playstyles for a long time, but there were styles that 3e did better and worse than prior eds. Particularly, 3e Empowered players, giving them more, more detailed, and more meaningful options when defining their characters, who they were, and what they could do. That's not a playstyle in itself, but it opened up more player-centric styles that might have been marginal in the past. At the same time, the community's RAW-obsession marginalized more traditional DM-centric styles, now well-supported by 5e.

Are people saying or implying that "includes me" equals "bigger tent"?

Yes. That also seems to be the case you're making for 3e being 'biggest tent.'

Who is to say there aren't lapsed 3E and/or 4E players who have little interest in 5E and have stopped playing D&D altogether? I don't believe anybody has those answers.

There are certainly lapsed 3e fans now playing Pathfinder in preference to D&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If some playstyles are more popular, then "includes me" equals "bigger tent" has more validity for some over others. Would you not agree?

But as others are saying, it's hard to know for sure what you mean by "bigger tent". I may be misunderstanding you as well.

For those that are curious, every time we have a poll around playstyles, less than 10% of the respondents care about optimizing. So clearly it seems that optimizers are not part of an equal representation among gamers in general. So if everyone else is saying "yeah, it includes me", then it sure seems like that's a bigger tent if it's capturing the other 90%

 

[Guest 6801328]

On the bigger tent discussion, if there's any consistently unreasonable expectation it seems to be that "inclusive" means "caters exactly to my desires and tastes, with no compromises. If others are included too that's fine, but if that inclusion lessens my enjoyment one iota then I don't feel included."

Can we agree on that definition for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't see how a game is big tent when half of the responses to my OP about the conflict between how I've been playing D&D for the past 20 years and the 5E system I'm interacting with in preparation for joining an upcoming organized long term campaign have been "you should instead not play and not ruin everyone else's fun"

Even big, supposedly "inclusive" tents have off-duty cops working security to "deal with" undesirable elements. Just ask....oops, almost veered into political ground.

EDIT: I'm being entirely facetious, of course. I think there's plenty of room in 5e for optimizers. I'm a semi-optimizer. As long as...
1) The optimizers don't mind playing with non-optimizers, and don't try to make them feel bad for their playstyle. "Big tent", right?
2) The optimizers realize that there is less mechanical optimizing in this edition, and don't spoil the atmosphere at the table with their grumbling about it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't see how a game is big tent when half of the responses to my OP about the conflict between how I've been playing D&D for the past 20 years and the 5E system I'm interacting with in preparation for joining an upcoming organized long term campaign have been "you should instead not play and not ruin everyone else's fun"

I think that's a misrepresentation of the motives of those telling you it might be better if you avoided the table. They aren't saying 5e isn't for you. They are saying the people you described playing at that particular table aren't for you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't see how a game is big tent when half of the responses to my OP about the conflict between how I've been playing D&D for the past 20 years and the 5E system I'm interacting with in preparation for joining an upcoming organized long term campaign have been "you should instead not play and not ruin everyone else's fun"

OR....

your playstyle is in the small minority of gamers, and 5e can be both a big tent game and not be for your preferences personally.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

OR....

your playstyle is in the small minority of gamers, and 5e can be both a big tent game and not be for your preferences personally.

This reminds me of that ol' 5e detractor fallback: "5e failed because it promised to include everyone!"

That was never the stated goal. Nor possible. But it makes the 5e haters feel better about their choices to dislike the edition, I guess.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it makes the 5e haters feel better about their choices to dislike the edition, I guess.

I have to admit, I've had this thought a few times. The hate threads always seem to bring up this "promise", as if they've been lied to.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This reminds me of that ol' 5e detractor fallback: "5e failed because it promised to include everyone!"

That was never the stated goal. Nor possible. But it makes the 5e haters feel better about their choices to dislike the edition, I guess.

I never really liked anime. Just doesn't do anything for me. But it would be pretty silly of me to say that anime doesn't have a big tent because I personally don't find the appeal to it. You can't ever please everyone. I understand I'm an outlier, and a minority, even if there are other people who share my opinions. So I try to avoid making broad statements about things as if everyone is the same as me.