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

[Shasarak]

EDIT- to be clear, there are times when I, the player, know an optimal solution, but I also know that my character as I conceived wouldn't do it for RP reasons. Those moments when I have to make the "wrong" decision are, in fact, quite fun for me. And for my table. Complications are the bread and butter of RPing.

This is quite interesting in that for every RP reason you have to make one decision you could most likely come up with an equally valid RP reason to make another decision. Or perhaps to make up a reason after you have done something (why did I do that obviously optimal thing rather then the ineffective thing that I normally do?)

 

[Rhenny]

That's what my 4E game looks like 1-2 combats per session with RP occupying the balance of the session. It's about a 50/50 split in time elapsed. However, I go to adventuring day because some people play 4 hours, some people play 6 hours and that's not super relevant when talking about mechanics, unless the game has mechanics keyed to sessions.

I agree that very few people are actually going to RUN the proposed 6-8 encounters an adventuring day: the published adventures for the most part don't. Let's consult the mines of phandelver again to see an example of that. The result is the class balance thing is a yooge issue.



Observation: Roleplaying, exploration and interaction are not really mechanically supported by the 5E rules. If we want to play that, why don't we play Mouseguard?

Because we like D&D? What can I say? I personally don't need mechanics and rules to help me explore/interact. The simplicity of using skill checks and narration works for me.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Because we like D&D? What can I say? I personally don't need mechanics and rules to help me explore/interact. The simplicity of using skill checks and narration works for me.

It's just a missed opportunity. I mean, I don't know about you, but I can have a fun RPG with zero mechanics. Dr Magnet hands is an AWESOME improv game with rules that fit on like, half a page. However, the players handbook runs to a couple of hundred pages of mechanics, then we have the DMG, the monster manual, a bunch of supplements, so we're sitting down to play a mechanically complex game.

Given that we're saying 'we're playing a mechanically complex game' you can do a lot more, and it's something that's sorely missing if D&D is not supposed to be a combat focused game. (I'd dispute this of course, I think D&D is a combat focused game so the very bland combat minigame is a huge issue).

Examples of cool mechanics that support other aspects of games are things like Apocalypse world for example has a mechanic where another player (the one you have the most history with) highlights one of your stats and the DM highlights one of your stats at the start of each session, and you get experience for using those stats. This is a great way of helping set up stories and really supports a storytelling game. If the GM wants to have a session about introverted psychological thinking, he can highlight the stat related to that. Everyone is encouraged to jump on board.

Now you're thinking 'I would just jump on board anyway' but this way you're rewarded so there is more buy in, it's flagged explicitly upfront, and because the PLAYERS get to highlight stats as well, they can also help shape the story (and because you can shape other characters story you can gently bring them along with things).

It's a really cool mechanic that helps let everyone shape the story that will be told. Bam! Mechanical support for storytelling in a very subtle way.

As for skill checks, mouseguard has a great system where it switches focus and complexity of resolution based on the meaningfulness of the task. If it's a minor conflict you just roll, but if it's a major conflict there is a more granular system. This is very useful in practice if you want to have exploration focused challenges because it lets you arbitrate, say, the difficulty of leading your caravan through the mountain pass and then the lost mines of whereever which is difficult in D&D.

Bam! Great mechanical support for crossing a mountain range.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Um, no. Let me explain using concrete examples.

Let's say you have a monk you has forsworn all weapons. The character believes in the perfectability of the human body. Now, from an optimization standpoint, at low levels, it certainly makes sense to use a monk weapon in addition to the unarmed attack.

The existence of trap options imho is really lame. If we all agree that being a monk that has forsworn all use of weapons is a cool concept (and it is, and it's a pretty common archetype in fiction), it should be just as mechanically supported/effective as 'being a wizard'

Any reasonable character people turn up with should be fully playable. Just give the guy who just uses his fists whatever bonuses he's missing out on. No reason to gimp the dude in support of his cool concept.

I hate it when people say 'choosing mechanically sub-optimal choices is an example good RP' No it's not! Those two things shouldn't even be related.

 

[Rhenny]

Um, no. Let me explain using concrete examples.

Let's say you have a monk you has forsworn all weapons. The character believes in the perfectability of the human body. Now, from an optimization standpoint, at low levels, it certainly makes sense to use a monk weapon in addition to the unarmed attack. But from a character standpoint, it does not. That doesn't mean, "I will choose whatever, and justify the results." It means you have a clear concept of what your character does, and you act upon it.

It's even more simple when you imagine role-play scenarios. Perhaps you have a situation where you (the player) might be inclined to trust an NPC. But the character has a general distrust of outsiders, and, more specifically, of the people you are dealing with. Rather than RP a "let's all get along," you might end up with a very tense encounter- because of the character's beliefs.

And so on. What are the character's end goals? If you are playing a Warlock of the Undying Light (UA), you might have an end goal for your character of travel to the positive plane for "unification" with the light. Yeah, the character would die- but that's the goal. Or maybe something else. Surely the character has a different end goal (a reason) for adventuring around other than, well, adventuring around.

I tend to have the most fun playing when the character goals and character concept drives my playing rather than trying to justify my actions by referring back to my character.

This reminds me of a playtest game I played in that Sleypy ran. My PC was a fighter who was a hack musician. He was adventuring to raise money to help take care of his mother who his deadbeat Dad had left. Since he left, she began going senile and needed the neighbor to help her. Well, in the back story, my character had a soft spot for mother figures.

So, on our first adventure, traveling through the forest on our way to investigate something, we heard a distress call. Then we encountered two damsels in distress who said their mother was ill. Well, we all jumped at the chance to help this woman. The party Druid and my PC went right over to the old lady on the ground. The Druid tried to check her out and I was there to give moral support. Well, it turned out that getting so close to that lady wasn't the best idea. She turned out to be a hag with her 2 sisters...a small coven. We were spooked out of our minds. Sleypy thought we were just playing our characters so we let ourselves get taken into the trap, but in actuality we were playing our characters and we were genuinely fooled because we did not allow meta-game thinking to get in the way of our decision making. We had a blast.

To me, more often than not, the "fun" thing to do is not the "right" thing to do. Of course, that doesn't mean that a player should purposely try to mess up a game. That's not cool.

 

[pemerton]

... maybe combat is the part that needs mechanics the most?

Why?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why?

Characters live or die based on those combat mechanics? Any conflict can devolve into a violent conflict?

The existence of trap options imho is really lame. If we all agree that being a monk that has forsworn all use of weapons is a cool concept (and it is, and it's a pretty common archetype in fiction), it should be just as mechanically supported/effective as 'being a wizard'

It is just as supported. Both get better as you level.

I hate it when people say 'choosing mechanically sub-optimal choices is an example good RP' No it's not! Those two things shouldn't even be related.

Yeah, it's a little silly. What about when the optimal choice is also the good RP choice? Sometimes the game over-rewards you for 'good RP' other times it punishes you?

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Characters live or die based on those combat mechanics? Any conflict can devolve into a violent conflict?

Sure, but that doesn't mean the majority of your rules need to be combat focused. Apocalypse world certainly has both of those attributes, and of the 8 (9 if you include the 'buying stuff' move) moves everyone can do 3 cover combat - and those moves are not exclusively combat.

It is. Both get better as you level.

Yeah, point I was trying to communicate is that it's optimal to use monk weapons sometimes vs unarmed sometimes, then one of the options isn't aligned to whatever the benchmark for 'balance' is - either to good or to week.

IMHO you may as well give the inferior option whatever bonuses it is missing out from not exercising the superior option because hey why not, dude wants to kick some bad guys in the face and we may as well help him out with that.

Yeah, it's a little silly. What about when the optimal choice is also the good RP choice? Sometimes the game over-rewards you for 'good RP' other times it punishes you?

Yeah - I mean at the start of a game people should talk about what stories they want to tell, but one thing I like about some mechanical support for this (like drives or flaws or whatever) is that it means you have to write down what story you want to tell, everyone can see it and everyone is reminded about it.

Writing down your trait in burning wheel as 'struggles with addiction' tells everyone that you want to explore issues of addiction in the game. Then they can talk about it, include it in the game, and there is mechanical reinforcement for it.

 

[Shasarak]

Um, no. Let me explain using concrete examples.

Let's say you have a monk you has forsworn all weapons. The character believes in the perfectability of the human body. Now, from an optimization standpoint, at low levels, it certainly makes sense to use a monk weapon in addition to the unarmed attack. But from a character standpoint, it does not. That doesn't mean, "I will choose whatever, and justify the results." It means you have a clear concept of what your character does, and you act upon it.

It's even more simple when you imagine role-play scenarios. Perhaps you have a situation where you (the player) might be inclined to trust an NPC. But the character has a general distrust of outsiders, and, more specifically, of the people you are dealing with. Rather than RP a "let's all get along," you might end up with a very tense encounter- because of the character's beliefs.

And so on. What are the character's end goals? If you are playing a Warlock of the Undying Light (UA), you might have an end goal for your character of travel to the positive plane for "unification" with the light. Yeah, the character would die- but that's the goal. Or maybe something else. Surely the character has a different end goal (a reason) for adventuring around other than, well, adventuring around.

Using your Monk character example, even though he absolutely positively 100% guaranteed believes that the human body is perfect, that does not prevent him from picking up a weapon and hitting someone with it. You just create a RP reason why the Monk did it, which is just as easy as a RP reason why he would not.

Of course this question more often comes up in regards to "my character would not go on this adventure" which can be equally answered with "and yet here he is, why?"