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

[pemerton]

I have much the same question as [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION]. I don't see how someone wanting to have an effective combat PC is special in this respect.

If I join a fairly laid-back, casual group and start making highly systematic use of Augury, Divination, Commune/Contact Other Plane; and start making careful maps and planning out expeditions and equipment in a highly rational fashion; etc (all in accordance with Gygax's advice at the back of his PHB); then I may well disrupt the playstyle of that group.

If I join the same group and start playing a highly focused PC with personal goals around whom my character and my play is built, seeking to engage the GM's world in an intense way looking for dramatic arcs and thematic resolution, then that is another way I might disrupt their playstyle.

I have seen both the above things happen in the real world.

if I am a player who derives most of his pleasure from the ability to make things dead I'll move that planchette wherever I want and even way off the board if it gets me more of what I enjoy... The GM has to consider the fun of the entire table, and one player's particular type of fun may have to be toned down (not eliminated) in order for everyone to get what they enjoy out of the game.

So the solution to conflicting play preferences is to stop the players having agency and mediate everything through the GM?

Maybe that's a necessary evil in organised play (I don't know; it's not my scene). It doesn't sound like a good general solution, though, unless you like fairly tepid RPGing.

(There is also the question I asked above: what makes you think that players who enjoy combat are a particular problem here? Is it because the D&D non-combat rules perhaps lean towards the tepid side out of the box?)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This week I played in an AL game with a new (for me) DM. He did a great job and I had a lot of fun, but at once point I had used my movement to get next to a rogue who had already been wounded by a ghast, so that I could use Sentinel the next time the ghast attacked her. The DM rolled "Insight" for the ghast and it turned to attack me instead.

Now...how exactly would the ghast know I have this "Sentinel" ability? Metagaming aside, I hadn't actually used it (or indeed even made an attack) in that fight up to that point. I think the DM was just figuring, "This fight is going to be over too fast if the paladin gets to Divine Smite as a reaction, and then gets another DS on his turn..."

So, in effect, he was neutralizing my powergaming for the sake of the story. And I have to admit I was disappointed I didn't get to WTFPWN the ghast. (He hit me, I failed Con saving throw and was paralyzed.)

Is that a table you'd want to play at? Would you have argued with the DM? Not return the next week? Or would you think, "That's cool...I trust the DM to keep us on the edge of our seats and tell a good story."

You might have had a former 4E DM. In 4E it was black letter rules that marked enemies were aware they were marked. The DM might have interpreted that 5E Defender mechanics worked the same way. I probably would have done the same as your DM given my time with 4E.

 

[pemerton]

This doesn't seem to me to be wildly different from what a 5e GM has to do in adjudicating non-combat action declarations

I disagree... When I use daggers in 5e I know they can be thrown, I know how far, I know how much damage they do. There are rules for attacking through cover (the procession) if I want to throw them at a sword saint on the other side of it.

I don't see how throwing daggers is an instance of a non-combat action declaration.

For skills there are descriptions (under ability checks) that set the baseline for what they should encompass and for some actions under them (such as swimming, climbing, spotting something, etc.) hard rules... there are none for free-form descriptors.

In 5e, skills are simply complements to ability checks. And ability checks are nothing but descriptors - eg CHA is "force of personality" and "includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and . . . can represent a charming or commanding personality." (SRD pp 76, 82)

No doubt you object to the word can - but there it is!

Page 82 goes on: "A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation."

That word might - how do any 5e players or GMs ever make any decisions about when to deploy this CHA descriptor?!

But from my point of view, I would expect that a GM who can decide when a CHA check arises and is appropriate is also able to adjudicate when your Dancing Dervish or Disciplined Sword Saint descriptor comes into play.

I'm just not seeing any wildly different GMing skill set being called upon in the two different cases.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is the second time in this thread that posters other than me have equated impact the fiction with do stuff that the GM normally does.

That's not the case. My assertion is that D&D often presumes that a GM is the creator and controller of the narrative. "Impact the fiction" isn't quite the same thing.

 

[Imaro]

So the solution to conflicting play preferences is to stop the players having agency and mediate everything through the GM?


Maybe that's a necessary evil in organised play (I don't know; it's not my scene). It doesn't sound like a good general solution, though, unless you like fairly tepid RPGing.

(There is also the question I asked above: what makes you think that players who enjoy combat are a particular problem here? Is it because the D&D non-combat rules perhaps lean towards the tepid side out of the box?)

1. Show me where I talk about stopping the players from having agency... (Unless agency has now morphed into do whatever you want whenever you want irregardless of everyone at the table???)

2. Yes in a situation where one player is forcing a conflicting play style on a group that they do not want, I believe the GM should step in and mediate the situation so that a satisfactory compromise is met. If no compromise can be reached (and this is a possibility where playstyles are just to divergent) then the DM should decide what style he wants to run and those who don't or can't go with that style should leave the group.

Not sure how you are using the word "tepid" here, could you define it because I have a feeling it has more to do with what you in particular feel makes a ??non-tepid?? game then any objective measure that could be applied to all groups.

Ultimately for me and my group it's about the most people having the most fun... When we achieve that, it's a good to extraordinary game, pretty simple. And I have to say our etiquette around compromise, along with light mediation (when necessary) by the DM results in that. But please tell me what your solution is as I'm always interested in hearing alternatives...

 

[Tony Vargas]

That word might - how do any 5e players or GMs ever make any decisions about when to deploy this CHA descriptor?!

Players don't. They might buck for it by describing lots of talky/spiffy actions to impress/cow/garner-sympathy/deceive/whatever NPCs.

DMs call for a CHA check when indifferent to the outcome. If it's best for the game for the attempted interaction to succeed, it does, if it's better it fails, it does - if it's neutral (if success or failure will each advance the game and make it more fun, albeit in different ways), tell the player to roll. It's like fail-forward, sorta.

...but maybe I've said too much.

 

[Imaro]

I don't see how throwing daggers is an instance of a non-combat action declaration.

It's not, I misread that part of your post because it was so close to the combat example. My bad, but I don't think non-combat, contrary to the misleading posts below, is any different in 5e.

In 5e, skills are simply complements to ability checks. And ability checks are nothing but descriptors - eg CHA is "force of personality" and "includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and . . . can represent a charming or commanding personality." (SRD pp 76, 82)

No doubt you object to the word can - but there it is!

Why would I object to the word "can"... 5e has been quite clear in it's empowerment of the DM to run the game in the manner he wants to and the usage of that word is exactly that... doesn't mean we don't have default rules & guidelines for when to make a Charisma check...

Page 82 goes on: "A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation."

That word might - how do any 5e players or GMs ever make any decisions about when to deploy this CHA descriptor?!

But from my point of view, I would expect that a GM who can decide when a CHA check arises and is appropriate is also able to adjudicate when your Dancing Dervish or Disciplined Sword Saint descriptor comes into play.

In the PHB (which is really what we should be referencing since the SRD is not the "rules" for D&D 5e) under each ability check are a listing of the skills (Cha has Deception, Persuasion, Intimidate, etc.) and specific instances of when (typically) a DM has you make a check for them... Now let me ask you this, are there any rules or examples in HeroQuest or FATE as to when my "Sooo Charming" descriptor should be used? How about my "Greatest Adventurer Alive" (Now we're really power gaming the system) descriptor. Don't worry... You don't have to answer I already know there aren't because they are free-form and by default can be anything you want.

I'm just not seeing any wildly different GMing skill set being called upon in the two different cases.

Not sure it's necessarily a GM skillset difference (I want to say it's a mental overhead/minutia difference but I honestly haven't spent the time analyzing it to that level). Softball and baseball rely on roughly the same skillsets to succeed but arre ultimately different.

It's a difference from both the player and GM perspective... In one the limitations and boundaries are a known quantity with some possible wiggle room in adjudication in usage (Athletics, a Strength check, lets you swim, climb, jump and stuff along those lines...). In the other there are no known boundaries or limitations and everything is created whole cloth (I'm the "Greatest Adventurer who ever lived"... uhm, ok.. what exactly does that entail??). I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference in adjudicating side cases that may arise with an example and rules structure in place vs. creating something whole cloth... I'm not sure us continuing to discuss it is going to help you see the difference.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. Show me where I talk about stopping the players from having agency... (Unless agency has now morphed into do whatever you want whenever you want irregardless of everyone at the table???)

2. Yes in a situation where one player is forcing a conflicting play style on a group that they do not want, I believe the GM should step in and mediate the situation so that a satisfactory compromise is met. If no compromise can be reached (and this is a possibility where playstyles are just to divergent) then the DM should decide what style he wants to run and those who don't or can't go with that style should leave the group.

Not sure how you are using the word "tepid" here, could you define it because I have a feeling it has more to do with what you in particular feel makes a ??non-tepid?? game then any objective measure that could be applied to all groups.

Ultimately for me and my group it's about the most people having the most fun... When we achieve that, it's a good to extraordinary game, pretty simple. And I have to say our etiquette around compromise, along with light mediation (when necessary) by the DM results in that. But please tell me what your solution is as I'm always interested in hearing alternatives...

1. I think what he means is taking away agency by denying RAW. All the tools somebody like me needs to be a combat monster are in the PHB. The tools in 5E are far less than what they are in 3E or 4E, but there is more than enough to disrupt(to your standards, not mine) the table you seem to be implying. You are kind of implying that the DM has a responsibility to stop a player whose playing right out of the book.

2. How exactly does a player force a conflicting playstyle on a group? How does that player like that end up in the group in the first place? What about for non-homogenous or more casual groups?

 

[Sunseeker]

This week I played in an AL game with a new (for me) DM. He did a great job and I had a lot of fun, but at once point I had used my movement to get next to a rogue who had already been wounded by a ghast, so that I could use Sentinel the next time the ghast attacked her. The DM rolled "Insight" for the ghast and it turned to attack me instead.

Now...how exactly would the ghast know I have this "Sentinel" ability? Metagaming aside, I hadn't actually used it (or indeed even made an attack) in that fight up to that point. I think the DM was just figuring, "This fight is going to be over too fast if the paladin gets to Divine Smite as a reaction, and then gets another DS on his turn..."

So, in effect, he was neutralizing my powergaming for the sake of the story. And I have to admit I was disappointed I didn't get to WTFPWN the ghast. (He hit me, I failed Con saving throw and was paralyzed.)

Is that a table you'd want to play at? Would you have argued with the DM? Not return the next week? Or would you think, "That's cool...I trust the DM to keep us on the edge of our seats and tell a good story."

To be fair, the Ghast may not have been reacting to you having the Sentinel feat, it's not unreasonable that with target A paralyzed and new, fresh target now beside him, you should attack target B, if for no other reason than self-preservation. He did have the Ghast make a Wisdom check, and I don't know if he specifically had the Ghast roll to see if you had a certain ability, or just to understand that you were going to defend this guy the Ghast took out. Ghasts are moderately intelligent undead and predatory creatures.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To be fair, the Ghast may not have been reacting to you having the Sentinel feat, it's not unreasonable that with target A paralyzed and new, fresh target now beside him, you should attack target B, if for no other reason than self-preservation. He did have the Ghast make a Wisdom check, and I don't know if he specifically had the Ghast roll to see if you had a certain ability, or just to understand that you were going to defend this guy the Ghast took out. Ghasts are moderately intelligent undead and predatory creatures.

Clarification: the wounded rogue was not paralyzed. It was literally "switch from the wounded squishy target to the healthy armored target".