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

[thecasualoblivion]

I agree with this. In my regular group, I have one player who seems to be a combat junkie. To keep him hooked, I try to give him a chance to thrash some foes every week, but I also telegraph when his ultra violence is most appropriate. Interestingly, over the past 5 or 6 sessions, he has gotten better at using other skills (including intimidate and just plain interaction) to accomplish goals without killing. He still enjoys the game too.

There is an example of a problem that's less solvable, but it's an old one I haven't really encountered since my 2E days. Instead of looking at combat vs social, think of direct combat vs AD&D-style bizarre complex planning for indirect dealing with foes. As I've said, I haven't really seen this sort of thing at the table since my 2E days, since none of the players who started with 3E or 4E seemed inclined to try those sort of things, and the old timers I've gamed with tended to adapt to newer systems instead of doing the same old thing.

The scenario goes like this:

1. The party sees foes in the distance, who aren't aware of the party
2. Several players start discussing some bizarre, complicated plan to defeat the foes indirectly or bypass them
3. Another player decides that plan is boring or stupid, jumps up and down and yells "hey monsters, we're over here!"
4. Initiative is rolled

While I won't deny ever having been the guy in step 3, in my defense I've seen other people do it as well.

 

[Imaro]

Well, upthread you expressed objections to, or concerns about, my use of the words "might" and "probably" in setting out scenarios in which different descriptors could have different consequences for resolution. So I thought the use of the same words, in the same context, in the 5e rules might similarly perturb you.

I don't believe it is the same context, but then I explained that in the previous post. One gives clear guidelines/rules for what those skills encompass under the skill description... The other gives no guidance and leaves it up to the GM and or/player to figure out what the descriptor encompasses.

Your description of how ability checks work in 5e - including your presentation as the system being one of primarily skill checks rather than ability checks - is different from how I read the rules. It's even different from how I run 4e's skill system, which I would tend to treat as a bit more regimented than 5e's ability check system.

I'm unclear on exactly what you are saying here. I'm citing directly from the PHB... which has skills... that cover a wide range of fantasy adventuring actions... that have guidelines, examples and rules around their usage... why wouldn't most checks be primarily skill checks?

If most checks are not skill checks, well then you're playing a game of highly incompetent bumblers at a certain point since ability checks don't get proficiency bonuses added to the rolls and abilities max out at +5 (and very rarely if ever will all of a character's ability scores be at a 20 so we're talking about a range from -1 to +5). Also, since skills cover the majority of activities one will be called to task for during fantasy adventuring I find it hard to believe that the majority of checks in a game of 5e wouldn't use them.

I really don't understand how you're choosing to read the rules (especially since you purposefully chose to selectively ignore passages about skill checks which both have their own section and are in the ability check section as well.) but perhaps if you explain how you run 5e games I can get a better grasp on this but until you provide further explanation/rationale on your take... I think I'm reading and running the game in a way more in line with what the designers/developers intended for 5e.

You would use it whenever the outcome of an action declaration would depend on how charming your PC is - much as, in 5e, you would make a CHA check whenever the outcome of an action would depend on your PC's force of personality or eloquence.

Would it help me lie or deceive someone?

 

[Imaro]

If a social rule - a rule of etiquette, or something in that neighbourhood - is being broken, then I don't see that the answer is to change encounter design. The answer seems to be to resolve the social problem via social methods.

How would you "resolve" this issue? Not in broad or vague terms but in specifics. Since you don't believe changing the encounters or as I view it using DM tools to mitigate this specific problem... how would you fix it?

 

[Rhenny]

There is an example of a problem that's less solvable, but it's an old one I haven't really encountered since my 2E days. Instead of looking at combat vs social, think of direct combat vs OSR-style bizarre complex planning for indirect dealing with foes. As I've said, I haven't really seen this sort of thing at the table since my 2E days, since none of the players who started with 3E or 4E seemed inclined to try those sort of things, and the old timers I've gamed with tended to adapt to newer systems instead of doing the same old thing.

The scenario goes like this:

1. The party sees foes in the distance, who aren't aware of the party
2. Several players start discussing some bizarre, complicated plan to defeat the foes indirectly or bypass them
3. Another player decides that plan is boring or stupid, jumps up and down and yells "hey monsters, we're over here!"
4. Initiative is rolled

While I won't deny ever having been the guy in step 3, in my defense I've seen other people do it as well.

Interesting. The strange part about my group is that the "killing machine" player is newer to the scene. He's a video gamer who has dabbled in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder and 4e. The rest of the group have played 2e or earlier (they are older players).

Sometimes, the "killing machine" does go ahead and act brashly without the sanction of the group, but at least his PC concept is clear and the rest of the group knows it. His brashness actually changed the game when they were guests at Feathergale Spire in PotA and added more tension which everyone enjoyed.

When it comes down to it, the DM (or adventure writers) have a huge responsibility to satisfy the different play styles. One reason why the "killing machine" in my group is adapting different actions instead of just killing is because many of the npcs they meet are not clearly good or evil and he realizes there are consequences in game for his actions. When the npc or monster is clearly evil or an imminent threat, the "killing machine" gets to unleash his payload. I think the alternating repression and release gives the player quite a charge.

 

[Manbearcat]

So here's a question I'm asking due to being a bit new to the whole 5E scene:

Some system-imposed constraints for 3E and 4E were alluded to in the books, but greatly magnified by the cultures of the games among players to the point where it was that culture that restrained DMs more than the books. For 3E the books seemed to encourage playing RAW, but the overall culture of 3E players demanded it more than the books did. For 4E the books encouraged the DM to allow all player options with the mantra "Everything Is Core", but for most of the 4E community of players, a DM trying to restrict or disallow anything was met with outright hostility.

Is there anything like this for 5E? I'm not really familiar with 5E culture yet.

1) I don't agree that constraint in 4e was primarily driven by culture. The game had a lot of very explicit and focused instruction, several means to alleviate GM overhead, and was ruthlessly transparent due to its math/outcome-based chassis. These, more than anything, facilitated the "GM latitude contraction" in 4e (which engendered a lot of outrage from certain GMs).

3.x Ill agree to some extent, but having a "unified mechanics, process-sim, rule for everything" chassis was a large part of the formula.

5e has at its core "natural language" which requires "rulings not rules" and promotes "GM as lead storyteller". That is all intended to place the GM in a position of absolute (or nearing it) latitude from a play procedure perspective.

2) If you're solely referring to player-side content and pre-play PC-gen, it is abundantly clear that "it is the GM's game, ask him/her" is the default.

3) if you're referring to "house rules", see 2. 5e intentionally married itself to the OSR. "Making the game your (GM) own" is probably virtue número uno. The table symmetry of 4e (which is clearly a myth) is definitely cast as "not true to the spirit of D&D" or bad.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1) I don't agree that constraint in 4e was primarily driven by culture. The game had a lot of very explicit and focused instruction, several means to alleviate GM overhead, and was ruthlessly transparent due to its math/outcome-based chassis. These, more than anything, facilitated the "GM latitude contraction" in 4e (which engendered a lot of outrage from certain GMs).

3.x Ill agree to some extent, but having a "unified mechanics, process-sim, rule for everything" chassis was a large part of the formula.

5e has at its core "natural language" which requires "rulings not rules" and promotes "GM as lead storyteller". That is all intended to place the GM in a position of absolute (or nearing it) latitude from a play procedure perspective.

2) If you're solely referring to player-side content and pre-play PC-gen, it is abundantly clear that "it is the GM's game, ask him/her" is the default.

3) if you're referring to "house rules", see 2. 5e intentionally married itself to the OSR. "Making the game your (GM) own" is probably virtue número uno. The table symmetry of 4e (which is clearly a myth) is definitely cast as "not true to the spirit of D&D" or bad.

For 4E, I was speaking more about the specific issue of "everything is core" than the system as a whole. As for the post as a whole, I was asking if there is of isn't a culture of 5E that itself seems to drag the game in certain directions more than the books themselves do.

 

[Manbearcat]

For 4E, I was speaking more about the specific issue of "everything is core" than the system as a whole. As for the post as a whole, I was asking if there is of isn't a culture of 5E that itself seems to drag the game in certain directions more than the books themselves do.

I'm not sure its "more". I would say the books (eg the designers) and the AD&D 2e/OSR culture are coherent and in lockstep (quite chummy). Pretty much all the stuff I wrote above but also including that era's "meta game aversion" and classic "roleplaying not roll-playing."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not sure its "more". I would say the books (eg the designers) and the AD&D 2e/OSR culture are coherent and in lockstep (quite chummy). Pretty much all the stuff I wrote above but also including that era's "meta game aversion" and classic "roleplaying not roll-playing."

I believe that's true of AD&D/OSR fans and fairly true of this forum, I wouldn't call it universal or possibly even typical. I checked out the subreddit for D&D and the Giant In the Playground forum for 5E, and I get far less of an AD&D vibe from those places. I also get almost no AD&D vibe from the members of our 5E AL group(which runs about 30 people these days, we have five full tables for Strahd), the vast majority of whom started playing D&D during 3E, 4E, or 5E and have never played AD&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So here's a question I'm asking due to being a bit new to the whole 5E scene:

Some system-imposed constraints for 3E and 4E were alluded to in the books, but greatly magnified by the cultures of the games among players to the point where it was that culture that restrained DMs more than the books. For 3E the books seemed to encourage playing RAW, but the overall culture of 3E players demanded it more than the books did. For 4E the books encouraged the DM to allow all player options with the mantra "Everything Is Core", but for most of the 4E community of players, a DM trying to restrict or disallow anything was met with outright hostility.

Is there anything like this for 5E? I'm not really familiar with 5E culture yet.

I feel far less likely as a DM to be challenged by my players about rule interpretation. I think that 5E seems to have pushed things back in that direction. Which seems to jibe with players familiar with older editions, but can be a bit jarring for those who started playing in the highly codified 3E era or later.

Looking at the game material that they are releasing, the majority of it has the DM in mind. In 3E and 4E that was not the case at all. Many books were aimed specifically at players, giving hem tons of options (which many enjoyed), but which made the game much more complex, and often took a lot of control away from the DM.

In 5E, the content is limited to begin with, and the DM is also in control of what content makes it to his game. As a DM I appreciate this greatly, and I feel like the game is more contained. The likelihood that a player will arrive with some new book that I am not familiar with, that has a bunch of feats and options that break the rules I've used to create my encounters, is much lower. And since the content is limited in that way, the DM doesn't have to say things like "no, you can't use the feats in the Ultimate Feat Guide" and things like that, which frustrate players because who wouldn't be mad about that after dropping $50 on the book. Regardless of how much those splat books break the game, I could never fault players for wanting to use them. With 5E, I don't have to (for now, at least, although it seems that their model is keeping this kind of thing in mind).

Everyone is basically on the same page as far as what's in play. The only grey area would be whether or not to use play test type material as presented in the Unearthed Arcanna articles, or in 3rd party material or the DMsGuild. This early in the edition, that seems less of a concern, but it may grow with time.

Overall, I think 5E is a return to the role of the DM as originally envisioned. I think the major obstacle for players will be to learn to trust their DM to interpret things fairly. And the biggest challenge for the DM is to earn that trust by actually being fair, and to use the rules to help the players do what they want, rather than using them to tell the players why they can't do it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*