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

[pemerton]

I find it funny how you describe 2nd ed AD&D in this and other posts when contrasted with my own 2E experiences. As I've previously said, I played 2E over its final 5 years, and amongst the people I gamed with at the time we had completely abandoned the 2E philosophy you are talking about. I wasn't even part of that abandonment, as I joined up after it had already been discarded. Even the organized play campaign I was a part of seemed to have discarded it, though that might have just been the DM. We abandoned that philosophy in favor of a hybrid style influenced by the more modern RPGs of the era as well as the Japanese RPG video games of the 90s. Despite all of this, we stuck with 2E, adapting it to what we wanted out of D&D.

This is interesting - I never really encountered this.

During the 2nd ed era I was GMing Rolemaster, but played in various 2nd ed AD&D games. The RM group had what I think is a pretty pragamatic approach to mechanics and optimisation - you push the mechanics hard in playing your PC, and if this turns out to be broken (which happens a bit in RM) then you rewrite the mechanics. Whereas the attitude I encountered in 2nd ed groups was much more what I described in the post you replied to - pushing the mechanics, or building to mechanical strength, was genearlly seen as a type of personality flaw. (At least by GMs - among fellow players, there would equally be people who were impressed by the idea of really putting the mechanics to work, and wanted to be shown a bit more how to do it.)

 

[pemerton]

You know, of course, that there are genres for which this is a staple element. Superhero fiction, especially, is rife with, "the hero is too powerful, and must be taken down a notch to make this story work" (I'm looking at you, Superman!). There's also lots of, "apparently otherwise ineffectual character somehow has key role to play" elements in fiction as well - pretty much any sidekick character winds up here from time to time.

I quite like the way MHRP handles this - grant a plot point to the player in return for triggering the vulnerability; and the mechanics for earning plot points via rolling a "1" mean that less powerful characters are more likely to earn plot points in this way (because rolling smaller dice) - and the Doom Pool dice that get added as the flip side of these "1"s are more likely to be used by the GM to beef up dice pools against the tougher characters.

You don't want to discover this, but no system is perfect. We must all be prepared to be surprised.

Of course. But there are degrees. I think that D&D can be more prone to this than other systems, because it involves (i) lists of effects for generating modifiers (spells, items, class features, feats, etc) and (ii) stacking many of these modifiers in the course of resolution. Whereas, at the other end of the spectrum, HeroWars/Quest involves almost no stacking.

Furthermore, in D&D it is almost always better to roll with a higher bonus. Whereas other systems can make this not the case (eg Burning Wheel).

Rolemaster can also have this issue, for much the same reasons.

That's not a reason not to play these systems, but I think it's something to be aware of in running them. And I still think it's a bit misplaced to blame this system feature on personality flaws of players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dude, you clearly missed the point of my post. I was saying that in 5E there is no need to ban anything and the DM should earn the players trust by learning how to let them do what they want.

I don't know where you got the "no true Scotsman" vibe from what I said.

Well, you took a much more congenial tack than I usually see, but it still hinged on two things: games have somehow lost their way, falling away from the "proper" role of the DM, while 5e is finally returning the DM to that "proper" place; and that player-facing options are innately game-breaking and detract from a campaign, and thus need a DM to say "no" unless they're just never provided in the first place.

Yes, you specifically did say that DMs need to "earn" the "trust" offered to them. I'm just not sure how that can be done, when the "trust" needs to be there from the moment pencil hits character sheet. Particularly when, at least from my exposure to them here and on RPG.net, 5e DMs aren't really interested in "us[ing] the rules to help the players do what they want," and quite interested in "using them to tell the players why they can't do it." (Edit: To clarify, this is my experience of other people describing what they do, have done, or would do with 5e--I have only had two 5e DMs, the first a 4e DM giving the mid-playtest rules a shot, the second a friend who bought the books and offered to run whatever we wanted. But I've seen many more people than that who hail 5e as the return of their ability to ban anything and everything they don't like, from the core book, without so much as a conversation with the players.)

I wasn't really criticizing the way anyone chooses to DM the game. I was commenting on how each edition frames the role of the DM, and how I find 5E to be more similar to 2E and earlier. If you think my take on things is incorrect, that's cool...but why not point out why and discuss it rather than snip a small section, frame it as some kind of negative judgment on anyone, and ignore the rest.

Because, having attempted to discuss that topic with others before, I have found it is a waste of time. Views on the "purpose" of the DM tend to be well-entrenched...and I feel that goes doubly for those who think the DM's proper role is dictatorial (whether benevolent, as you do, or more imperious, as others have said here and elsewhere.) I was simply noting that I had hoped the other poster's argument, which could be (uncharitably) summarized as "people think 3e and 4e prevented DMs from being real DMs, and that 5e has fixed that," was mostly exaggeration. I then saw, in different words, essentially that same argument, and felt dismayed.

However, if it's a discussion you want: What, exactly, is the difference between a sufficiently "benevolent" DM--one who, as you said, earns the trust 5e forces its players to give them--and one that articulates a vision for their campaign, clearly and with purpose, even though it differs from a general policy found in the books? What, really, is the difference between 5e and other editions in terms of player-facing content, particularly for spellcasters (who have continually received new content with the adventure books, while non-spellcasters have gotten very, very little)? Isn't that still content players can come to the table with, that you have to refuse or accept?

And if you're going to dismiss someone for making such broad generalizations, then you shouldn't proceed to make one yourself a few sentences later.

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. I provided a quotation for a reason: this is not just something happening in some nebulous corner of the internet, nor something I'm speculating about. It's a thing actually happening, right now, with real people directly telling me I should put up and shut up because hey, I got rules of some kind, even if I can expect to rarely get to use them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, you took a much more congenial tack than I usually see, but it still hinged on two things: games have somehow lost their way, falling away from the "proper" role of the DM, while 5e is finally returning the DM to that "proper" place; and that player-facing options are innately game-breaking and detract from a campaign, and thus need a DM to say "no" unless they're just never provided in the first place.

Yes, you specifically did say that DMs need to "earn" the "trust" offered to them. I'm just not sure how that can be done, when the "trust" needs to be there from the moment pencil hits character sheet. Particularly when, at least from my exposure to them here and on RPG.net, 5e DMs aren't really interested in "us[ing] the rules to help the players do what they want," and quite interested in "using them to tell the players why they can't do it."



Because, having attempted to discuss that topic with others before, I have found it is a waste of time. Views on the "purpose" of the DM tend to be well-entrenched...and I feel that goes doubly for those who think the DM's proper role is dictatorial (whether benevolent, as you do, or more imperious, as others have said here and elsewhere.) I was simply noting that I had hoped the other poster's argument, which could be (uncharitably) summarized as "people think 3e and 4e prevented DMs from being real DMs, and that 5e has fixed that," was mostly exaggeration. I then saw, in different words, essentially that same argument, and felt dismayed.

However, if it's a discussion you want: What, exactly, is the difference between a sufficiently "benevolent" DM--one who, as you said, earns the trust 5e forces its players to give them--and one that articulates a vision for their campaign, clearly and with purpose, even though it differs from a general policy found in the books? What, really, is the difference between 5e and other editions, particularly for spellcasters (who have continually received new content with the adventure books, while non-spellcasters have gotten very, very little)? Isn't that still content players can come to the table with, that you have to refuse or accept?



I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. I provided a quotation for a reason: this is not just something happening in some nebulous corner of the internet, nor something I'm speculating about. It's a thing actually happening, right now, with real people directly telling me I should put up and shut up because hey, I got rules of some kind, even if I can expect to rarely get to use them.

I never said "proper" role of the DM. I said a return to how it was originally intended to be. I think that is perhaps more a statement of opinion than fact...but do you really disagree? Do you think 5E is not more like the early editions? I think it's pretty clear that was the intent of the design, and also seems to be a fairly commonly held opinion.

Having said that, I wasn't passing judgment so much as observing. It's up to each individual to decide if the shift in 5E toward a DM role closer to that of earlier editions is a good or bad thing. Opinions will vary and people will like and should play whatever edition they want. More power to all.

I personally like the shift, yes, but I don't think it's for the reasons you believe.

My comments on trust between players and DM...obviously the game has to start, so both sides are kind of taking a leap. Hopefully, the trust will come. My view is that a shift from relying on strictly codified rules to relying on an individual to make rulings will require a level of trust. I don't think that assumption is out of line. Players who feel comfortable with their DM to rule fairly will ideally feel as comfortable as a player with the clearest, most precise rules set ever.

On the other side of the table, the DM should recognize what it is that the players want from the game, and do everything possible to deliver that experience. All this talk of banning things and ruling against the player...I don't see the need for it. I think a little leeway need be given in some instances because the DM tends to create a lot of the content of any group's particular game world. But I don't think that leeway need come at the cost of what the players want. The players can and should be contributing to the game world as well.

My comments about player options being potentially negative to the game...I stand by them. Yes, such options also bring good things to the game...I loved the concept of feats when introduced in 3E. I loved when we'd get a new book and there'd be new feats in there to pore over and put into use with a new character. They added a level of tact and craft to character design that was lacking from prior editions. It led to a wider diversity of character concept, and also in play style. These are good things.

But they come with a cost. System bloat is an actual thing...it's not like I made it up. The more you add to a system, the more unwieldy it becomes. I don't even think that can be argued. I prefer the 5E approach of minimal content. I find there is a strong variety of options but it is not overwhelming, and is limited to the core books, and small sections of the adventures. The one exception is the Sword Coast Guide...but even that book, the mechanics are fairly minimal.

As for my players wanting to use that material...it hasn't really come up yet. My players aren't even really aware of it all that I know of. They know about the SCAG, and one player has expressed some interest in the swashbuckler, so we'll see about that. But they don't know about the elemental spells in Princes of the Apocalypse, or the very small amount of stuff in the other adventure books. But I'd be fine with them using any of it. What I am thankful for with 5E is that we don't have a book coming out every month with a ton of options, that over time, become increasingly severe. I am happy for that not because it deprives my players of options, but because I don't want to have to buy a book a month to keep up.

As it is, I am aware of what my players can do mechanically. I know what options the characters have. The next time I say "oh wow" because one of my players has done something cool, it won't be because they have a shiny new feat I'd never seen...it'll be nevause they did something new with what they already have.

Finally, the portrait you paint of the 5E DM smiling while he breaks his players' toys....I don't think that's generally accurate. There are always exceptions, but that's a really broad brush to use. As with anything, there are examples of all kinds, and if your experience with 5E DMs has been as you describe, then that sucks and I am sorry to hear that. But we're not all cackling little egomaniacs with control issues.

 

[pemerton]

So you are saying defenders should be able to pick up the ball, just so long as the goalie does it more than them?
Seriously, for a second set aside the topic at hand. This analogy SUCKS.


Back on topic, the scenarios being drawn up don't align with the simplification you present here. Note that nothing in my reply associated "power of the DM" with "backstory". The ability to trump the DM unquestioned is a very unstable situation. You can create a thousand examples where it would be great for the DM to allow the player to act exactly as they describe. And a good DM will know when to get the hell out of the way. But having a thousand examples where there should be no difference between player agency and DM consent does nothing to corretc the issue with sitting down at the table knowing that the player does not need DM consent.

Whereas I understand Ron Edwards simile of "moving the planchette", I don't understand your football metaphor and I don't know what view exactly you are imputing to me.

You seem to be saying that all changes in the fiction, potentially resulting from players' action declarations, need to be mediated through the GM's consent.

If that's what you're saying, I disagree.

Upthread, another poster (@feartheminotaur ? - apologies if I've misremembered) objected to the 4e Diplomacy rules stating that, on a successful check, the players' (and hence PC's) intent is realised. You seem to be saying a similar thing.

I prefer a game in which, once a check is framed, if the player succeeds then his/her intent is realised. Another way of putting this would be - action resolution is binding on all participants, not just an input into the GM's ulimately unilateral decision-making about the content of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

For most people who aren't total noobs, players know how they enjoy the game. Asking them to "change their tastes" is a sort of passive-aggressive way of saying "we don't like the way you play, you need to change because we said so." allowing you to imply the "or else", instead of just state it outright.

It doesn't look very passive to me. It's pretty active.

The fact of the matter is there aren't a lot of options. That's why it's a problem. If there were, it wouldn't be a problem. There are lots of ways to go about saying the same thing, and different people will react differently to it but there's still really only two answers: bring down the boot or let it go.

I don't agree with this. I do a lot of committee work, and when it comes to compromise there's often more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

In the context of RPGing, "turn and turn about" is one obvious starting point.

 

[Imaro]

Are you deceiving them by charming them? (I think James Bond does this from time to time.)

Then yes.

Would I as a GM be fair in ruling a blanket no... because deceit isn't about being charming but instead about being manipulative, hiding tells, etc.?

Another question how do games like these go about reigning in the character with the "master manipulator of all emotions" descriptor from stepping all over the character with the "Soo Charming" descriptor?

 

[pemerton]

The OP is effectively saying "if the core system doesn't cater to me it is flawed".

I just reread the OP. The opening sentence is:

This isn't my preferred edition by a long shot.

This is followed by a list of reasons for that statement, that are grounded in particular observations about the mechanics of the game. The word "tent" (and hence the phrase "big tent") does not occur in the first 20 posts in this thread.

As I read it, the OP is not about whether 5e is a popular or unpopular game. It's about how a player with a particular preferred approach to the game might take that approach within the 5e rules framework, which is - at least prima facie - not as well-suited to that approach. So far, the answers seem to be - ranged sharpshooter (probably Eldritch Knight?), or polearm/sentinel barbarian, or maybe some sort of paladin build. Not so many full caster options seem to have been put forward (or maybe I'm not remembering them) but presumably there are some of them too that the OP might look at.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is interesting - I never really encountered this.

During the 2nd ed era I was GMing Rolemaster, but played in various 2nd ed AD&D games. The RM group had what I think is a pretty pragamatic approach to mechanics and optimisation - you push the mechanics hard in playing your PC, and if this turns out to be broken (which happens a bit in RM) then you rewrite the mechanics. Whereas the attitude I encountered in 2nd ed groups was much more what I described in the post you replied to - pushing the mechanics, or building to mechanical strength, was genearlly seen as a type of personality flaw. (At least by GMs - among fellow players, there would equally be people who were impressed by the idea of really putting the mechanics to work, and wanted to be shown a bit more how to do it.)

Those weren't our GMs. Our GMs tended to favor high combat, low lethality, low level(1-10) high powered games(high stats and plentiful magic items) that focused on long campaign story arcs a la LotR or the Dragonlance novels. Pushing the mechanics and building to mechanical strength was encouraged. A lot of people still did play silly characters or special snowflakes, but they were left to do their thing while the rest of the party carried them.

 

[JonnyP71]

Finally, the portrait you paint of the 5E DM smiling while he breaks his players' toys....I don't think that's generally accurate. There are always exceptions, but that's a really broad brush to use. As with anything, there are examples of all kinds, and if your experience with 5E DMs has been as you describe, then that sucks and I am sorry to hear that. But we're not all cackling little egomaniacs with control issues.

I've yet to encounter a DM who thinks like that... the only one who has imposed any real restrictions did so in a short Birthright campaign which we ran as a fill in for a couple of months - but these were restrictions which carried over from the 2E setting and fitted the world as presented - we knew beforehand it would be more tactical/political and created characters to suit the setting. The game was a short (and enjoyable) experiment to give him a chance to run something in that setting for the 1st time in 20 years. It was also his 1st go at running 5E, so we kept everything pretty simple.

In all of our longer campaigns (3 other DMs, of which I am one) we all stick the following:
- any races/classes available in Official books/supplements - we do have a couple of thematic homebrewed tweaks (such as a Paladin of Light who has foregone Lay on Hands to be able to cast the Light cantrip)
- player chooses stat generation method, and entirely up to the player whether they roll hp or take average
- everyone is free to pick feats instead of ASIs
- multiclassing is allowed only if it fits the background/personality of the PC in question

We then build the campaigns around the characters, using a mixture of self-written, improvised, and converted (old school) material, with the players ultimately having the choice of what they do and where they go! Most weeks our main DM in one group will send us all messages asking for updates on our characters' goals and motivations, and work suitable material into the next few sessions accordingly.

And we all adopt a rule of cool approach to DMing - if in doubt, say yes and wing it! In my opinion, empowerment of a DM is a great thing, especially when that right is given to the DM who is imaginative and fair, a proper DM who understands that the role must be one of impartial referee, amateur actor and general storysmith, all weaved into one - not the players' adversary.