I've seen room temperature IQ takes before, but this one just absolutely stood out to me on Twitter. A Vtuber by the name of Pipkin Pippa shared a tweet of a list of rules a DM had for disruptive players. Some of them were honestly common sense: don't drink shit next to the DM's stuff because if you damage the DM's books, then you really need to buy them a replacement copy. Others were of a more humorous and old school variety like 'insta-death traps'. That's honestly something that shouldn't be all that common (no need to turn every adventure into The Tomb of Horrors), but 5E D&D has shown its got the opposite problem: killing characters has become too infrequent because of 'Death Saves'. Part of that is, honestly, because of the asinine overinflation of powers by monsters to offset the ridiculous power curve expansion of even decently made characters (not to mention the kind of characters that are min/maxed).

So, naturally, some idiots are pissing and moaning because a DM dared suggest bringing back danger into the game. This, to me, is what is among the core problems with 5E as a game. What SHOULD have been done, to make a modular game, was break characters down into neat and tidy roles, where each type stood out and had a defined job within the party structure, instead of creating a free-for-all where every class damn near got abilities that mimicked other classes abilities (Second Wind, etc). And, of course, as time went on, the game became bloated with shitty broken concepts that just encouraged the kind of players that this type breeds. Cause if it takes hours to make D&D a character, you are a min-maxer and/or a theater retard who has to create a fucking 9-page backstory detailing everything your 'super-awesome-totally standout-hero' did, including shitting, before becoming an adventurer.

What's ironic about this exchange is I've been accused of playing 'sub-optimal' characters because I decided to build an old school-style Illusionist for a 5E campaign and refused to take any of the standard Invocation spells like Fireball, Lightning Bolt of the like because, for me, it broke the character concept. Yet I'm the min-maxer cause I say 'character creation should be relatively easy and straightforward, taking only a few minutes, for D&D'. Anything over 15 minutes and you should be looking to play something not D&D, honestly. 

I guess that once the Totally-Not-6e is out you'll see a schism between their player base, where some/many will choose to stay behind if they don't use WotC's websites and the ones that have to have the new shiny will go to the walled garden.

Of those who stay behind I think some will drift away with time to other games, either older D&D/retroclones/Pathfinder or different rulesets.

I imagine the blurring of the lines between classes is partly why you find so many guides: "How to build a [insert class here]".

Greetings!

Oh yeah, Insane Nerd Ramblings! Very true! 5E D&D certainly has some design dynamics that can be a problem. I think some of them are obvious, though I think others are someone concealed within the foliage of the game system, and hidden from a casual pass through. These deeper potential problems do not become apparent until much later in the campaign, say when the Player Characters start getting above 8th level.

Though to be fair--there are optional rules within the DMG that can serve to resist the Uber-superhero Player Character dynamic.

Unfortunately, however, the tide is against anyone that does not want to fully embrace the Player Charaacter Superhero dynamic. I admit, it can get frustrating and tiring "fighting" the system, the Player's expectations, the expectations of the game club at the local game store, and so on. And then, in the later, more recent years, we have the official WOTC sucking the Woke ass, and pumping the game full of Woke, Commie BS.

That is what ultimately led to my own decision to resist WOTC, and just play D&D in earlier forms, or different, new forms. That is one reason why I enjoy Shadowdark. I agree, 15 minutes for Character Creation. It shouldn't take longer than that. I hate the whole "Superhero" dynamic. I much prefer a grim, brutal environment where life is cheap and easily crushed, like a fucking cockroach. Gradually, Players can fight, and struggle, and FORGE themselves into a powerful hero. That's possibly down the line, though, if your character survives. Characters starting out at level 1 shouldn't be fucking superheroes, you know? Fuck that! They need to struggle and fight!

I also see connections philosophically between new trends in WOTC D&D and the whole "participation trophy" generation of gamers. Everyone thinks they are some unique and special superhero, and they are entitled to constant attention and glory, and should never really have to struggle. It seems that that generation would hate Old School dynamics. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK 

Sounds like when I first started playing D&D 3rd edition and was told I wasn't "doing it right" because I took sub-optimal feats (like quickdraw). Also, "Why did your bard spend so many skill points in languages? He can just buy a scroll of Comprehend Languages. IDIOT!" Turns out quickdraw allowed me to do stuff like pull out magic items as a free action, and that pissed off the DM quite a bit because it was an egregious error in the rules to allow such nonsense, even though he was a rules-lawyer. Whatever. And also all those languages made it impossible for his OP NPCs to have private conversations in front of the party. I am sure he hated that even more.

That said I never min-maxed 3rd and yet I always had the most powerful characters in the campaigns I played in by virtue of actually utilizing all the abilities listed. Sure you can spam fucking fireballs all day long, but charming the captain of the town guard is infinitely more effective than fighting hordes of soldiers. People are just stupid for the most part.

The individual you were replying to there isn't being clear about whether they mean the time it takes to make a character mechanically, or the time they pour into developing the character's bio and personality.

If they mean mechanically, then I actually kinda sympathize. I don't think it should take over an hour to make a 5e character, but if it's higher level or you're multi classing then maybe. At any rate there certainly are games that take that long. Putting all that work in, only to die to something stupid in the first session, probably would be quite annoying.

If this person means the time it takes to develop a character concept, then yeah it's some combination of a skill issue and a conceptual one. If you're an imaginative and/or well read person, and a moderately experienced role player, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to come up with enough about a character to be able to roleplay them.

It's telling to me that this person automatically ascribes character death to a power-tripping DM. Firstly, it's yet more evidence for my pet theory that most of 5e player culture is driven by bad DMing. More importantly, it illustrates one of the less talked about issues with the "auteur DM" concept.

If the expectation is that the DM is manipulating in-game events to advance a story, then you actually have every right to be pissed off if your character gets killed, because now it's not an accident of the dice, or a consequence of your actions. It's something the DM actively did to you.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 27, 2024, 06:56:35 PMThe individual you were replying to there isn't being clear about whether they mean the time it takes to make a character mechanically, or the time they pour into developing the character's bio and personality.

If they mean mechanically, then I actually kinda sympathize. I don't think it should take over an hour to make a 5e character, but if it's higher level or you're multi classing then maybe. At any rate there certainly are games that take that long. Putting all that work in, only to die to something stupid in the first session, probably would be quite annoying.

If this person means the time it takes to develop a character concept, then yeah it's some combination of a skill issue and a conceptual one. If you're an imaginative and/or well read person, and a moderately experienced role player, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to come up with enough about a character to be able to roleplay them.

It's telling to me that this person automatically ascribes character death to a power-tripping DM. Firstly, it's yet more evidence for my pet theory that most of 5e player culture is driven by bad DMing. More importantly, it illustrates one of the less talked about issues with the "auteur DM" concept.

If the expectation is that the DM is manipulating in-game events to advance a story, then you actually have every right to be pissed off if your character gets killed, because now it's not an accident of the dice, or a consequence of your actions. It's something the DM actively did to you.

Yeah.  It's one thing if the DM creates a scenario, gives you no way out, and the outcome of the scenario can only be certain death.  But usually even bad DMs don't do that.  What makes them bad DMs is that they think they are signaling the seriousness of the situation and your possible options, when they really aren't (or at least not well).  Of course, some of it is probably also terrible players, too.

Honestly, responsibility has become such a forgotten concept, it's no surprise that most players have no idea that their actions have consequences, especially those that lead to a character's death.  Mommy/Daddy/Government has always been there to bail me out before... why aren't you now?

OD&D is faster than Tunnels and Trolls where you have to dig around to find a weapon you can use.

1st edition and second took about an hour if you copied out all your attribute bonuses, totalled your encumbrance, and worked out stuff like weapon speeds and weapon verses armour tables.

3rd edition and 5th edition both suffer from the increasing complexity of higher level characters and a tenth level character can take an hour but a first level character should take less than 15 minutes unless the player decides to preplan their next ten levels at first level in which case you're back to an hour.

4th edition's about 30 minutes for any character.

There's a minimum amount of time for any game--assuming that the player has a decent idea of what kind of character they want to play and some moderate understanding of the game system.  For a 1st level Basic D&D character, the minimum is about 5 minutes given those qualifiers.  However, for every person that can make that character in 5 minutes, there's another that will take 20+, because of inability to make up his mind about anything.

Same things happens with Fantasy Hero, except the minimum is about 40 minutes (20 for an expert), and the the guy with analysis paralysis won't ever really finish.  Eventually, the game will start, and he will have to play whatever he has.

Most players that have done nothing but D&D 3E, 4E, or 5E have to be broken of a worry habit when making characters in other systems.  The whole "some parts of the character build are a trap" thing they think is inherent in RPGs.  In fairness, a lot of video game RPGs lately also reinforce that thought.

This is why I really disliked 3.5 D&D and think it was the worst edition, it infected mainstream D&D with this munchkin power build thinking about building characters rather than playing games kind of mentality.

4th edition was garbage but you could safely say it wasn't D&D and move on.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 27, 2024, 10:42:48 PMThere's a minimum amount of time for any game--assuming that the player has a decent idea of what kind of character they want to play and some moderate understanding of the game system.  For a 1st level Basic D&D character, the minimum is about 5 minutes given those qualifiers.  However, for every person that can make that character in 5 minutes, there's another that will take 20+, because of inability to make up his mind about anything.

Same things happens with Fantasy Hero, except the minimum is about 40 minutes (20 for an expert), and the the guy with analysis paralysis won't ever really finish.  Eventually, the game will start, and he will have to play whatever he has.

Most players that have done nothing but D&D 3E, 4E, or 5E have to be broken of a worry habit when making characters in other systems.  The whole "some parts of the character build are a trap" thing they think is inherent in RPGs.  In fairness, a lot of video game RPGs lately also reinforce that thought.

Greetings!

Hello, Steven! I hope you are doing good today! You know, I was thinking about this commentary you made here. I played 3E, for years, and lived the system. It certainly had a few problems, most of which were kind of buried deeper within the system dynamic before they became noticeable. However, one of them that was somewhat more readily visible--kind of--was precisely what you point out here--"Some parts of the Charaacter Build are a trap!" Yeah, like how some feats, yechnically and rules-wise, provided Character A with a large boost in ability--and yet, in the same section, say particularly with numerous Feats, there may have been one or several Feats that, by their name, flavour text, and presented ability modifier, you would think, "Well, these here are awesome! These abilities perfectly reflect the background or training of my Character!" NOPE. Well, that all may very well be true, but *mechanically* it can be shown that such selections are sub-par when compared to the juice-flavoured Gummy bear that the Barbarian Throgg chose to take at 4th level. You could have selected the same uber-powerful Gummy Bear of Barbarian Might, but NO. You chose Skilled Outdoorsman instead. (Which, when you wade through the awesome sounding text description, the actual benefit is only a +2 Bonus to Fur Skinning while working with such materials at or around the hour of sunrise.

Stupid, lame stuff like that. But you know, I have always favoured theme, the Campaign, and particularly my Character and his particular background, talents, and experiences above whatever considerations of being a Min-Maxing "Powergamer". We used to also call such people "Munchkins!"

I think the Campaign, the Campaign Theme, and being faithful to your individual Character are far more important and worthwhile than the efforts at powergaming.

It is frustrating to see the official game company actually promote and reward powergaming, while seemingly carefully setting up numerous *traps* within the Character Build, Spell Selection, Feats, and so on. I remember the first time I caught wind of this problem, when a Player was discussing options and selections with me, and carefully going through the details, this disparity popped out at me. Then, I noticed these annoying dynamics for several examples.

AAARRRGGHHHH!!!! Right? *Laughing*

But you know what? I actually institute actual rewards within the game with Characters that make extended efforts at creating dynamic, faithful Characters, while not being afraid to ignore the powergaming elements. I also think that if one embraces the whole powergaming stuffed animal, then over time, yeah, every character of whatever class with that is going to look and perform the same, and then that brings in boredom and crying. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:10:06 PMCharacters starting out at level 1 shouldn't be fucking superheroes, you know?

Several 5e players have told me that they start characters at third level because first-level characters are "too weak."

Third level is where the odds of a 5e character actually dying start to drop like a rock.  It's also the level where all of the classes have gotten their subclasses which is a big power boost.

Making a 5e character doesn't take hours.  Who the hell has to spend hours making a 5 character?  What are they even doing for that long? 

Quote from: Rhymer88 on May 28, 2024, 06:28:43 AM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:10:06 PMCharacters starting out at level 1 shouldn't be fucking superheroes, you know?

Several 5e players have told me that they start characters at third level because first-level characters are "too weak."

As far as I know, that's been common in every edition. Supposedly, even Gary Gygax started his players at level 3.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 28, 2024, 07:40:37 AMMaking a 5e character doesn't take hours.  Who the hell has to spend hours making a 5 character?  What are they even doing for that long?

They likely are crafting the 'ultimate backstory', so a 2000 word essay on how awesome their character is and whatnot.

Quote from: SHARK on May 28, 2024, 03:13:10 AMBut you know what? I actually institute actual rewards within the game with Characters that make extended efforts at creating dynamic, faithful Characters, while not being afraid to ignore the powergaming elements. I also think that if one embraces the whole powergaming stuffed animal, then over time, yeah, every character of whatever class with that is going to look and perform the same, and then that brings in boredom and crying. *Laughing*

I don't disagree on your outcome and approach here at all.  That's the way I approached 3E, for example.  However, I think it's horrible game design.  I'd argue this way:

- The only way to get perfect balance is to make everything symmetric (e.g. chess, or if carried even further, checkers).

- RPGs, as well as most games that are models of something instead of solely focused on competitive games, need asymmetry, because models of real things, however constituted, are about messy things. That means a certain degree of imbalance is baked into the requirements.  RPGs in particular need the kind of asymmetry that is difficult if not impossible to test fully.

- RPGs have the additional requirement that even a relatively narrow one will have groups with different priorities on exactly how they want the game to go, which means that X's power-gaming element is balanced in Y's game and maybe even irrelevant in Z's game.

- Therefore, since an interesting, well-designed RPG is an asymmetric model, and already will naturally produce imbalance out of that, it's really stupid to put in traps on purpose.  You'll get plenty of traps just fine trying your best just to make a good game.

Games where you play a character that grows slowly over time should not make choices you made at level 1 cripple you at level 5 or 10 or 15.  Or at least should call them out as things to avoid until you know what you are doing. Of course there will be stuff around the edges.  The GM will need to address it somehow.  I made a point in 3E and 5E of seeing to it that players that made interesting characters in the world instead of "builds" got more flavorful magic items targeted to them.  It tended to even out the power balance, making power-gaming unrewarding, and was something those players appreciated in its own right. 

The other side of this is that games with traps are just plain annoying to many enjoyable/fun players and a magnet to players you'd like to discourage.  I'm not talking about plain stupid things, where the player ought to know something wouldn't work merely with the labels, never mind the mechanics.  No, if you try to play a pacifistic, gullible wizard with poor health in our heavy adventure game, you are probably going to be disappointed, and the GM isn't willing to bail out that character in this game.  (I've actually had to tell a player "No" on that kind of character, and after trying to explain it for 10 minutes, patiently, ended with, "The character isn't going to work the way you expect, and I don't want to deal with the hassle of trying to make it work."