D&D 5e Character Creation - A Disillusion/Rant/Perspective [Archive]

OneSpartan

2017-12-05, 12:11 PM

D&D Character Creation - A Disillusion/Rant/Perspective

Good Ole' Days:
I'll let you have a natural 20 on your Insight check. The last time I played D&D, AD&D was the latest thing (20+yrs?!?). I myself had a Paladin (after days of rolling to get the min stats) who my DM loved to put into situations that gave "Lawful Stupid" it's origins. Paladin moral dilemmas, AC/To Hit tables, Saving throws, and that new psionics thing; it was hard, but you suck it up - ‘cause I was a Pal gosh darn it! At that time the easiest thing to do was create a character(unless you wanted a Paladin). It was the playing of the character where it got hard. Today, that seems to have flipped.

Easy is the new Hard:
Now as I try to get back into gaming it seems that character creation is the hard part and gaming is what is easy. You'd think that anyone with any stats playing any class of any race with any alignment would be cake - but it's not. (Damn you, Drizzt!) Abilities, traits, feats, backgrounds etc.; all immediate choices, and all of which will have an effect on everything your character does from now on. And what in the 22nd Plane is a Human-Variant? Is that some EEOC thing that has made its way into fantasy gaming?? That is a lot of time and effort for a character that may die in the first hour of a rough cam-pain. That’s a lot of front-end time to invest. Nope, I don't get it.

Ignorance is Frustrating:
Prior to putting my toe back in the water I sat down to do a new character. Found an online site with a character builder to “make it easy” for me to get "5e ready". You go with what you know so I used the creator to see if I could "roll" a Pal. Wow, I thought! Instead of spending days to get my Paladin I could do it in hours because it's just a single mouse click to roll 18d6. I got great scores for a Ranger in the first hour - print it! Then Monk stats in the third hour - print it! Near the end of a day of on-again/off-again "rolling" I had what I thought I needed for a Paladin - definitely print it! Now let's start the build out. But wait... It allows me to redistribute stats? And I could have been Dragonborn for more strength? And arguably I could be a Neutral Gnome Paladin with a sixes in STR/CON/WIS and...::gulp:: Charisma!?!?! What the hell? What happened to standards?

All for Nothing:
Now confidently bringing in my 5e character sheets to my local gaming store I’m feeling prepared and that's cool. I watched a couple 5e games on YouTube, so just relax – if Jerry Holkins can do this... The "stats are great" I’m told, but the DM has to see them rolled. ::blink:: Chill, it was just few hours wasted. All good, I’m told there are some pre-rolled AL characters I can use. AL? American League? What in Toril is AL? And why is the AL sheet have the Paladin's highest score in Dexterity at 16 and Charisma is…12? I am in for more surprises. The character next to me is a bird man, magic-users can wear metal armor, and infinite elf sub-classes. All of which may or may not be restricted or allowed by the following list of alphabet soup: PBH, DMG, MM, XGE, SCAG, VGM, TOA, YP, COS, SKT, OOTA, POTA. What-the-what?!?
"There is no God.", I whispered.
"No, you have to pick one. Go with Tyr for a Vengeance Oath!" was the reply.
Sigh... I miss my “red book”. Now I finally understand why Aeofel falling in the acid gave me such satisfaction.

OK, Not Nothing:
So I trudged on creating a Paladin character rolled on the spot with some respectable stats - the rest I just wrote down whatever I was told. That seemed to take an elves age, but finally we played. And it was fun - which is the real point. We fought goblins, healed each other, and looted treasure. It was a new story. It was escape. It was great. But I can't help but remember a time when my character would have been laughed out of the Paladin seminary and told to get a job washing half-orc blood off tavern floors. Now the seminary is letting in half-orcs. So I also can't help sounding like an old curmudgeon when I say, "Back in my day, Paladins were for serious players when they finally got the stat rolls to survive the DMs hatred of them!”

And we walked to school in the snow, up hill - both ways.

DarkKnightJin

2017-12-05, 12:24 PM

Huh.. And here I am, rolling up character ideas for the fun of it, and keeping them in my back pocket for when a new campaign starts or a new character is needed..

I'll often get some fun out of thinking up a backstory for the character, which'll cement them on my head and heart. And make them come to life a bit beforr a single die is rolled.

nickl_2000

2017-12-05, 12:27 PM

krugaan

2017-12-05, 12:29 PM

To the OP... What's the last edition you played? Second?

Unoriginal

2017-12-05, 12:32 PM

Like other people on this forum have said: you really need to try to make an useless character in 5e.

Hell, the book tell you how to make a character of X or Y class quickly, if it's your objective.

But of course it requires you to read the rules and ask your DM how they handle character creation.

I'd advise you to read the Player's Handbook before trying to make a character.

LordEntrails

2017-12-05, 12:35 PM

DarkKnightJin

2017-12-05, 04:03 PM

Do you ever want a current character to die off because your new idea is even more exciting to you?

No, because every character I think up is exciting to me.

Also, I've only been in a single campaign so far, so I'm adverse to trying to get that guy killed. I have far more to do with him, and I wanna see how far I can take him.

krugaan

2017-12-05, 04:25 PM

like other people on this forum have said: You really need to try to make an useless character in 5e.

Challenge accepted!

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543957-quot-Useless-quot-character-concepts

The_Jette

2017-12-05, 04:34 PM

Challenge accepted!

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543957-quot-Useless-quot-character-concepts

But... Why?

2D8HP

2017-12-05, 04:47 PM

...up hill - both ways..
Preach it!

techsamurai5000

2017-12-05, 05:07 PM

Do you ever want a current character to die off because your new idea is even more exciting to you?

So badly, yes.

Telwar

2017-12-05, 05:31 PM

You are making it too difficult on yourself.

Just use a standard array if you are going to get yourself all wrapped up about rolled stats.

Pick a background that fits your concept, don't worry about all the interactions. 5E is pretty forgiving and just about any character can be fun to play and decent in combat if you adapt your tactics to the characters abilities.

Really, after you read the class description and all the backgrounds to get an idea of them, it should take 10-15 minutes to make a first level character. If you are spending more time than that you are punishing yourself.

^This. The last time I made one was at mid-level, with funky house rules, and that took me about 20ish minutes. Granted, I had the concept already, so I knew what class/race/background, but I still had to get clarification on things like available languages and whatnot.

Telwar

2017-12-05, 05:36 PM

Do you ever want a current character to die off because your new idea is even more exciting to you?

Sometimes. In our Iron Kingdoms game I have at least three fleshed-out concepts ready to roll if my gobber bites it.

The irony is that my gobber pistoleer/thief/brigand is the most likely to live in any TPK, with his having the highest speed and Defense, and second-highest Armor in the group.

Not always, though. In that GM's 4e game I switched characters about 1x/tier, but the other DM I typically stuck with the same character throughout his campaigns. OTOH, in his current 5e Birthright, I've already switched once.

Typhon

2017-12-05, 06:30 PM

D&D Character Creation - A Disillusion/Rant/Perspective

And we walked to school in the snow, up hill - both ways.

I would also like it noted that getting psionicist stats was very comparable to getting paladin stats. Just not as high as requiring a 17 in any of them, but then all of them were above 10.

.
Preach it!

Hallelujah.

Tanarii

2017-12-05, 09:55 PM

You're not the first old-timer that skipped from AD&D to say this about 5e.

But as an old-time who has gone through each edition, and its expansions /splats as they came out, 5e is a breath of fresh air compared to 3e or 4e. I've gone back and played BECMI somewhat recently, and 5e isn't that easy. It's not 5 min to make a character, plus 30 minutes of carefully choosing equipment. But a 5e character can be knocked out in less than 15 minutes, and you only need 5 minutes to write down equipment if you use a standard pack.

So IMX it's actually faster and simpler to make a 5e character than a BECMI character. You're just spending time on the character features and skills instead of pouring over the equipment list.

And don't get me started on AD&D 1e. It could take an hour or more dredging through the PHB, UA, and DMG just trying to understand how half your abilities and spells actually worked. Assuming you wanted to know that before game play started.

LeonBH

2017-12-06, 12:34 AM

Do you ever want a current character to die off because your new idea is even more exciting to you?

I know you didn't ask me... But yes

nickl_2000

2017-12-06, 07:40 AM

Sometimes. In our Iron Kingdoms game I have at least three fleshed-out concepts ready to roll if my gobber bites it.

The irony is that my gobber pistoleer/thief/brigand is the most likely to live in any TPK, with his having the highest speed and Defense, and second-highest Armor in the group.

Not always, though. In that GM's 4e game I switched characters about 1x/tier, but the other DM I typically stuck with the same character throughout his campaigns. OTOH, in his current 5e Birthright, I've already switched once.

It's kind of ironic that I'm in the same boat. I have a Moon Druid that I enjoy playing, but I get excited with all the new options from Xanathar's and want to try several other builds. That being said, we are still only level 4, and my character hasn't once actually taken a real HP of damage (sure my wildshapes have been beaten up, but those are temp HP).

Knaight

2017-12-06, 07:56 AM

First order of business - give 3e a read at some point. I'm emphatically not recommending it, I just think you'd find it entertaining.

Like other people on this forum have said: you really need to try to make an useless character in 5e.

That's not particularly relevant here. This isn't a matter of 5e being too imbalanced, it's a matter of 5e being too complex and too expansive*, along with some criticisms that basically boil down to it just being different. There are more decisions to make, and more options for every decision. Early D&D in particular had effectively one decision a lot of the time - you roll your stats, you pick your class/race, done. 5e has stats, race, class, background, etc. It has more races, it has more classes, backgrounds are totally new, skill decisions are new, etc.

With that said, familiarity is a major factor; the comparison here isn't being made by someone new to both games but a veteran of one new to the other, and that can introduce a pretty dramatic skew**. Early D&D is more complicated than it tends to be acknowledged being. Similarly, 5e being hailed as a rules light game is pretty much a direct consequence of it being rules light compared to 3e, and not by any broad standard.

*With all three obviously being by the standards implied by the OP, which are one person's standard.

**My personal example here is in videogames, I've played a lot of Dominions 3 and know it quite well. I pretty much bounced off of Crusader Kings 2, and my initial impression was that it was just too complicated - this despite it probably being the simpler of the two games.

Unoriginal

2017-12-06, 08:04 AM

That's not particularly relevant here. This isn't a matter of 5e being too imbalanced, it's a matter of 5e being too complex and too expansive*, along with some criticisms that basically boil down to it just being different. There are more decisions to make, and more options for every decision. Early D&D in particular had effectively one decision a lot of the time - you roll your stats, you pick your class/race, done. 5e has stats, race, class, background, etc. It has more races, it has more classes, backgrounds are totally new, skill decisions are new, etc.

With that said, familiarity is a major factor; the comparison here isn't being made by someone new to both games but a veteran of one new to the other, and that can introduce a pretty dramatic skew**. Early D&D is more complicated than it tends to be acknowledged being. Similarly, 5e being hailed as a rules light game is pretty much a direct consequence of it being rules light compared to 3e, and not by any broad standard.

*With all three obviously being by the standards implied by the OP, which are one person's standard.

**My personal example here is in videogames, I've played a lot of Dominions 3 and know it quite well. I pretty much bounced off of Crusader Kings 2, and my initial impression was that it was just too complicated - this despite it probably being the simpler of the two games.

It's relevant because OP was worried about making a bad/inefficient/subpar character

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 08:34 AM

You're not the first old-timer that skipped from AD&D to say this about 5e....

....5 min to make a character, plus 30 minutes of carefully choosing equipment. But a 5e character can be knocked out in less than 15 minutes, and you only need 5 minutes to write down equipment if you use a standard pack. .
Another old-timer here.

@Tanarii is right about how long choosing equipment could take in TD&D.

To exaggerate (a bit) in WD&D you play your PC's "stats" in TD&D you played your inventory.

Of the biggest changes that I've noticed, two are cultural/expectations, it used to be that I was the least cautious player (and my PC's died like flies because of that), now there doesn't seem to be any checking for traps, and no one else seems to consider the possibility that every encounter won't have combat ending in victory for the PC's, so parley and running away never happen (no matter how many times both in and out of character I suggest it), so I now feel like thr most cautious player, and really the game seems less about exploring and more of a comga-line of endless combat.

I was never criticized for having a "sub-optimal build" in old D&D ("Build? You mean like in Car Wars?"), so that's a change.

Both healing and leveling up are way faster, and most levels bring in new options that need to be learned, instead of just adjusting HP or Thief skill chances.

Cantrips. Instead of first level Magic Users casting one spell per day, they are endless spells that may be cast. Spell casters went from weak at low levels in old D&D, to being relatively powerful at all levels.

Way more options for PC's (too many for my age-addled mind, I mostly just play Champion Fighters, and Rogues to keep it simple for myself).

All-in-all I'd say I now prefer playing 1st level 5e WD&D, but at 11th level I still prefer TD&D, but that may change as I get more used to the new system, and my memories of the old dim.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-06, 09:34 AM

Alright, new timer here (well relatively). I'm in the agreement that D&D Fifth Edition has too many choices.

I'm fine with point buy stats, I tend to use the standard array when building characters, it means I have no chance of being ahead of or behind the curve.

I'm fine with backgrounds, they add a little bit of complexity to the character but are mainly a skill and equipment delivery device. Considering that several features you can have are either so vague as to be useless (looking at you researcher) or 'you don't have to pay for food and lodging' I've taken to ignoring the features entirely unless I want three retainers for something (probably to cart a grand piano into the dungeon for my Bard).

I'm fine with races and classes, although I'd rather go back to just classes. If you don't want 'my class is elf', then you obviously don't think the same way as me.

Where 5e has lost the plot is with subraces and subclasses.

Seriously, over twenty different options to pick from in each of my race and class slots? Several of which could could easily have been folded into the four basic classes (what's the thematic difference between a Druid and a Nature Cleric?), some of which are just annoying. What was wrong with Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief?

ad_hoc

2017-12-06, 10:52 AM

.

Of the biggest changes that I've noticed, two are cultural/expectations, it used to be that I was the least cautious player (and my PC's died like flies because of that), now there doesn't seem to be any checking for traps, and no one else seems to consider the possibility that every encounter won't have combat ending in victory for the PC's, so parley and running away never happen (no matter how many times both in and out of character I suggest it), so I now feel like thr most cautious player, and really the game seems less about exploring and more of a comga-line of endless combat.

D&D has always been group dependent.

I only run published adventures but they are deadly to the groups I run. Players try all sorts of inventive ways to carefully explore and parley in order to avoid combats.

Even a small combat might drain enough resources to get them killed later.

I don't think it is a single difference in game style and I'm not trying to make the game hard on purpose. I do know that I wouldn't be interested in playing in a group where failure isn't possible.

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 11:00 AM

.Of the biggest changes that I've noticed, two are cultural/expectations, it used to be that I was the least cautious player (and my PC's died like flies because of that), now there doesn't seem to be any checking for traps, and no one else seems to consider the possibility that every encounter won't have combat ending in victory for the PC's, so parley and running away never happen (no matter how many times both in and out of character I suggest it), so I now feel like thr most cautious player, and really the game seems less about exploring and more of a comga-line of endless combat.
The sad part is there is plenty of room in the Perception and Investigatio rules to require searching for traps. You just need to start with assuming front rank of PCs in a dangerous environment are searching for threats as they go wi passive perception, and success in that will provide potential clues to traps. Players still need to make meaningful decisions based on those clues, including what they are trying to Investigate, specifically, if they choose to do that.

And the Pcs being assumed to win fights is entirely on the DM/ table expectations. That's the core of Combat-as-Sport vs Combat-as-War paradigm. In CaS play, Pcs are expected to win encounters, assuming they use reasonable tactics. In CaW play, there is no assumption that the PCs are capable of winning a given encounter. (Obviously they require considerably different approaches on both the DM and Players parts.)

Unoriginal

2017-12-06, 11:03 AM

If the PCs are not searching for traps, it means their DMs didn't have the players experience how a trap could be anywhere and how dangerous they could be.

Same for fights. If the PCs are never in difficulty, the player will never think they are in difficulty enough to flee or the like.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 11:33 AM

If the PCs are not searching for traps, it means their DMs.....

....Same for fights...
I realize that it's table dependent, and that even with the higher starting HP and faster heals it would be easy to tweak in-game situations to make the game played in an older "exploring and paranoia" style rather than the "conga-line of endless combat triumphs" that I see now, I just haven't seen it, despite playing at tables with different DM's and players, that's why I call it a "cultural change".

It's a big world and I'm sure that someone, somewhere is playing "old assumptions with new rules", but I haven't seen it, mostly I see little but fights to the death, with neither side running away, and I've never seen a 5e PC die that was actually being played (instead of a "meta" in-game explanation of what happened to a PC when a player quits).

Similarly, I just don't see traps. I often play 5e Rogues, and I use "Sneak Attack" often, but "Thieves tools"? Almost never.

Beyond the rules, the game seems changed, and I suspect that, even if old rules were still used, the style of play would not be the same.

What happened?

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-06, 11:45 AM

What happened?
Video games.
Participation trophies.
*dons asbestos cape*
:smallcool:

ad_hoc

2017-12-06, 11:48 AM

.

What happened?

Get a different group.

alchahest

2017-12-06, 12:27 PM

.
I realize that it's table dependent, and that even with the higher starting HP and faster heals it would be easy to tweak in-game situations to make the game played in an older "exploring and paranoia" style rather than the "conga-line of endless combat triumphs" that I see now, I just haven't seen it, despite playing at tables with different DM's and players, that's why I call it a "cultural change".

It's a big world and I'm sure that someone, somewhere is playing "old assumptions with new rules", but I haven't seen it, mostly I see little but fights to the death, with neither side running away, and I've never seen a 5e PC die that was actually being played (instead of a "meta" in-game explanation of what happened to a PC when a player quits).

Similarly, I just don't see traps. I often play 5e Rogues, and I use "Sneak Attack" often, but "Thieves tools"? Almost never.

Beyond the rules, the game seems changed, and I suspect that, even if old rules were still used, the style of play would not be the same.

What happened?

Probably players are more interested in playing the types of characters listed in the PHB as inspiration than they are in playing terrified dirt farmers hiding behind a ten foot pole for hours at a time while a DM gloats about his perfect puzzles.

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 12:34 PM

What happened?
On combat:
XP for gold seemed silly, so people house ruled it away.
Then the house-rule became the official rule.
Combat became the primary way to get XP.
If you must fight to gain levels, you cannot have a significant chance of TPK, or you will TPK for sure.
Fights thus had to be individually vanishingly small chance of TPK, which makes chance of death very small in turn.
(Alternately, you need save points where you rez automatically after death.)

On Traps:
DMs didn't understand how to telegraph traps properly.
Infamous "bad" examples of how not to do traps are published (Tomb of Horrors).
DMs didn't understand how to make time matter, so players search everything.
Traps become pointless or gotchas.
Everyone hates traps.
TSR introduces Find/Remove Traps. Finding traps becomes a roll.
Everyone still hates traps.
WotC introduces Search / Spot skills in 3e. Finding traps remains a roll.
5e refines skills to (not directly analogous) Investigate & Perception. They introduce passive perception and automatic success rules.
Many players still make finding traps a simple roll, except now they treat Passive Perception like "always on radar".
Everyone still hates traps.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 12:50 PM

...playing terrified dirt farmers hiding behind a ten foot pole.....
That...

...is a very succinct description of my favorite 5e "Folk hero background Fighter1, Rogue 4" PC.

Thanks!

:smile:

Finney

2017-12-06, 01:18 PM

All for Nothing:
Now confidently bringing in my 5e character sheets to my local gaming store I’m feeling prepared and that's cool. I watched a couple 5e games on YouTube, so just relax – if Jerry Holkins can do this... The "stats are great" I’m told, but the DM has to see them rolled. ::blink:: Chill, it was just few hours wasted.

If time was an issue, you could have used the standard array from the PHB. That being said, I don't understand how it takes "hours" to roll for stats, unless you are rolling dozens and dozens of times.

It is generally expected that if you choose to roll for stats instead of using the standard array or point buy method, you always roll in front of the DM. Otherwise, you end up with "rolled" arrays like 18, 14, 16, 12, 17, 13. :smallcool:

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-06, 01:25 PM

While I like point by better, your point about standard array being easy to use is spot on.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 01:31 PM

While I like point by better, your point about standard array being easy to use is spot on..
+1

Standard Array and Standard Equipment are two nice innovations that make character creation much faster.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-06, 02:13 PM

5e refines skills to (not directly analogous) Investigate & Perception. They introduce passive perception and automatic success rules.

Small note, 4e had Passive Perception (and Insight). I can't remember how they were used, but I think it was similar to 5e.

Big Papa Turnip

2017-12-06, 02:30 PM

This reads more like an exercise in creative writing than a forum topic meant to foster discussion.

What even is the purpose of this? "This is new and that's bad and I don't like it! Who else agrees?"

I mean, sure, if I haven't driven a car since 1972 and somehow I buy a Tesla and wind up on the Autobahn I'd be overwhelmed too, but it would be no one's fault but my own for not preparing myself for what I was getting into.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-06, 03:05 PM

I mean, sure, if I haven't driven a car since 1972 and somehow I buy a Tesla and wind up on the Autobahn I'd be overwhelmed too, but it would be no one's fault but my own for not preparing myself for what I was getting into.

My XKCD substitutions plugin seems to be messing up, looks like it's time to correct it.

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 03:17 PM

If time was an issue, you could have used the standard array from the PHB. That being said, I don't understand how it takes "hours" to roll for stats, unless you are rolling dozens and dozens of times.
Check what the OP said in the previous paragraph. The OP wasted a few hours of his time at home. Because he had spent that time rolling over and over again until he got good ones, for several classes.

Which is IMX exactly why it's pretty much a standard to roll in front of the DM, if you're rolling. So you only roll once, unless the group is house ruling the rolling method.

Edit: and when I say IMX it's a standard to roll in front of the DM, I'm not talking about 5e. I'm talking about that's my D&D experience overall. Including AD&D 1e and BECMI. Precisely because players would do what the OP did.

Morty

2017-12-06, 03:36 PM

.
I realize that it's table dependent, and that even with the higher starting HP and faster heals it would be easy to tweak in-game situations to make the game played in an older "exploring and paranoia" style rather than the "conga-line of endless combat triumphs" that I see now, I just haven't seen it, despite playing at tables with different DM's and players, that's why I call it a "cultural change".

It's a big world and I'm sure that someone, somewhere is playing "old assumptions with new rules", but I haven't seen it, mostly I see little but fights to the death, with neither side running away, and I've never seen a 5e PC die that was actually being played (instead of a "meta" in-game explanation of what happened to a PC when a player quits).

Similarly, I just don't see traps. I often play 5e Rogues, and I use "Sneak Attack" often, but "Thieves tools"? Almost never.

Beyond the rules, the game seems changed, and I suspect that, even if old rules were still used, the style of play would not be the same.

What happened?

With regards to traps, what happened is that people realized they're a god-awful gameplay element. So either they use traps in ways that are actually interesting, or they don't use them at all. It has nothing to do with danger, either. You can have danger and tension in whatever way you please without traps.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 04:51 PM

....You can have danger and tension in whatever way you please without traps..
True, but I miss:

"In the dim torchlight you see a 20' wide room with a broken chair, table, a closed chest and cobwebs leading into the darkness...."

instead of just:

"You see a Bugbear, roll initiative.... after a short rest you see a Hobgoblin, roll initiative... after a long rest you see an Ogre, roll iinitiative. .."

x infinity.

alchahest

2017-12-06, 04:59 PM

does anyone actually play the second way?

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 05:03 PM

does anyone actually play the second way?.
In the games that I've been able to find lately, more and more.

I'd love to play games more like the first type again, but a chance for that seems to be more remote.

krugaan

2017-12-06, 05:07 PM

.
In the games that I've been able to find lately, more and more.

I'd love to play games more like the first type again, but a chance for that seems to be more remote.

To be honest, all one or all the other sound equally terrible.

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 05:08 PM

does anyone actually play the second way?
Pretty much all of AL. And whatever official play was called in 4e as well. And IMX the vast majority of 3e D&D home groups.

Playing the first way has definitely gone the way of the dodo for most tables. OTOH so has doing actual dungeons (not just adventuring sites) at all. :smallyuk:

Edit: got my threads mixed up, I thought this was the "grognards lamenting dungeon crawls being a thing of the past" thread, not the "grognards lamenting characters taking too long to build" thread. :smallbiggrin:

alchahest

2017-12-06, 05:33 PM

I guess I've been lucky? all the tables I'm at are narrative campaigns with loads of exploration and role playing, and interesting combats. sounds like AL might be the problem, rather than the game. It seems like it makes things competitive instead of creative

krugaan

2017-12-06, 05:35 PM

Edit: got my threads mixed up, I thought this was the "grognards lamenting dungeon crawls being a thing of the past" thread, not the "grognards lamenting characters taking too long to build" thread. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know what a grognard is, but I FIND IT OFFENSIVE, SIR

Potato_Priest

2017-12-06, 05:47 PM

"you see a ____" roll initiative play sounds like a combination of the worst aspects of older and newer styles of gaming.

Disclaimer:The following attempt at a good contribution to discussion is based entirely around stereotypes, and the representations of different gaming styles is definitely not meant to be representative of anyone's actual groups.

Archetypal old style dungeons were nonsensically vast and had little overlapping narrative, but required creativity and innovation, not just loads of hp, to survive.

The archetypal modern style, on the other hand, tends to focus around story. This approach often shafts player creativity and features less exploration due to the necessities of the "plot," but focuses more heavily on coherence of worldbuilding and roleplaying. The encounters, because they fit into some greater narrative, will inherently not be meaningless.

The playstyle that 2d8HP describes combines the nonsensical worldbuilding and rarer roleplay of the archetypal old-style with the disregard for creativity and exploration of the archetypal new-style, becoming the worst of both worlds.

krugaan

2017-12-06, 05:53 PM

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 05:56 PM

I don't know what a grognard is, but I FIND IT OFFENSIVE, SIR
Me. I'm a grognard. Also 2D8. Also Korvin. There's a couple others of us floating around here, lamenting how it we used to walk uphill both ways to our dungeons through snow, and these young whippersnappers have it easy these days. :smallbiggrin:

I actually played through every edition*, and have enjoyed every one very much. My grognard resurgence during 5e was inspired by a combination of going back to play BECMI, reading a bunch on the original games, and noticing how much 5e can easily be adapted to slightly more grognard-y gaming. IIRC Mearls even made some commentary to that effect during development, so it's quite intentional.

*edit: except oD&D. So only an honorary grognard, really. :smallwink:

krugaan

2017-12-06, 05:58 PM

Me. I'm a grognard. Also 2D8. Also Korvin. There's a couple others of us floating around here, lamenting how it we used to walk uphill both ways to our dungeons through snow, and these young whippersnappers have it easy these days. :smallbiggrin:

I actually played through every edition, and have enjoyed every one very much. My grognard resurgence during 5e was inspired by a combination of going back to play BECMI, reading a bunch on the original games, and noticing how much 5e can easily be adapted to slightly more grognard-y gaming. IIRC Mearls even made some commentary to that effect during development, so it's quite intentional.

You should start a thread titled:

"GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS" - persuasion or intimidation check?

edit: I'm not quite that old, but I played 2nd Ed in high school. 5th is perfectly suited for more exposition and stuff, but it really seems to me that they put a great deal of that burden ON THE DM to create. The written adventures (at least the ones I read) have very few "read this script" sort of help-you-out blocks for DM's to fall back on.

Combined with the 5th Ed mantra of "we gotta make this damn game more accessible" and you have a lot of new DMs who are kinda clueless about how to describe stuff

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 05:59 PM

You should start a thread titled:

"GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS" - persuasion or intimidation check?Pretty sure 2D8 has already done that a bunch of times :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

ad_hoc

2017-12-06, 06:02 PM

Pretty much all of AL. And whatever official play was called in 4e as well. And IMX the vast majority of 3e D&D home groups.

Playing the first way has definitely gone the way of the dodo for most tables. OTOH so has doing actual dungeons (not just adventuring sites) at all. :smallyuk:

Edit: got my threads mixed up, I thought this was the "grognards lamenting dungeon crawls being a thing of the past" thread, not the "grognards lamenting characters taking too long to build" thread. :smallbiggrin:

It's one of those things. I live in a large city so there are lots of games at game stores. But, I would never play at them.

I'm a part of several different gaming groups and I have my own private D&D gaming group because gaming is foremost a social activity. I want to be able to curate who I play with and play with friends.

I would hazard to guess that those sorts of games are being played, they're just not advertised. It's not just the games I'm in either, I know people who have their own games who I'm sure I'd be interested in playing if I had the time for those sorts of things.

Something like meetup.com, local conventions, or asking around at the FLGS are good ideas for entering those social circles.

It's not the rules that are at fault here. 5e even goes out of its way to encourage more exploration and social interaction than recent editions.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 06:07 PM

Pretty sure 2D8 has already done that a bunch of times :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Well as a matter of fact...

Hey you darn kids get off my edition! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483843-Hey-you-darn-kids-get-off-my-edition!)

krugaan

2017-12-06, 06:09 PM

Well as a matter of fact...

Hey you darn kids get off my edition! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483843-Hey-you-darn-kids-get-off-my-edition!)

I had to laugh at how fast you came up with evidence.

Tanarii

2017-12-06, 06:10 PM

I don't think it's the rules, other than combat being the primary resource-depletion method that rewards XP. And that's easy enough to change.

I mean, I DM very fast paced, and I've run organized play plenty of times. I know exactly how tempting it is to keep the game snappy and exciting by moving to the next tension point, which is often the next eruption of violence. Especially with large groups, where slow-building tension is very difficult to do effectively while keeping player's attention.

There's definitely an art to it, and it's takes effort to do it compared to the quick and dirty "next combat" way. And it requires either finding players that are willing to buy in, or drilling home that everything is a decision and has consequences, often life or death ones. IMX the other result is players with paranoia set to 11.

ad_hoc

2017-12-06, 06:12 PM

*edit: except oD&D. So only an honorary grognard, really. :smallwink:

In my head I have a simple delineation.

Pre-3e or post-3e.

Now, maybe that's just because I don't go back far enough...

Morty

2017-12-06, 06:12 PM

.
True, but I miss:

"In the dim torchlight you see a 20' wide room with a broken chair, table, a closed chest and cobwebs leading into the darkness...."

instead of just:

"You see a Bugbear, roll initiative.... after a short rest you see a Hobgoblin, roll initiative... after a long rest you see an Ogre, roll iinitiative. .."

x infinity.

I severely doubt people weren't doing the latter 20-30 years ago.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 06:19 PM

I severely doubt people weren't doing the latter 20-30 years ago..
I'm sure your right.

Part of my problem may be that my view of my 1979 to 1983 games is particularly rose-tinted and dimm

My accursed 1989 to 1991 game playing, on the other hand, I clearly remember some as being "worse than no".

opaopajr

2017-12-06, 06:32 PM

Awww, there there! I understand how you feel. :smallsmile: Let it all out. It's OK to miss things. Just like Almond Joy and Mounds, 'sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't'. You're not crazy, you merely have happy memories and preferences. :smallcool:

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 07:09 PM

Awww, there there! I understand how you feel....

....You're not crazy, you merely have happy memories and preferences. :smallcool:.
*sniff*

Thanks that's very kind.

I don't know what a grognard is...

I believe It's French for "Old complainer" (http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/grognard/38352)

Way back, wargamers who played Napoleonic miniatures were "grognards" and we who played D&D were "snot-nosed-tennis-shoe-punks"

1 : an old soldier. 2 often capitalized : a soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grognard)

Me. I'm a grognard. Also 2D8. Also Korvin. There's a couple others of us floating around here, lamenting how it we used to walk uphill both ways to our dungeons through snow, and these young whippersnappers have it easy these days. :smallbiggrin:.
I've even seen a 4e D&D partisian at this describe 5e as "the grognard edition for those who liked 3.5 better".

So my current definition of "Grognards" is based on three factors:

1) Actual physical age
Of the three "Grognards" cited by Tanarii, I believe KorvinStarmast is senior, then me, then Tanarii.

2) Total table time
Since more than 9/10th of my table time was 1978 to 1992, I sure both KorvinStarmast and Tanarii have me beat.

3) How much someone complains.

I'm second to none.

Longman

2017-12-06, 07:10 PM

The whole idea you would roll over and again to get a Paladin might be the reason why you can now just get a Paladin?

Such characters were suposed to be rare in early editions because you had to accept what you rolled! If you didn't, why bother? Why not just let people have what they want?

That's the weirdest part of the OP rant, to me. The idea that character generation was relatively easy back in the day, yet you'd spend ages rolling to get that special class you wanted.

krugaan

2017-12-06, 07:18 PM

.
*sniff*

Thanks that's very kind.

I believe It's French for "Old complainer" (http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/grognard/38352)

Way back, wargamers who played Napoleonic miniatures were "grognards" and we who played D&D were "snot-nosed-tennis-shoe-punks"

1 : an old soldier. 2 often capitalized : a soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grognard)

.
I've even seen a 4e D&D partisian at this describe 5e as "the grognard edition for those who liked 3.5 better".

So my current definition of "Grognards" is based on three factors:

1) Actual physical age
Of the three "Grognards" cited by Tanarii, I believe KorvinStarmast is senior, then me, then Tanarii.

2) Total table time
Since more than 9/10th of my table time was 1978 to 1992, I sure both KorvinStarmast and Tanarii have me beat.

3) How much someone complains.

I'm second to none.

Hah, that's actually a fascinating history lesson. I'm assuming WH40K has it's roots in grognard Napoleonic wargaming?

Kortho: Get off my lawn you damn kids!
Tanachesis: Screw that, go die in a fire!
2d8HPos: the whole world is my lawn and I set in fire!

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-06, 07:25 PM

Combined with the 5th Ed mantra of "we gotta make this damn game more accessible" and you have a lot of new DMs who are kinda clueless about how to describe stuff

Yo, an antigonard here (it's good that 2D8HP and I are an ocean apart, we'd probably annihilate and cause a burst of hard radiation if we ever met). The problem I have with 5e is simple. I love playing it as much as the next guy.

But running it? If I want crunchy fantasy I pull out Anima: Beyond Fantasy, if I want something lighter I pull out Lamentations of the Flame Princess. 5e's joint attempts at accessibility and keeping the sacred cows alive has made it crunchy enough that I don't feel comfortable improvising a game of it, but not so crunchy I heavily enjoy preparing it. It's too accessible, but not accessible enough.

With LotFP if I need to start quickly I can just get people to skip the equipment step, everybody begins with two weapons (plus up to twenty units of ammunition for ranged weapons) leather armour, a backpack and waterskin, and one or two items of their choice (plus 2d6sp). They'll pick up more of an inventory son enough. 5e adds in subraces, subclasses, and a lot more abilities to note down. Plus skills, when did nonspecialists get those? (oh yeah, most demihumans get higher ratings in one or two) plus freeways for variant humans.

Of we're going that far, we might as well allow more customisation. Anima gives a lot of that, 1st level characters get 600DP and costs for the various skills and extra bits St by their class. That sounds awesome, being Anne to truly customise my skills.

I suppose that's the problem with accessible compromises, you end up with both the good and bad.

2D8HP

2017-12-06, 07:27 PM

...Such characters were suposed to be rare in early editions because you had to accept what you rolled!... .
1985's Unearthed Arcana which introduced some way O.P. new classes and options (sound familiar?), had "alternate" stat rolling methods so you could get those rare classes.

I read it and left it in the store.

Hah, that's actually a fascinating history lesson. .
Thanks!

:smile:

Kortho: Get off my lawn you damn kids!
Tanachesis: Screw that, go die in a fire!
2d8HPos: the whole world is my lawn and I set in fire!.
Somehow I've got to fit that in my Sig.
:amused:

krugaan

2017-12-06, 07:32 PM

Yo, an antigonard here (it's good that 2D8HP and I are an ocean apart, we'd probably annihilate and cause a burst of hard radiation if we ever met). The problem I have with 5e is simple. I love playing it as much as the next guy.

The heck is an antigonard?!?!?!

But running it? If I want crunchy fantasy I pull out Anima: Beyond Fantasy, if I want something lighter I pull out Lamentations of the Flange Princess. 5e's joint attempts at accessibility and keeping the sacred cows alive has made it crunchy enough that I don't feel comfortable improvising a game of it, but not so crunchy I heavily enjoy preparing it. It's too accessible, but not accessible enough.

Ah, as someone who is obviously well acquainted with a bunch of words I assume are alternate gaming systems, you have choices. I think WoTC was looking to capture a bunch of the "outgrowing Skyrim and GTA" bunch. There are now a lot of those people. WoTC had to sort of find something gamey but not TOO gamey (lookin at you 4E, allegedly) and something narrative but not TOO narrative as to be boring.

With LotFP if I need to start quickly I can just get people to skip the equipment step, everybody begins with two weapons (plus up to twenty units of ammunition for ranged weapons) leather armour, a backpack and waterskin, and one or two items of their choice (plus 2d6sp). They'll pick up more of an inventory son enough. 5e adds in subraces, subclasses, and a lot more abilities to note down. Plus skills, when did nonspecialists get those? (oh yeah, most demihumans get higher ratings in one or two) plus freeways for variant humans.

Of we're going that far, we might as well allow more customisation. Anima gives a lot of that, 1st level characters get 600DP and costs for the various skills and extra bits St by their class. That sounds awesome, being Anne to truly customise my skills.

Wat?

I suppose that's the problem with accessible compromises, you end up with both the good and bad.

Yeah. People think there's always some mythical point at which two competing things can come to a reasonably satisfactory compromise.

krugaan

2017-12-06, 07:33 PM

.

Somehow I've got to fit that in my Sig.
:amused:

If you're going to do that, fix my typo :smallfrown:

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-06, 07:36 PM

Just a note, I've corrected a spelling mistake in my previous post. However, the fact that I suggested that a game called 'Lamentations of the Vagina Princess' exists makes me chuckle.

EDIT: in this case antigonard means 'young and highly opinionated, especially towards the support of more "modern" game elements'.

opaopajr

2017-12-06, 07:45 PM

I played all versions of DnD, and have my preferences. I still say 5e is the only WotC version I'll play again. That's a compliment! :smallcool:

I rolled 3d6 straight down and liked it! In 2e and in 5e! :smallmad:

GiantFlyingHog

2017-12-06, 08:50 PM

It is generally expected that if you choose to roll for stats instead of using the standard array or point buy method, you always roll in front of the DM. Otherwise, you end up with "rolled" arrays like 18, 14, 16, 12, 17, 13. :smallcool:

I feel the need to point out that you do actually get stats rolled like this. Heck, my last two characters had better starting stats than these.

Devils_Advocate

2017-12-15, 01:00 PM

I remember someone stating somewhere that "character optimization" in AD&D was done via swearing up and down that you really did roll those stats. Rolling until you get something you like would be the "lawful evil" (i.e. munchkin) route -- you really did roll them! In modern D&D, character optimization has been legitimized as something that you can do by pouring over lengthy lists of options looking for the most overpowered ones, which sounds a fair bit more interesting than rolling dice for days on end to me.

So, in keeping with that model, the most overpowered subclasses are now hidden in walls of text rather than locked behind ability score requirements. Part of what makes those walls so high, I think, is not just the number of options but that classes and subclasses tend to have longer lists of specific abilities than in AD&D. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) As such, paladins don't really need high ability score minima to differentiate them from fighters, for example, because they already get a bunch more stuff that makes them different. :)

That is a lot of time and effort for a character that may die in the first hour of a rough cam-pain. That’s a lot of front-end time to invest. Nope, I don't get it.

Beyond the rules, the game seems changed, and I suspect that, even if old rules were still used, the style of play would not be the same.

What happened?
I see it as a change in what gets sacrificed in order to play a friggin' game already instead of an elaborate simulation.

In old-school D&D, PCs are faceless, nameless entities who pop into existence out of the ether to be sent into the proverbial grinder of a dangerous world filled with deadly monsters, traps, magic, etc. In new-school D&D, PCs are people with personalities, origins, goals, opinions, etc. for whom the world carefully arranges itself in order to provide a series of encounters of escalating threat level.

They're different approaches to creating stories set in a dangerous fantasy world. In the first approach, the PCs are assumed to have a variety of unstated traits that conveniently never come up, because specifying those traits for a character who's likely to die in an hour isn't worth the effort. So you with up with "characters" without so much actual characterization. In the second approach, it's assumed that there are loads of adventuring parties that do get eaten by monsters, but this campaign is going to be about one that that doesn't happen to. So "dangers" aren't so much actually dangerous.

I'm sure that some players prefer to actually have an elaborate simulation where their valuable, detailed PCs are at very significant risk of death, but they're probably a minority. That seems like more a way to add excitement to a boring life than to relax and escape from a stressful one, and I'm guessing that more players are after the latter than the former.

If the PCs are not searching for traps, it means their DMs didn't have the players experience how a trap could be anywhere and how dangerous they could be.

Same for fights. If the PCs are never in difficulty, the player will never think they are in difficulty enough to flee or the like.
Even if the player characters never really face adversity, it still doesn't make much sense for every fight to be to the death, because that means that their opponents are always unwilling or unable to flee, which is kind of ridiculous. In some scenarios it makes sense, but those scenarios shouldn't occur every time over a long-running campaign without some sort of reason behind that.

Everyone hates traps.
I think part of the reason for that may be that characters only obviously avoid traps that they find. Avoiding traps by staying out of a trapped areas is a success that you never learn about, but you learn about every one of your failures.

In some cases you might not learn about the monsters you bypassed either, but I should think that as a general rule monsters are easier to observe from a distance without engaging, whereas traps are, by nature, hidden.

Maybe it would be more fun if the DM told the players all the hazards that they unknowingly circumvented once they're done with an area?

What was wrong with Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief?
Most players seem to prefer more options than that, but even if they didn't, it's a lot easier to sell a bunch of new material than it is to sell, well, a lack of material. How many people would be willing to pay as much for books half the current length, even if they were helpfully concise, with lower redundancy and fewer unnecessary details? Those most willing to shell out MO' MONEY for MO' NEW STUFF are inevitably the target audience of a new edition, as those least willing to do so are unlikely to buy it regardless.

The heck is an antigonard?!?!?!
Anonymouswizard probably meant "antigrognard", i.e. the opposite of a grognard.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-15, 04:30 PM

Most players seem to prefer more options than that, but even if they didn't, it's a lot easier to sell a bunch of new material than it is to sell, well, a lack of material. How many people would be willing to pay as much for books half the current length, even if they were helpfully concise, with lower redundancy and fewer unnecessary details? Those most willing to shell out MO' MONEY for MO' NEW STUFF are inevitably the target audience of a new edition, as those least willing to do so are unlikely to buy it regardless.

Sure, I get that, but the problem is that it assumes that the makers want to sell option books, and I don't really get that idea from 5e where WotC seems more interested in selling adventures. But yes, however I'd honestly assumed subclasses would have removed the need for more than the core four. You could make books selling subclasses without selling new classes, as 5e is doing now.

Anonymouswizard probably meant "antigrognard", i.e. the opposite of a grognard.

Bah, you and your spelling.