Though there isn’t a “right” way to play DnD because it depends on what your group wants, there are definitely some wrong ways to play. What are some objectively wrong ways you have played/planned to play DnD and enjoyed?

My current idea is to play by yourself, follow everything RAW, and try and win a published adventure in as little in-game time as possible, utilizing maximum meta gaming possible, with a max party size of 4 and no replacement characters in case of death. I’ve routed out a speedrun of LMoP that defeats the final boss in 4 in-game days by gathering all the necessary equipment and knowledge of hidden locations as fast as possible, skipping everything else.

If you're not having fun, you're playing the game wrong.  If you're disrupting the fun of the other people you're playing with, you're playing the game wrong.  Aside from that, I don't think there's a wrong way to play the game.

Obviously having fun is the goal. I’m talking about doing things that the game isn’t designed for at all, that are still fun.

Trying to run a modern, real world adventure using 5e rules is pretty silly. Even if you restrict classes to just the non-magical ones, and races to just humans.

I feel similarly about stories that don't involve a lot of fighting and exploring. But that's gonna start a fight, so I'll not say anything more about it. ;)

Quote from Flare76 >>

Obviously having fun is the goal. I’m talking about doing things that the game isn’t designed for at all, that are still fun.

If having fun is the goal, and everyone has fun doing whatever it is they're doing, how can it be wrong?

Quote from Flare76 >>

Obviously having fun is the goal. I’m talking about doing things that the game isn’t designed for at all, that are still fun.

 I mean if everyone is having fun with it that sounds like playing it right to me. Fun is all that matters. Wanna speed run curse of strahd and everyone’s on board? Awesome! Wanna turn it into a war game with large scale combats? Sweet!  Want a meta game heavy game with less roleplay? Go for it! 

the key is everyone being here for it or at least willing to try. Sure the system isn’t intended for certain stuff or is poorly optimised for it. But good “bad” movies are a thing. House rules are a thing. 

I think the only wrong ways to play are to not communicate what the game is to people, especially if it is different to the norm, and actively making people have less fun and being inconsiderate. Everything else? If people enjoy it then it’s being done right. 

Quote from Flare76 >>

Obviously having fun is the goal. I’m talking about doing things that the game isn’t designed for at all, that are still fun.

 But if you're still having fun, you're not playing the game wrong.

Some of you seem to be missing the point. OP isn't saying these are bad or wrong ways of playing the game, they just want some ideas from other people about playing the game in ways that are not as intended.

Quote from _Mordecai_>>

Some of you seem to be missing the point. OP isn't saying these are bad or wrong ways of playing the game, they just want some ideas from other people about playing the game in ways that are not as intended.

You’re exactly right about what I want. Too late to change the title though. My speed running example is definitely not what the developers intended, but I had fun planning out the route. Other ideas in that spirit are what I’m looking for, and I hope to see some fun experiences!

I'm definitely guilty of overdesigning new mechanics for things. My last campaign involved the founding and development of a city. There were systems for gaining access to resources, assigning work teams to collect and utilize those resources, buildings tied to civic policies that shaped the town's culture, an upgradable home base that provided various party benefits, crafted magic item "augments" that provided different effects depending on whether they were attached to a weapon or armor, an NPC system that affected the town's growth and potential allies and enemies, and the list goes on.

It was fun at first and my players really got into it, but after a few months we'd be spending an hour updating spreadsheets in between adventures. Some of the systems just grew to an unmanageable size and I didn't want to do it anymore. I may try somewhat streamlined versions of some of those mechanics in the future, but never again will I try all at once.

Does reading adventure books count as "playing" D&D solo? I do that sometimes when I am bored. It is kind of like reading a choose-your-own-adventure book, but it is even more flexible since you can decide how things end or even "rewrite" entire plots, NPCs, etc. afterwards using your imagination if you wish.

I am kind of lazy so I do not even bother to create a character sheet, and I just pretend my imaginary character/party automatically win every encounter and get every loot.

This question is a lot more difficult than it seems at first. I have some examples that I will relate below that I have heard from people posting and a person writing a book about bad GMing and RPing.

 In general you need to be clear about what your game is about and not about. This includes what is expected and or required by the player. In this case if a player is required to talk in an unusual voice, act in a specific way, wear props it can be problematic if they do not expect that. On the GM's side what house rules do you use or not use, what RP elements are in your game (ie no one dies they just are conked unconscious, adult themes or cartoon themes, various advanced RP techniques and or styles) and being clear on what the GM requires for the game (need to not miss games, need to read things during the week, need to do some play by email/post/video, need for player to do some research or write up various things for the game so the GM does not have to.

Some players and GM's can be toxic and learn how to spot them. Identify what is toxic and or unfun to you so it makes it easier to avoid situations.

Some of the things I would call very bad are, GM's that use their job to berate PC and thus the players, groups that invite new players and turn on the new player and or berate them, a 2 person game in which player writes the adventures and the GM runs them but they try and get others to game with them and when they do they do not tell the new players the player is writing the adventures, both players and GM's not realizing the other can have bad days and good days and react accordingly and in general when a GM and or player has situations or rule interpretations break the game.

I have played in an watched games in game stores, in person and at conventions and have seen a lot of stuff. No game is perfect and your group's dynamics can have a huge impact on if a thing is minor or major.    

Nearly all of the games that I have run have been duets, which are definitely different from typical dnd. While not really wrong, they are really another way to play that works differently than typically intended. We tend to do a lot of character exploration and in-depth discovery of backstory elements, and we never need to worry about a player hogging the spotlight. But puzzles are more limited, and we do more degrees of success than group checks.

Quote from spammdc >>

This question is a lot more difficult than it seems at first. I have some examples that I will relate below that I have heard from people posting and a person writing a book about bad GMing and RPing.

 In general you need to be clear about what your game is about and not about. This includes what is expected and or required by the player. In this case if a player is required to talk in an unusual voice, act in a specific way, wear props it can be problematic if they do not expect that. On the GM's side what house rules do you use or not use, what RP elements are in your game (ie no one dies they just are conked unconscious, adult themes or cartoon themes, various advanced RP techniques and or styles) and being clear on what the GM requires for the game (need to not miss games, need to read things during the week, need to do some play by email/post/video, need for player to do some research or write up various things for the game so the GM does not have to.

Some players and GM's can be toxic and learn how to spot them. Identify what is toxic and or unfun to you so it makes it easier to avoid situations.

Some of the things I would call very bad are, GM's that use their job to berate PC and thus the players, groups that invite new players and turn on the new player and or berate them, a 2 person game in which player writes the adventures and the GM runs them but they try and get others to game with them and when they do they do not tell the new players the player is writing the adventures, both players and GM's not realizing the other can have bad days and good days and react accordingly and in general when a GM and or player has situations or rule interpretations break the game.

I have played in an watched games in game stores, in person and at conventions and have seen a lot of stuff. No game is perfect and your group's dynamics can have a huge impact on if a thing is minor or major.    

 That’s a great analysis… for another thread. This isn’t about how to make the game good and identifying group dynamics and ways people don’t have fun. This is about goofy ways you’ve played to game in a way that wasn’t intended.

Quote from UndauntedDM >>

Nearly all of the games that I have run have been duets, which are definitely different from typical dnd. While not really wrong, they are really another way to play that works differently than typically intended. We tend to do a lot of character exploration and in-depth discovery of backstory elements, and we never need to worry about a player hogging the spotlight. But puzzles are more limited, and we do more degrees of success than group checks.

 By duet you mean 1-on-1, with a DM and one player, right? That’s definitely atypical, but it seems neat. I might have to try that out sometimes. Does the player often pick up allies or control multiple characters, or is it a solo campaign?

Flare76,

Thanks for the correction, in general there have been way too many ways I as a younger player (since 1978 to today) have played and played RPG and board games. In general they have all been in the early years because of rule misinterpretation or ignoring. In later years we did and have done a lot of home ruling and have not seen some of the conflicts that arose from those decisions. 

Another post has a great examples, the poster asks about food and purification and his PC is a race that can see humans as food. So can he use magic on humans to cleans them of things that are impure.  When you make this ruling in favor of the player then you run into the issue of the spell/ability of food preservation and can that be case on a human to have them not age. 

Other basic things I have see are generally group related in which doing things one way for one group is fine and in others it is not. So talking in a unique voice is almost required in one game and in another you will be laughed off the table. 

I think I may be seeing your question in another way, are you asking "What rules do you see as being confusing and not being read and or played as the authors intended?"

On a comedic note, I once overheard a player ask a GM "Why are we fighting bugs bunny in a ninja suit? The GM said they were fighting assassin bugs."

Quote from Flare76 >>

Quote from spammdc >>

 

Quote from UndauntedDM >>

Nearly all of the games that I have run have been duets, which are definitely different from typical dnd. While not really wrong, they are really another way to play that works differently than typically intended. We tend to do a lot of character exploration and in-depth discovery of backstory elements, and we never need to worry about a player hogging the spotlight. But puzzles are more limited, and we do more degrees of success than group checks.

 By duet you mean 1-on-1, with a DM and one player, right? That’s definitely atypical, but it seems neat. I might have to try that out sometimes. Does the player often pick up allies or control multiple characters, or is it a solo campaign?

 The player currently runs 2 characters and has one ally who contributes mostly to combat, not roleplay/skill checks. They previously had two allies, but that was too much for me to run, especially since the campaign is homebrew. 

They also sometimes make temporary alliances with certain groups, but the 1 ally is a permanent party member.

UndauntedDM,

You have made an important discovery, "...but that was too much for me to run,..." identifying the areas you have trouble with and adapting the game to you is very important and can be tough to learn. 

So in general I would find the right amount of creatures for combat, ID the types of combat that the group might have trouble with (ie a fighter and a rogue/magic user background witherbloom student might have trouble with undead vs a group with a paladin and a cleric) and the flip side of the last is what encounters are the group going to be very good at. It is going to take some time to learn the right mix of things and if a GM has a larger group the slight errors that can happen are often minimized by the larger group size, so you have to be very flexible in what you do and how you do it. You may even have to do something like have monsters run away when one PC goes down.

Good Luck 

I mentioned elsewhere about expectations. What expectations are there upon D&D that would make something wrong in it?

I cannot imagine anything that would be wrong. The DMG even has ideas on possible ways to handle so-called "modern" or "futuristic" technology appearing in the standard medieval-ish setting.

So, we must first define what is wrong, but we also need to keep in mind that what is considered wrong here is very likely not considered wrong elsewhere.

This is a touchy subject as threads about things that people consider to be wrong often devolve into arguments about what's right when none of the arguments are universally wrong.

I tried actually speed running Lost Mines solo. I skipped Chapter 1, because it’s boring and plays out like normal. I unfortunately died during Chapter 2. I took 17 Magic Missiles to the face before dying to the wizard.