I didn't miss your point, what I was pointing out is that the evidence is contrary to it. People don't limit themselves to "officially published options and supplements", they didn't back then and they do so even less now. I'm not a professional writer, game designer or publisher, what I am is an experienced DM and even I manage to sell the books I create on DM Guild very steadily. The reason people buy my books, the same reason they buy books from the guild in general is because people very specifically do not limit themselves to official options. Not everyone is comfortable designing and writing their own material, but the desire to expand their game beyond any limits is a huge driving force behind D&D. There is a massive 3rd party market. I wrote for example The Book fo Backgrounds: Volume 1 - Family Legacies in response to the fact that I thought the background options in the book were not narrative enough, not explicit or interesting enough and people love that book. I sell a few copies almost every single day. I think if people were as you describe limiting themselves, there is no way anyone would be buying books from a complete no-body novice writer/designer like me. What you are saying is simply not true.
5e's fan base is not the only one that was flexible like this. This was true in the 3e days and even in the 4e days. There has always been a drive to expand the rules and the game as a whole. It's in the DNA of D&D culture and really the only notable difference between OSR players and Modern D&D players is what system they use as their starting point, which I will agree with you, creates very different playstyles and games from either side can and often are built on very different philosophies, but there is also a tremendous amount of cross-over. There are more things in common between these two worlds than there are differences.
I mean I create content on DM's Guild and even though its made for 5e, most of this stuff is pretty system agnostic, I know because I use a lot of the stuff I create in my Old School Essentials games.
I don't, I think people in the OSR and I'm guilty of this too, often seek out differences in old school and new school gaming out of frustration of trying to get games off the ground in modern D&D culture and struggling to because of the popularity of 5e. It's such a force of nature, such an overwhelming influence that even among the OSR the most popular games are based on 5e... case in point, Shadowdark for example.
I have and always will be an OSR die hard and I will never stop trying to get modern gamers to play old school games as I mostly agree with you that in a lot of ways, those experiences are far more vivid than anything 5e can produce, but the more I play and the more I write for 5e, the more I realize that these perceived differences get smaller and smaller.
I have already mentioned more than once that I am not just talking about official content.
And I am no stranger to DMsGuild and DrivethruRPG. I even made mention of them in this very thread.
This is what I said in my first post regarding options:
What that "lack of options" meant was more negotiation at the table so that players could play characters they wanted. Balance was an afterthought in what was a game more about having fun and telling stories not unlike those we encountered in fantasy masterworks than it was aboutthe rules.
That is how we had to do it when we had "fewer options." Meaning our options were virtually unlimited.
Yes. Some and maybe even many 5E players are willing to buy and make use of others' home-brew content and even home-brew themselves. Although I am genuinely interested to know how those who so often show they prioritize balance over drama to the point they scold others for not liking how Wizards have decided to do something might reconcile their believing they can do any better. Others just simply can't do a better job than Wizards' design team. But they can? That's quite the disconnect from which they a suffering.
A prefer a DIY/old-school approach to the game. And always will. Bothers me not that others don't like this. But acting as if there were "fewer options" because there were fewer rules is to misunderstand entirely how most people played back then.
I have already mentioned more than once now that I am not just talking about official content.
I am no stranger to DMsGuild and DrivethruRPG. I even made mention of them in this very thread.
My main point has been about allowing players to use their imaginations to come up with—within reason—their own ideas as far as how their characters' classes or whatever go.
That is how we had to do it when we had "fewer options." Meaning our options were virtually unlimited.
Sure and what I'm saying to you is having more options available in the official Players Handbook has not ended that tradition. I run 5e games all the time it is exceedingly rare that someone creates a character straight out of the book without adjustment, its basically unheard of. No matter what is there, every player brings something to the table that requires something, that doesn't exist.
The difference today is that you have an entire community creating non-stop, so when you have an idea for some alteration to X class or you have an idea for Y feat or Z spell list.. you can go on DM Guild and probably find someone who also had this idea and if you don't find it, that right there becomes an opportunity for one of your players to create it and publish it, so the next guy that comes along with that same idea, does find it on the Guild.
You're saying that this creativity doesn't exist in modern gaming, I'm telling you it not only exists, it's even more common and bigger and happens more often now than it ever did back then. This very thing is actually what brought be back to 5e. If it wasn't for the insane artistry and creativity of players in the modern era, the sheer seemingly endless talent for imagining awesome stuff, I don't think the game itself would have been enough. It really is how awesome the player base is that drives me to play modern D&D.
Sure and what I'm saying to you is having more options available in the official Players Handbook has not ended that tradition. I run 5e games all the time it is exceedingly rare that someone creates a character straight out of the book without adjustment, its basically unheard of. No matter what is there, every player brings something to the table that requires something, that doesn't exist.
The difference today is that you have an entire community creating non-stop, so when you have an idea for some alteration to X class or you have an idea for Y feat or Z spell list.. you can go on DM Guild and probably find someone who also had this idea and if you don't find it, that right there becomes an opportunity for one of your players to create it and publish it, so the next guy that comes along with that same idea, does find it on the Guild.
You're saying that this creativity doesn't exist in modern gaming, I'm telling you it not only exists, it's even more common and bigger and happens more often now than it ever did back then. This very thing is actually what brought be back to 5e. If it wasn't for the insane artistry and creativity of players in the modern era, the sheer seemingly endless talent for imagining awesome stuff, I don't think the game itself would have been enough. It really is how awesome the player base is that drives me to play modern D&D.
I since edited my post. Firstly by adding my very first mention of options in this thread:
What that "lack of options" meant was more negotiation at the table so that players could play characters they wanted. Balance was an afterthought in what was a game more about having fun and telling stories not unlike those we encountered in fantasy masterworks than it was aboutthe rules.
Yes. Some and maybe even many 5E players are willing to buy and make use of others' home-brew content and even home-brew themselves. Although I am genuinely interested to know how those who so often show they prioritize balance over drama to the point they scold others for not liking how Wizards have decided to do something might reconcile their believing they can do any better. Others just simply can't do a better job than Wizards' design team. But they can? That's quite the disconnect from which they are suffering.
I prefer a DIY/old-school approach to the game. And always will. Bothers me not that others don't like this. But acting as if there were "fewer options" because there were fewer rules is to misunderstand entirely how most people played back then.
Now sure it might be said that many players of 5E also favor this DIY approach. It's true. I have already mentioned my playing in a heavily modified 5E game. And it's wonderful. But it's wonderful because the DM has brought an old-school attitude to the table.
As I said of this elsewhere:
I have been playing in a heavily modified 5E game in which every level up sees the players negotiating what new class feature their characters will get or how an existing one will be improved. Because the DM prefers this more DIY/old-school approach and has grown weary of how predictable 5E has become after a decade of playing it.
I disagree with this. The "a rising tide lifts all boats" was true of the OGL. Imagine if Hollywood only supported Marvel superhero films. Movies like the Green Mile or You've Got Mail or Harry Potter or LotR or Star Wars or Star Trek would not exist, or if they did, then they would be low budget off brand "b rated" films that would not attract much attention.
The same applies here, which is why WotC and Hasbro tried to end the OGL, because they do not want all boats to rise. They want a monopoly. If they succeed in truly making a monopoly, it will hurt the scope of rpgs, limiting them greatly. Sure, you continue to get the little indy dev games, but ultimately, no one but WotC would matter to the general direction of the hobby. Paizo is thankfully big enough to stand, but even then you can still get a duopoly, similar to how Marvel and DC are practically the only superhero brands. Sure other companies have done supers, such as the Megamind film, but honestly, Megamind is literally the only non-game superhero anything I can thing of that isn't Marvel or DC. We are very likely facing a similar outcome with WotC and Paizo, a situation in which most roleplayers won't be able to name a rpg company beyond those two except for a few players on the fringes of gamer society. ANd if Paizo doesn't get some good VTT options of it's own pretty quickly, there is a good chance WotC might even overshadow them.
It's interesting that you bring up superhero comic books. While you're right that Marvel and DC have the most well-known stables of superhero characters, other publishers have superhero comics that have achieved lasting popularity and led to TV shows, movies, and games. Spawn is likely the most well-known because it's the longest-running indie superhero comic, but there are plenty of other examples. But the comic book industry is an interesting comparison because the big two - Marvel and DC - cater to the superhero fans and ignore a lot of folks who want other kinds of comic book stories. And while there are indie publishers who have popular superhero franchises, Image, Dark Horse, Dynamite, IDW, Valiant, etc., publish comics that appeal to folks who want more than just superhero fare. If all you focus on is lamenting that indie publishers don't have their own Superman or Spider-Man then you miss out on amazing titles like Saga, The Walking Dead, Paper Girls, Resident Alien, Archie, and Sabrina the Teenage Witch. And this is just like the way so many TTRPG systems have been developed that don't follow D&D's formulas (or even use a D20, let alone a D20-based system!). Yeah, I love playing D&D, but I also love playing Marvel Multiverse, Blades in the Dark, Girl by Moonlight, Deadlands, Tales of Xadia, and Monster of the Week
It’s interesting to me that people always bring up Marvel, especially the films, as this huge juggernaut that’s destroying all competition when as you say within comics there’s probably more indie publishers producing more types of comics then ever before. You also list a great variety of titles that have all had a shot at a to show or a film in the last 15 years that they wouldn’t have had without the MCU, often becoming popular with audiences that have no idea they’re based on a comic. Rather than being a destructive force for most of its time the MCU has been another great example of a rising tide lifting all boats
I since edited my post. Firstly by adding my very first mention of options in this thread:
What that "lack of options" meant was more negotiation at the table so that players could play characters they wanted. Balance was an afterthought in what was a game more about having fun and telling stories not unlike those we encountered in fantasy masterworks than it was aboutthe rules.
Yes. Some and maybe even many 5E players are willing to buy and make use of others' home-brew content and even home-brew themselves. Although I am genuinely interested to know how those who so often show they prioritize balance over drama to the point they scold others for not liking how Wizards have decided to do something might reconcile their believing they can do any better. Others just simply can't do a better job than Wizards' design team. But they can? That's quite the disconnect from which they are suffering.
I prefer a DIY/old-school approach to the game. And always will. Bothers me not that others don't like this. But acting as if there were "fewer options" because there were fewer rules is to misunderstand entirely how most people played back then.
Now sure it might be said that many players of 5E also favor this DIY approach. It's true. I have already mentioned my playing in a heavily modified 5E game. And it's wonderful. But it's wonderful because the DM has brought an old-school attitude to the table.
As I said of this elsewhere:
I have been playing in a heavily modified 5E game in which every level up sees the players negotiating what new class feature their characters will get or how an existing one will be improved. Because the DM prefers this more DIY/old-school approach and has grown weary of how predictable 5E has become after a decade of playing it.
I'm just curious here, but as you have a clear example at your own table of a highly modified 5e game and most of the posts here reveal the same about what other people, myself included are doing in their game, essentially highly modified 5e games. What makes you believe that this is not the norm? I mean you seem to believe that there are these "other" groups of modern gamers (5e players) that are all running RAW and refusing to allow player influence, adaptation and creativity, but what are you basing that on? I mean I have been playing 5e for a decade, I'm yet to run into anyone, online or offline that plays 5e RAW, the DM Guild is a literaral infinity engine of content creation, this entire forum is littered with people's creative ideas on how to adapt, change and add to the game. I see no evidence anywhere that anything like what you're describing, this sort of adherence to RAW or obedience to official content actually exists.
So what are you using as a basis for that assumption? I mean, what makes you believe that modern gamers are so narrow and uncreative given that you are literally surrounded by evidence to the contrary? I mean can you point to a forum post where someone says "No I just run RAW, no adaptions allowed"? Cause I have been around this and many D&D communities over the last 30+ years, a very long time and I have never seen what you describe exist anywhere....ever..
I'm just curious here, but as you have a clear example at your own table of a highly modified 5e game and most of the posts here reveal the same about what other people, myself included are doing in their game, essentially highly modified 5e games. What makes you believe that this is not the norm? I mean you seem to believe that there are these "other" groups of modern gamers (5e players) that are all running RAW and refusing to allow player influence, adaptation and creativity, but what are you basing that on? I mean I have been playing 5e for a decade, I'm yet to run into anyone, online or offline that plays 5e RAW, the DM Guild is a literaral infinity engine of content creation, this entire forum is littered with people's creative ideas on how to adapt, change and add to the game. I see no evidence anywhere that anything like what you're describing, this sort of adherence to RAW or obedience to official content actually exists.
So what are you using as a basis for that assumption? I mean, what makes you believe that modern gamers are so narrow and uncreative given that you are literally surrounded by evidence to the contrary? I mean can you point to a forum post where someone says "No I just run RAW, no adaptions allowed"? Cause I have been around this and many D&D communities over the last 30+ years, a very long time and I have never seen what you describe exist anywhere....ever..
One of the reasons there is a dearth of DMs is because many players expect the game to be run as written. Many older DMs in particular find they are up against quite the resistance if they make changes enough to capture a more old-school look and feel. Or even just home-brew things enough so a player's every expectation isn't met. I have personally encountered this myself. Players who won't play if they can't play [X] class or [X] race. Because these have been replaced. If option [X] isn't available to them. Besides. It was in a book published by Wizards. Those are the rules!
And how else can players bring that power-gaming mindset so popular on these forums to a table without getting a set of rules with which they are 100 percent familiar? Optimizers tend to favor rules as written. Make any change that won't allow them to get the optimal damage they are after and they will fly into tantrums. I have seen threads on these very forums about eliminating things from games and players getting hysterical about it. So many of the opinion that anything and everything in a book by Wizards must be available to them. You might have experienced less of this or even none of this. But don't pretend many of us who DM haven't encountered a lot of this ever since 3rd. and only more and more increasingly as the game has gained the popularity it has enjoyed this past decade but particularly these past few years.
How many 5E diehards won't even play a game of D&D if it isn't using the current official ruleset? How many wouldn't play even if it were essentially 5E with adjustments enough to make them think it was "no longer 5E"?
That alone should tell you you are wrong when you say players' expecting things to be run as written just doesn't exist.
One of the reasons there is a dearth of DMs is because many players expect the game to be run as written. I have personally encountered this myself. Players who won't play if they can't play [X] class or [X] race. Because these have been replaced. If option [X] isn't available to them. Besides. It was in a book published by Wizards. Those are the rules!
I hope you don't mind me engaging you, I'm not like picking you out of the crowd to bust your chops, I just find the conversation intriguing. There are a couple of questions in here and I think each of them has an interesting train of thought and perhaps answer to some degree.
So to this first part, you've changed the subject a bit now. In your first thesis, this was a conversation about players creating and adding to the game, using their creativity to produce something unique and dynamic but now you have switched it to DM's limiting options and removing things, blocking players from getting to the creative thing they are trying to do. These two concepts are at odds with each other, they are in fact, polar opposite principles. In one, the players are expected to engage and be creative, to expand on the game based on its limits, to drive the creation and the DM to be responsive and allow for that dynamic creativity. As you pointed out is what is happening in your modified game and I believe is happening most D&D games regardless of edition or version, but now you are talking about DM power to limit players and limit their creativity, preferences and desires and living with a DM saying "no you can't do that".
I think you are right about the second part, players don't want to play in games where the DM is stringent about what is allowed and says no to creative ideas and player desires, limiting what options are available in the game as defaults but that is not a 5e, modern game attitude, that has always been true about D&D. Stringent DM's that follow the rules to the letter, that run RAW and even limit options present in the player's handbook has always even going back all the way to AD&D 1st edition been seen by players as "Not Fun DMing" if not outright "Bad Dming". So you're right, modern players don't like that. Their expectations are the DM will help them to bring their vision to the table, not silence it.
And how else can players bring that power-gaming mindset so popular on these forums to a table without getting a set of rules with which they are 100 percent familiar? I have seen threads on these very forums about eliminating things from games and players getting hysterical about it. Believing anything and everything in a book by Wizards must be available to them. You might have experienced less of this or even none of this. But don't pretend many of us who DM haven't encountered a lot of this.
Yeah I have seen that too, but generally speaking what is and isn't power gaming is a matter of option, not objective truth. I think most players want a balanced game, they are not trying to find a cheat code, but again, what is and isn't power gaming isn't some established thing. In this scenario what you are saying is that the DM knows best what is and isn't power gaming and they make the final call, which I agree is a very old-school "thinking" thing. Modern players expect such decisions to be discussions and debates as a group and the decision to remove something seen as OP to be a negotiated, group decision. The days of "DM ruling the game" are mostly over in modern gaming. All players, including DM's are seen as equals as the table in modern D&D culture.
None the less, this is very different than allowing things and allowing players to be creative, its about restrictions and taking away things and again, these are different principles.
How many 5E diehards won't even play a game of D&D if it isn't using the current official ruleset?
That alone should tell you you are wrong when you say players' expecting things to be run as written just doesn't exist.
So this is the crux of the thesis here, you are talking about two different things and your trying to lump them into one.
The first thing is running RAW and refusing to allow players to add things, to be creative and dynamic in expanding the game and bringing their personal character visions to the game. This, I don't agree exists in modern gaming culture at all, quite to the contrary, I think the 5e community, especially 5e DM's are responsible for the positive response and saying yes and allowing creativity in their games by the players, they made this an openness to creativity a D&D culture norm. Restricting this kind of creativity IS definitively an old-school D&D thing. This idea that the DM rules the game and commands what is and isn't allowed, stifling player creativity comes directly from Gygax. He instructed you in the 1st edition AD&D DMG to never trust players, assume they are all trying to power game and it is your responsibility to say no often and loudly. It's modern gaming that has rejected this concept.
The 2nd thing you are talking about is eliminating and restricting options already in the core rulebook, meaning, we are not just not going to play RAW, but we are going to cut things out of the game. On this I think you are right, modern gamers don't like that at all. They want more not less options and this is why the page count of the PHB consistently grows with each edition. This however is the hallmark of creativity and this constant desire to expand the creative space of D&D. In fact, the Players Handbook at this point is more of an instruction manual, via example on how to create species, classes, sub-classes, feats, spells, magic items etc... Its a book that says "look here is a sample and example of all the stuff you can create, you can use it as is, or you can create your own". You are right that players expect that everything available in the book will be available in the game and they don't like to have it tampered with.
That said, my personal experience is that players are open to limitations as long as there is a narrative reason for it. For example, the campaign I'm running right now called Dusk Haven Chronicles is a story of Dragonborn exploration and colonization from their perspective, one of the limitations of the game is that all players MUST be Dragonborn. I had no issue selling it to my players, they loved the idea and they are all playing Dragonborn and there is nothing weird about it, there was no hostility or challenge to it. I do think they have an expectation that such an implementation is not just arbitrary. If I for example said, you can only be Dragonborn because all the other species are OP... yeah, that would not have been ok, but as I did it for narrative reasons, no one had a problem.
I hope you don't mind me engaging you, I'm not like picking you out of the crowd to bust your chops, I just find the conversation intriguing.
Those two things are two different things. I know that. I simply pointed out the other because you insisted you have never met 5E players who don't insist on playing by the rules. You don't now get to point out to me I am talking about two very different things just because I have presented you with why I believe you are spectacularly wrong to believe 5E players who demand things be run as written "don't exist." They do. You never did respond to my question about how many players won't even play another version of the game. How many would not play if it was home-brewed enough to "no longer" be 5E in their eyes. If you really want to talk about a lack of creativity and rigidity and stringent limitations in the hobby.
Those two things however are not "opposites." They are in fact quite similar. Because the other sees players weaponizing the rules as written against their DMs. Whether people are tethered to rules and their imaginations limited by them or they are beating their fists on the rules and demanding they be followed to the letter these are people who care more about rules than they do the spirit of the rules or thinking outside of them or rulings. Again: I really don't think you quite understand what the OSR is really about. Have you even read Finch's primer? It's only considered to be the most representative text of the movement's philosophies by many. I asked you this once before. And got no answer.
I am very accommodating as a DM. Am all ears if I think a player's ideas are creative. I don't think that means a player can just colonize a setting with a playable race for no good reason. If the player can't provide an explanation for something they want there is nothing "creative" about the choice they wish to make.
Would you let a player at your table have it that his or her character is going to be able to shoot lasers out of its eyes that ignore all armor and do d100 damage? Probably not. Does that mean you're a mean DM? No. Let's be sensible.
We have very different definitions of creativity. As I said elsewhere in this thread I played a fighter in a heavily modified 5E campaign the concept of which was infinitely more interesting than what the archetypes in the PHB provide. A concept agreed upon by the DM and me. Before this I had a cleric whose concept was similarly conceived. I think all the options officially made available are dull and predictable. And not in the slightest bit creative.
On the subject of power-gaming it has a fairly established definition. It means to prioritize optimization for purposes of power over story and characterization. Just because we are seeing more and more peopel come from video games and favor the approach doesn't mean you get to redefine it to make it seem more friendly.
Those two things are two different things. I know that. I simply pointed out the other because you insisted you have never met 5E players who don't insist on playing by the rules. You don't now get to point out to me I am talking about two very different things just because I have presented you with why I believe you are spectacularly wrong to believe 5E players who demand things be run as written "don't exist." They do. You never did respond to my question about how many players won't even play another version of the game. How many would not play if it was home-brewed enough to "no longer" be 5E in their eyes. If you really want to talk about a lack of creativity and rigidity and stringent limitations in the hobby.
That's not really what I said. I didn't say they "don't exist", I said I have never met any. I have no idea how many players won't even play another version of the game, I'm sure there is a number just as I'm sure there is a number of people in the OSR who would never play anything but 1e AD&D. What I do know that this stringent view is not a norm, if its anything.
Those two things however are not "opposites." They are in fact quite similar. Because the other sees players weaponizing the rules as written against their DMs. Whether people are tethered to rules and their imaginations limited by them or they are beating their fists on the rules and demanding they be followed to the letter these are people who care more about rules than they do the spirit of the rules or thinking outside of them or rulings. Again: I really don't think you quite understand what the OSR is really about. Have you even read Finch's primer? It's only considered to be the most representative text of the movement's philosophies by many. I asked you this once before. And got no answer.
Do you understand how hyperbolic that sounds? You are making a pretty baseless assumption about an entire player base something in the vicinity of 25 million strong with little to go on in the way of evidence other than your opinion and accusing them of being a bunch of uncreative, rules lawyers who weaponize game rules against their DM out of what? spite? Now you're attacking my OSR credentials in a subtle effort to insult me because I don't agree with you?
I understand the OSR just fine, I have read Finch and I don't have any issues understanding it, quite to the contrary, I could have written it because I lived it.
Modern gamers do not concede authority to rules any more than old-school gamers do and the creative and dynamic spirit of role-playing wasn't lost in the evolution of the game. Yes Mathews's primer was written in 08' during the 3e and early 4e era pointed out this leaning, but modern gamers also noted, complained about and ultimately demanded this to be changed. It wasn't just old-school gamers that rejected the "rules first" philosophy, it's actually the modern community that rejected it and it's why 4e is largely considered a failure. 5e is a drastic shift away from 3rd and 4th editions and it's a shift very specifically because players found the rules of the game intruding too much on their creative free-form role-playing. Its part of 5e culture to bunk the rules for story/narratives, this is part of the 5e D&D communities culture.
Its true that 5e players want a structured, organized and clear rule system, but then again, that's what we want in the OSR. I mean there is a reason why OSRIC exists, why old school essentials exists. Its not like the rules where changed, they were just made clearer, organized better, they are better edits of the same rules... why? Because all RPG players want a good D&D book with good D&D rules that are clear and easy to use. Being clear and easy to use, isn't a submission to the letter of law that you implying.
Sorry I just think your wrong, what your describing, doesn't really exist.
I am very accommodating as a DM. Am all ears if I think a player's ideas are creative. I don't think that means a player can just colonize a setting with a playable race for no good reason. If the player can't provide an explanation for something they want there is nothing "creative" about the choice they wish to make.
Would you let a player at your table have it that his or her character is going to be able to shoot lasers out of its eyes that ignore all armor and do d100 damage? Probably not. Does that mean you're a mean DM? No. Let's be sensible.
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Cause that's what you're making here. What point are you trying to make? Do you really believe 5e DM's are "stupid people" who don't know the difference between a player making a reasonable request for narrative reasons and someone who wants to shoot laser beams out of their eyes for d100 damage? Is that your thesis? Because, I don't think that was what your trying to sell me on.
We have very different definitions of creativity. As I said elsewhere in this thread I played a fighter in a heavily modified 5E campaign the concept of which was infinitely more interesting than what the archetypes in the PHB provide. A concept agreed upon by the DM and me. Before this I had a cleric whose concept was similarly conceived. I think all the options officially made available are dull and predictable. And not in the slightest bit creative.
I don't think that we do. You have made a strawman argument to try to show how different we are, but we are not different at all, not even a little bit. I bet our games are very similar just as your game is very similar to the game most DM's on this forum run their game. People heavily modifying their 5e games out of an interest in player creativity is the norm in modern D&D.
On the subject of power-gaming it has a fairly established definition. It means to prioritize optimization for purposes of power over story and characterization. Just because we are seeing more and more peopel come from video games and favor the approach doesn't mean you get to redefine it to make it seem more friendly.
Do you believe that your personal definition of Power Gaming is so general that everyone would agree with it universally? For example, I don't agree that is what power gaming is. I know plenty of power gamers who love stories and will always prioritize storytelling and narrative, but they still want the biggest, baddest sword, they always pick the most powerful spells and they want to win fights.... but they are also my best role-players. So are they power gamers?
And for the record, I don't think we are seeing that at all. In fact, I would say, most people come to D&D 5e, very specifically, very poignantly because they are more interested in storytelling than they are in game rules and limitations. Many people came to this game from watching Critical Role, essentially a D&D group of actors, most of which barely know the rules to the game save Matt Mercer.
This is why Bauldersgate 3 for example was far more influenced by modern gaming's need for detailed storytelling. The exact opposite is actually happening. PC games are becoming less about rules and more about story BECAUSE of this very modern story first culture that has been reborn since the launch of 5th edition.
I want to say too that there are differences between modern gaming and old-school gaming. There is no doubt about that, but they are driven mostly by playstyle differences which are governed by rules. If you're trying to make the case that there is a philosophical difference... yeah, maybe in the 3e and 4e days that was true to a degree and on that point I agree with Finch, I definitely think the game lost its way on that front to a certain degree, but in modern gaming I'm finding the philosophical differences between old school and modern gaming to be blending to a point of being indistinguishable.
All that is left are the rules differences. Any philosophy you claim, I promise you most 5e players will not disagree with you or challenge you, they are probably embracing it in their game. What your arguing is that 5e players are not embracing these gaming philosophies and I see people disagreeing with you on that point, not the philosophy, on the fact that your claiming that they don't believe in them.
The rules differences however do affect playstyle and I think this is really the only actual difference left between old school and new school.
Old-school games are deadlier, they are usually more focused on equipment vs. character powers, and they are usually more focused on open-world exploration, dungeon crawling, and dungeon survival which are all kind of unique playstyles usually not pursued by modern gamers. They are also more traditional where you have clear medieval tropes, more Tolkien-focused fantasy depictions.
I promise you that if you played in my game, unless you looked down on your character sheet, you would have no idea whether we are playing OSE or 5e. I run these games, exactly the same. The only thing that really separates my 5e and 1e games are the rules that we are actually using/applying as written. That's the difference. Not much else. Both games do have rules though and you do use them and that makes the biggest difference.
How do you reconcile saying in one breath players of 5E are the most flexible of players that ever did live and that they are more than happy to play at tables at which the DM runs things not as written and then defending those too inflexible to permit the DM's tinkering of a class so that it is not as written?
You are contradicting yourself.
You are also contradicting yourself when you claim to be a proponent of OSR principles but then sing the praises of 5E. Because 5E is the antithesis of the movement's principles. Finch and others have decried since 3rd. how the game now has characters with skills like Persuasion and Deception for example. Instead of demanding players actually role-play such things. The average player now doesn't even bother to do so unless he or she thinks it will grant Advantage. A player could put in the absolute most mediocre and unconvincing of a performance and roll a 20 and critically succeed at the task. It's bad game design. And bad game design that discourages actual role-playing. Even elsewhere on these forums when you talk about the need for rules to be in place for things it goes entirely against the movement's position on rules. Player skill should matter more than character abilities. Rules for the latter as far as feats and skills go are not even really required.
My "personal" definition of power-gaming is the one on Wikipedia and what has been understood to be the definition for aeons. Like I said: You don't get to make up your own.
Most 5E players don't prioritize the rules and optimization? Tell that to Wizards whose new business model is to sell books to players that contain just more and more options to allow for more and more optimization.
Show me a player who power builds and I will show you a player thinking more about what choices need to be made to deliver optimal damage than what choices might make narrative sense. Many openly admit this. Many on these forums will openly admit this. Many will admit that for them D&D is really just a combat game. It pretty much has become one when a rogue with a high DEX and a Finesse weapon delivers just as much damage as any fighter. It's a shadow of what it was when classes stood out for the right reasons. Not because they were all just martial manques.
Your accusing me of a straw man when I was obviously spelling out how unreasonable it is to expect every DM to just genuflect before every player's whim and demand when you rushed to defend players who expect their every choice be weighed be considered is laughable.
As for how similar our games are? I don't run 5E. I play in 5E games. But it's not the system I run. I run a B/X clone.
How do you reconcile saying in one breath players of 5E are the most flexible of players that ever did live and that they are more than happy to play at tables at which the DM runs things not as written and then defending those too inflexible to permit the DM's tinkering of a class so that it is not as written?
You are contradicting yourself.
You are also contradicting yourself when you claim to be a proponent of OSR principles but then sing the praises of 5E. Because 5E is the antithesis of the movement's principles. Finch and others have decried since 3rd. how the game now has characters with skills like Persuasion and Deception for example. Instead of demanding players actually role-play such things. The average player now doesn't even bother to do so unless he or she thinks it will grant Advantage. A player could put in the absolute most mediocre and unconvincing of a performance and roll a 20 and critically succeed at the task. It's bad game design. And bad game design that discourages actual role-playing.
Whenever someone decries the death of role playing because there’s skills for social encounters all I see is people trying to gatekeep certain classes based on who the player is. Why should only charismatic players get to play charismatic characters? Not everyone is silver tongued and able to come up with elaborate conversations on the fly so what, they should never get to play out their fantasy of being exactly that type of person? They should never get to play a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer? Why stop at just social skills if you’re following that logic? Sorry, you can’t play a Barbarian unless you’ve got anger issues. Want to play a Fighter? Get down and give me 200 pushups or I won’t let you have a decent strength score. It’s an idiotic and exclusionary train of thought. Let people play how they enjoy playing
So now you want an IQ test to play a wizard? It’s all just gate keeping BS if you demand that players have the same skills as their characters. As I said, why draw the line at soft skills and not demand only physically strong people get to play martial characters?
No. And your similarly deeply flawed comparison of expecting any player who simply wants to play a martial class to prove his or her athletic prowess and expecting a player who then wants his or her character in game to persuade or deceive an NPC to at least put in some effort and role-play in what is a role-playing game is profoundly silly.
No. And your similarly deeply flawed comparison of expecting any player who simply wants to play a martial class to prove his or her athletic prowess and expecting a player who then wants his or her character in game to persuade or deceive an NPC to at least put in some effort and role-play in what is a role-playing game is profoundly silly.
So why even roll for stats if you’re then going to turn around to a socially awkward player and say their 20 points in Charisma doesn’t count because they personally can’t persuade you of something?
So now you want an IQ test to play a wizard? It’s all just gate keeping BS if you demand that players have the same skills as their characters. As I said, why draw the line at soft skills and not demand only physically strong people get to play martial characters?
Why draw that line? Because there is no comparison. We don't get up out of chairs and fight things do we? We do however describe what our characters will do or say. That is what role-playing is. Making it all about a roll is roll playing. And not role-playing. This is been a clear distinction made in the hobby for decades.
So now you want an IQ test to play a wizard? It’s all just gate keeping BS if you demand that players have the same skills as their characters. As I said, why draw the line at soft skills and not demand only physically strong people get to play martial characters?
Why draw that line? Because there is no comparison. We don't get up out of chairs and fight things do we? We do however describe what our characters will do or say. That is what role-playing is. Making it all about a roll is roll playing. And not role-playing. This is been a clear distinction made in the hobby for decades.
But there is a comparison, a totally one for one comparison. You’re letting a physically weak individual play a hugely strong Barbarian because one of their numbers just happens to be high but not letting a socially awkward person take advantage of where their high stats are just because you’d rather pull them massively out of their comfort zone and make them miserable. As I said at that point why even let them roll for stats? Why let them play a Bard? You’re the one who keeps claiming that 5e limits players to specific classes and character concepts but then contradict yourself totally by saying that you should only be allowed to play a character that matches your real world abilities. That’s not much of a fantasy now is it?
So why even roll for stats if you’re then going to turn around to a socially awkward player and say their 20 points in Charisma doesn’t count because they personally can’t persuade you of something?
CHA in earlier editions of the game served mostly two functions: how many retainers a character might attract—such is the nature of charisma—and how the character might influence how an encounter was going to respond to its presence.
It was even made pretty clear it was NOT a measure of a character's personality. Or appearance. A character with an extremely low CHA could still be likeable.
Do you honestly doubt a socially awkward player's ability to be at all persuasive when describing what he or she wants a character to do or say? I think that says more about you than it does a rule you don't like.
So why even roll for stats if you’re then going to turn around to a socially awkward player and say their 20 points in Charisma doesn’t count because they personally can’t persuade you of something?
CHA in earlier editions of the game served mostly two functions: how many retainers a character might attract—such is the nature of charisma—and how the character might influence how an encounter was going to respond to its presence.
It was even made pretty clear it was NOT a measure of a character's personality. Or appearance. A character with an extremely low CHA could still be likeable.
Do you honestly doubt a socially awkward player's ability to be at all persuasive when describing what he or she wants a character to do or say? I think that says more about you than it does a rule you don't like.
I’m not doubting them at all, you’re the one saying they shouldn’t be able to succeed at a persuasion check unless they can personally persuade you, I’m saying that if they aren’t comfortable doing that they shouldn’t have entire classes closed off to them
But there is a comparison, a totally one for one comparison. You’re letting a physically weak individual play a hugely strong Barbarian because one of their numbers just happens to be high but not letting a socially awkward person take advantage of where their high stats are just because you’d rather pull them massively out of their comfort zone and make them miserable.
The comparison is so profoundly fallacious it is a joke.
Role-playing requires players to role-play.
Does that mean we personally have to fight during combat?
NO.
But just what does role-playing look like at your table if you do not even expect players to ever describe what their characters are going to do or say? If everything is determined wth a dice roll?
Honest question.
What happens at your table when a player wants to persuade or deceive someone. Do they just say I want to do that. And the DM says roll. And the result determines what happens. No role-playing ever takes place?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have already mentioned more than once that I am not just talking about official content.
And I am no stranger to DMsGuild and DrivethruRPG. I even made mention of them in this very thread.
This is what I said in my first post regarding options:
What that "lack of options" meant was more negotiation at the table so that players could play characters they wanted. Balance was an afterthought in what was a game more about having fun and telling stories not unlike those we encountered in fantasy masterworks than it was about the rules.
That is how we had to do it when we had "fewer options." Meaning our options were virtually unlimited.
Yes. Some and maybe even many 5E players are willing to buy and make use of others' home-brew content and even home-brew themselves. Although I am genuinely interested to know how those who so often show they prioritize balance over drama to the point they scold others for not liking how Wizards have decided to do something might reconcile their believing they can do any better. Others just simply can't do a better job than Wizards' design team. But they can? That's quite the disconnect from which they a suffering.
A prefer a DIY/old-school approach to the game. And always will. Bothers me not that others don't like this. But acting as if there were "fewer options" because there were fewer rules is to misunderstand entirely how most people played back then.
Sure and what I'm saying to you is having more options available in the official Players Handbook has not ended that tradition. I run 5e games all the time it is exceedingly rare that someone creates a character straight out of the book without adjustment, its basically unheard of. No matter what is there, every player brings something to the table that requires something, that doesn't exist.
The difference today is that you have an entire community creating non-stop, so when you have an idea for some alteration to X class or you have an idea for Y feat or Z spell list.. you can go on DM Guild and probably find someone who also had this idea and if you don't find it, that right there becomes an opportunity for one of your players to create it and publish it, so the next guy that comes along with that same idea, does find it on the Guild.
You're saying that this creativity doesn't exist in modern gaming, I'm telling you it not only exists, it's even more common and bigger and happens more often now than it ever did back then. This very thing is actually what brought be back to 5e. If it wasn't for the insane artistry and creativity of players in the modern era, the sheer seemingly endless talent for imagining awesome stuff, I don't think the game itself would have been enough. It really is how awesome the player base is that drives me to play modern D&D.
I since edited my post. Firstly by adding my very first mention of options in this thread:
What that "lack of options" meant was more negotiation at the table so that players could play characters they wanted. Balance was an afterthought in what was a game more about having fun and telling stories not unlike those we encountered in fantasy masterworks than it was about the rules.
Yes. Some and maybe even many 5E players are willing to buy and make use of others' home-brew content and even home-brew themselves. Although I am genuinely interested to know how those who so often show they prioritize balance over drama to the point they scold others for not liking how Wizards have decided to do something might reconcile their believing they can do any better. Others just simply can't do a better job than Wizards' design team. But they can? That's quite the disconnect from which they are suffering.
I prefer a DIY/old-school approach to the game. And always will. Bothers me not that others don't like this. But acting as if there were "fewer options" because there were fewer rules is to misunderstand entirely how most people played back then.
Now sure it might be said that many players of 5E also favor this DIY approach. It's true. I have already mentioned my playing in a heavily modified 5E game. And it's wonderful. But it's wonderful because the DM has brought an old-school attitude to the table.
As I said of this elsewhere:
I have been playing in a heavily modified 5E game in which every level up sees the players negotiating what new class feature their characters will get or how an existing one will be improved. Because the DM prefers this more DIY/old-school approach and has grown weary of how predictable 5E has become after a decade of playing it.
It’s interesting to me that people always bring up Marvel, especially the films, as this huge juggernaut that’s destroying all competition when as you say within comics there’s probably more indie publishers producing more types of comics then ever before. You also list a great variety of titles that have all had a shot at a to show or a film in the last 15 years that they wouldn’t have had without the MCU, often becoming popular with audiences that have no idea they’re based on a comic. Rather than being a destructive force for most of its time the MCU has been another great example of a rising tide lifting all boats
I'm just curious here, but as you have a clear example at your own table of a highly modified 5e game and most of the posts here reveal the same about what other people, myself included are doing in their game, essentially highly modified 5e games. What makes you believe that this is not the norm? I mean you seem to believe that there are these "other" groups of modern gamers (5e players) that are all running RAW and refusing to allow player influence, adaptation and creativity, but what are you basing that on? I mean I have been playing 5e for a decade, I'm yet to run into anyone, online or offline that plays 5e RAW, the DM Guild is a literaral infinity engine of content creation, this entire forum is littered with people's creative ideas on how to adapt, change and add to the game. I see no evidence anywhere that anything like what you're describing, this sort of adherence to RAW or obedience to official content actually exists.
So what are you using as a basis for that assumption? I mean, what makes you believe that modern gamers are so narrow and uncreative given that you are literally surrounded by evidence to the contrary? I mean can you point to a forum post where someone says "No I just run RAW, no adaptions allowed"? Cause I have been around this and many D&D communities over the last 30+ years, a very long time and I have never seen what you describe exist anywhere....ever..
One of the reasons there is a dearth of DMs is because many players expect the game to be run as written. Many older DMs in particular find they are up against quite the resistance if they make changes enough to capture a more old-school look and feel. Or even just home-brew things enough so a player's every expectation isn't met. I have personally encountered this myself. Players who won't play if they can't play [X] class or [X] race. Because these have been replaced. If option [X] isn't available to them. Besides. It was in a book published by Wizards. Those are the rules!
And how else can players bring that power-gaming mindset so popular on these forums to a table without getting a set of rules with which they are 100 percent familiar? Optimizers tend to favor rules as written. Make any change that won't allow them to get the optimal damage they are after and they will fly into tantrums. I have seen threads on these very forums about eliminating things from games and players getting hysterical about it. So many of the opinion that anything and everything in a book by Wizards must be available to them. You might have experienced less of this or even none of this. But don't pretend many of us who DM haven't encountered a lot of this ever since 3rd. and only more and more increasingly as the game has gained the popularity it has enjoyed this past decade but particularly these past few years.
How many 5E diehards won't even play a game of D&D if it isn't using the current official ruleset? How many wouldn't play even if it were essentially 5E with adjustments enough to make them think it was "no longer 5E"?
That alone should tell you you are wrong when you say players' expecting things to be run as written just doesn't exist.
I hope you don't mind me engaging you, I'm not like picking you out of the crowd to bust your chops, I just find the conversation intriguing. There are a couple of questions in here and I think each of them has an interesting train of thought and perhaps answer to some degree.
So to this first part, you've changed the subject a bit now. In your first thesis, this was a conversation about players creating and adding to the game, using their creativity to produce something unique and dynamic but now you have switched it to DM's limiting options and removing things, blocking players from getting to the creative thing they are trying to do. These two concepts are at odds with each other, they are in fact, polar opposite principles. In one, the players are expected to engage and be creative, to expand on the game based on its limits, to drive the creation and the DM to be responsive and allow for that dynamic creativity. As you pointed out is what is happening in your modified game and I believe is happening most D&D games regardless of edition or version, but now you are talking about DM power to limit players and limit their creativity, preferences and desires and living with a DM saying "no you can't do that".
I think you are right about the second part, players don't want to play in games where the DM is stringent about what is allowed and says no to creative ideas and player desires, limiting what options are available in the game as defaults but that is not a 5e, modern game attitude, that has always been true about D&D. Stringent DM's that follow the rules to the letter, that run RAW and even limit options present in the player's handbook has always even going back all the way to AD&D 1st edition been seen by players as "Not Fun DMing" if not outright "Bad Dming". So you're right, modern players don't like that. Their expectations are the DM will help them to bring their vision to the table, not silence it.
Yeah I have seen that too, but generally speaking what is and isn't power gaming is a matter of option, not objective truth. I think most players want a balanced game, they are not trying to find a cheat code, but again, what is and isn't power gaming isn't some established thing. In this scenario what you are saying is that the DM knows best what is and isn't power gaming and they make the final call, which I agree is a very old-school "thinking" thing. Modern players expect such decisions to be discussions and debates as a group and the decision to remove something seen as OP to be a negotiated, group decision. The days of "DM ruling the game" are mostly over in modern gaming. All players, including DM's are seen as equals as the table in modern D&D culture.
None the less, this is very different than allowing things and allowing players to be creative, its about restrictions and taking away things and again, these are different principles.
So this is the crux of the thesis here, you are talking about two different things and your trying to lump them into one.
The first thing is running RAW and refusing to allow players to add things, to be creative and dynamic in expanding the game and bringing their personal character visions to the game. This, I don't agree exists in modern gaming culture at all, quite to the contrary, I think the 5e community, especially 5e DM's are responsible for the positive response and saying yes and allowing creativity in their games by the players, they made this an openness to creativity a D&D culture norm. Restricting this kind of creativity IS definitively an old-school D&D thing. This idea that the DM rules the game and commands what is and isn't allowed, stifling player creativity comes directly from Gygax. He instructed you in the 1st edition AD&D DMG to never trust players, assume they are all trying to power game and it is your responsibility to say no often and loudly. It's modern gaming that has rejected this concept.
The 2nd thing you are talking about is eliminating and restricting options already in the core rulebook, meaning, we are not just not going to play RAW, but we are going to cut things out of the game. On this I think you are right, modern gamers don't like that at all. They want more not less options and this is why the page count of the PHB consistently grows with each edition. This however is the hallmark of creativity and this constant desire to expand the creative space of D&D. In fact, the Players Handbook at this point is more of an instruction manual, via example on how to create species, classes, sub-classes, feats, spells, magic items etc... Its a book that says "look here is a sample and example of all the stuff you can create, you can use it as is, or you can create your own". You are right that players expect that everything available in the book will be available in the game and they don't like to have it tampered with.
That said, my personal experience is that players are open to limitations as long as there is a narrative reason for it. For example, the campaign I'm running right now called Dusk Haven Chronicles is a story of Dragonborn exploration and colonization from their perspective, one of the limitations of the game is that all players MUST be Dragonborn. I had no issue selling it to my players, they loved the idea and they are all playing Dragonborn and there is nothing weird about it, there was no hostility or challenge to it. I do think they have an expectation that such an implementation is not just arbitrary. If I for example said, you can only be Dragonborn because all the other species are OP... yeah, that would not have been ok, but as I did it for narrative reasons, no one had a problem.
Those two things are two different things. I know that. I simply pointed out the other because you insisted you have never met 5E players who don't insist on playing by the rules. You don't now get to point out to me I am talking about two very different things just because I have presented you with why I believe you are spectacularly wrong to believe 5E players who demand things be run as written "don't exist." They do. You never did respond to my question about how many players won't even play another version of the game. How many would not play if it was home-brewed enough to "no longer" be 5E in their eyes. If you really want to talk about a lack of creativity and rigidity and stringent limitations in the hobby.
Those two things however are not "opposites." They are in fact quite similar. Because the other sees players weaponizing the rules as written against their DMs. Whether people are tethered to rules and their imaginations limited by them or they are beating their fists on the rules and demanding they be followed to the letter these are people who care more about rules than they do the spirit of the rules or thinking outside of them or rulings. Again: I really don't think you quite understand what the OSR is really about. Have you even read Finch's primer? It's only considered to be the most representative text of the movement's philosophies by many. I asked you this once before. And got no answer.
I am very accommodating as a DM. Am all ears if I think a player's ideas are creative. I don't think that means a player can just colonize a setting with a playable race for no good reason. If the player can't provide an explanation for something they want there is nothing "creative" about the choice they wish to make.
Would you let a player at your table have it that his or her character is going to be able to shoot lasers out of its eyes that ignore all armor and do d100 damage? Probably not. Does that mean you're a mean DM? No. Let's be sensible.
We have very different definitions of creativity. As I said elsewhere in this thread I played a fighter in a heavily modified 5E campaign the concept of which was infinitely more interesting than what the archetypes in the PHB provide. A concept agreed upon by the DM and me. Before this I had a cleric whose concept was similarly conceived. I think all the options officially made available are dull and predictable. And not in the slightest bit creative.
On the subject of power-gaming it has a fairly established definition. It means to prioritize optimization for purposes of power over story and characterization. Just because we are seeing more and more peopel come from video games and favor the approach doesn't mean you get to redefine it to make it seem more friendly.
That's not really what I said. I didn't say they "don't exist", I said I have never met any. I have no idea how many players won't even play another version of the game, I'm sure there is a number just as I'm sure there is a number of people in the OSR who would never play anything but 1e AD&D. What I do know that this stringent view is not a norm, if its anything.
Do you understand how hyperbolic that sounds? You are making a pretty baseless assumption about an entire player base something in the vicinity of 25 million strong with little to go on in the way of evidence other than your opinion and accusing them of being a bunch of uncreative, rules lawyers who weaponize game rules against their DM out of what? spite? Now you're attacking my OSR credentials in a subtle effort to insult me because I don't agree with you?
I understand the OSR just fine, I have read Finch and I don't have any issues understanding it, quite to the contrary, I could have written it because I lived it.
Modern gamers do not concede authority to rules any more than old-school gamers do and the creative and dynamic spirit of role-playing wasn't lost in the evolution of the game. Yes Mathews's primer was written in 08' during the 3e and early 4e era pointed out this leaning, but modern gamers also noted, complained about and ultimately demanded this to be changed. It wasn't just old-school gamers that rejected the "rules first" philosophy, it's actually the modern community that rejected it and it's why 4e is largely considered a failure. 5e is a drastic shift away from 3rd and 4th editions and it's a shift very specifically because players found the rules of the game intruding too much on their creative free-form role-playing. Its part of 5e culture to bunk the rules for story/narratives, this is part of the 5e D&D communities culture.
Its true that 5e players want a structured, organized and clear rule system, but then again, that's what we want in the OSR. I mean there is a reason why OSRIC exists, why old school essentials exists. Its not like the rules where changed, they were just made clearer, organized better, they are better edits of the same rules... why? Because all RPG players want a good D&D book with good D&D rules that are clear and easy to use. Being clear and easy to use, isn't a submission to the letter of law that you implying.
Sorry I just think your wrong, what your describing, doesn't really exist.
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Cause that's what you're making here. What point are you trying to make? Do you really believe 5e DM's are "stupid people" who don't know the difference between a player making a reasonable request for narrative reasons and someone who wants to shoot laser beams out of their eyes for d100 damage? Is that your thesis? Because, I don't think that was what your trying to sell me on.
I don't think that we do. You have made a strawman argument to try to show how different we are, but we are not different at all, not even a little bit. I bet our games are very similar just as your game is very similar to the game most DM's on this forum run their game. People heavily modifying their 5e games out of an interest in player creativity is the norm in modern D&D.
Do you believe that your personal definition of Power Gaming is so general that everyone would agree with it universally? For example, I don't agree that is what power gaming is. I know plenty of power gamers who love stories and will always prioritize storytelling and narrative, but they still want the biggest, baddest sword, they always pick the most powerful spells and they want to win fights.... but they are also my best role-players. So are they power gamers?
And for the record, I don't think we are seeing that at all. In fact, I would say, most people come to D&D 5e, very specifically, very poignantly because they are more interested in storytelling than they are in game rules and limitations. Many people came to this game from watching Critical Role, essentially a D&D group of actors, most of which barely know the rules to the game save Matt Mercer.
This is why Bauldersgate 3 for example was far more influenced by modern gaming's need for detailed storytelling. The exact opposite is actually happening. PC games are becoming less about rules and more about story BECAUSE of this very modern story first culture that has been reborn since the launch of 5th edition.
I want to say too that there are differences between modern gaming and old-school gaming. There is no doubt about that, but they are driven mostly by playstyle differences which are governed by rules. If you're trying to make the case that there is a philosophical difference... yeah, maybe in the 3e and 4e days that was true to a degree and on that point I agree with Finch, I definitely think the game lost its way on that front to a certain degree, but in modern gaming I'm finding the philosophical differences between old school and modern gaming to be blending to a point of being indistinguishable.
All that is left are the rules differences. Any philosophy you claim, I promise you most 5e players will not disagree with you or challenge you, they are probably embracing it in their game. What your arguing is that 5e players are not embracing these gaming philosophies and I see people disagreeing with you on that point, not the philosophy, on the fact that your claiming that they don't believe in them.
The rules differences however do affect playstyle and I think this is really the only actual difference left between old school and new school.
Old-school games are deadlier, they are usually more focused on equipment vs. character powers, and they are usually more focused on open-world exploration, dungeon crawling, and dungeon survival which are all kind of unique playstyles usually not pursued by modern gamers. They are also more traditional where you have clear medieval tropes, more Tolkien-focused fantasy depictions.
I promise you that if you played in my game, unless you looked down on your character sheet, you would have no idea whether we are playing OSE or 5e. I run these games, exactly the same. The only thing that really separates my 5e and 1e games are the rules that we are actually using/applying as written. That's the difference. Not much else. Both games do have rules though and you do use them and that makes the biggest difference.
How do you reconcile saying in one breath players of 5E are the most flexible of players that ever did live and that they are more than happy to play at tables at which the DM runs things not as written and then defending those too inflexible to permit the DM's tinkering of a class so that it is not as written?
You are contradicting yourself.
You are also contradicting yourself when you claim to be a proponent of OSR principles but then sing the praises of 5E. Because 5E is the antithesis of the movement's principles. Finch and others have decried since 3rd. how the game now has characters with skills like Persuasion and Deception for example. Instead of demanding players actually role-play such things. The average player now doesn't even bother to do so unless he or she thinks it will grant Advantage. A player could put in the absolute most mediocre and unconvincing of a performance and roll a 20 and critically succeed at the task. It's bad game design. And bad game design that discourages actual role-playing. Even elsewhere on these forums when you talk about the need for rules to be in place for things it goes entirely against the movement's position on rules. Player skill should matter more than character abilities. Rules for the latter as far as feats and skills go are not even really required.
My "personal" definition of power-gaming is the one on Wikipedia and what has been understood to be the definition for aeons. Like I said: You don't get to make up your own.
Most 5E players don't prioritize the rules and optimization? Tell that to Wizards whose new business model is to sell books to players that contain just more and more options to allow for more and more optimization.
Show me a player who power builds and I will show you a player thinking more about what choices need to be made to deliver optimal damage than what choices might make narrative sense. Many openly admit this. Many on these forums will openly admit this. Many will admit that for them D&D is really just a combat game. It pretty much has become one when a rogue with a high DEX and a Finesse weapon delivers just as much damage as any fighter. It's a shadow of what it was when classes stood out for the right reasons. Not because they were all just martial manques.
Your accusing me of a straw man when I was obviously spelling out how unreasonable it is to expect every DM to just genuflect before every player's whim and demand when you rushed to defend players who expect their every choice be weighed be considered is laughable.
As for how similar our games are? I don't run 5E. I play in 5E games. But it's not the system I run. I run a B/X clone.
Whenever someone decries the death of role playing because there’s skills for social encounters all I see is people trying to gatekeep certain classes based on who the player is. Why should only charismatic players get to play charismatic characters? Not everyone is silver tongued and able to come up with elaborate conversations on the fly so what, they should never get to play out their fantasy of being exactly that type of person? They should never get to play a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer? Why stop at just social skills if you’re following that logic? Sorry, you can’t play a Barbarian unless you’ve got anger issues. Want to play a Fighter? Get down and give me 200 pushups or I won’t let you have a decent strength score. It’s an idiotic and exclusionary train of thought. Let people play how they enjoy playing
So now you want an IQ test to play a wizard? It’s all just gate keeping BS if you demand that players have the same skills as their characters. As I said, why draw the line at soft skills and not demand only physically strong people get to play martial characters?
No. And your similarly deeply flawed comparison of expecting any player who simply wants to play a martial class to prove his or her athletic prowess and expecting a player who then wants his or her character in game to persuade or deceive an NPC to at least put in some effort and role-play in what is a role-playing game is profoundly silly.
So why even roll for stats if you’re then going to turn around to a socially awkward player and say their 20 points in Charisma doesn’t count because they personally can’t persuade you of something?
Why draw that line? Because there is no comparison. We don't get up out of chairs and fight things do we? We do however describe what our characters will do or say. That is what role-playing is. Making it all about a roll is roll playing. And not role-playing. This is been a clear distinction made in the hobby for decades.
But there is a comparison, a totally one for one comparison. You’re letting a physically weak individual play a hugely strong Barbarian because one of their numbers just happens to be high but not letting a socially awkward person take advantage of where their high stats are just because you’d rather pull them massively out of their comfort zone and make them miserable. As I said at that point why even let them roll for stats? Why let them play a Bard? You’re the one who keeps claiming that 5e limits players to specific classes and character concepts but then contradict yourself totally by saying that you should only be allowed to play a character that matches your real world abilities. That’s not much of a fantasy now is it?
CHA in earlier editions of the game served mostly two functions: how many retainers a character might attract—such is the nature of charisma—and how the character might influence how an encounter was going to respond to its presence.
It was even made pretty clear it was NOT a measure of a character's personality. Or appearance. A character with an extremely low CHA could still be likeable.
Do you honestly doubt a socially awkward player's ability to be at all persuasive when describing what he or she wants a character to do or say? I think that says more about you than it does a rule you don't like.
I’m not doubting them at all, you’re the one saying they shouldn’t be able to succeed at a persuasion check unless they can personally persuade you, I’m saying that if they aren’t comfortable doing that they shouldn’t have entire classes closed off to them
The comparison is so profoundly fallacious it is a joke.
Role-playing requires players to role-play.
Does that mean we personally have to fight during combat?
NO.
But just what does role-playing look like at your table if you do not even expect players to ever describe what their characters are going to do or say? If everything is determined wth a dice roll?
Honest question.
What happens at your table when a player wants to persuade or deceive someone. Do they just say I want to do that. And the DM says roll. And the result determines what happens. No role-playing ever takes place?