Is this really how some measure the worth of a character? It does more damage? This is why many believe modern D&D is approached more like a video game than a TRPG in which actual characterization should signify more. This is why, while I do play in two 5E games, I run a different version at my table, and why whenever I introduce newcomers to the hobby I use this or an older edition. Because I want them to experience a TRPG. What playing one felt like before the advent of video games. And not a game that has become the table-top equivalent of one in which people spend hours building their avatar before they then hit START.
It isn't for no reason that the Wikipedia page about power gaming, min maxing, or optimization is scathing in its criticism of the practice. It reduces characters to flavorless manques that are more about numbers than about who they are and the game to little more than a beat 'em up with fantasy coating. It's an insult to any serious DM who puts in hours of work to produce solid world building that is supposed to serve as more than a mere backdrop to fights.
Why are you blaming the system for how some people approach/use it?
You don't need to teach an older system to teach people how to RP. That's ridiculous. If anything, you doing a disservice to new players, because they'll have a lot harder time finding another table where they actually know the rules
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And meanwhile, D&D and other games beside rely to a great extent on fighting monsters. Having a measure of how good a character is at that, and also letting that weigh in on how good the character is, isn't insane. I sorta checks out. You roll a rogue, you kinda wanna stab some kidneys, and you want that to hurt. If it doesn't, that detracts from the value of that character.
At lower levels it might be about fighting monsters 'to a great extent.' But a high level campaign in which you are still doing that is a bit sad really. Are characters so flavorless and lacking in impact they play no greater role in the world in which they live but to kill things?
The first session of the latest campaign I have been running had a single moment of combat near the beginning. That did not last more than two rounds. The remaining four hours were focused on the exploration of a region and discoveries about its past and encounters with important NPCs. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you or anyone else are playing 'wrong.' But don't act like my friends and I—two of us playing for decades now—are playing 'wrong' just because we aren't as obsessed as you might be about being able to hit things.
Not all rogues 'wanna stab kidneys.' Some players actually prefer to focus on the more social aspects of the class more befitting its name. The classes are templates upon which to build what should seem like three-dimensional characters in my view. One that becomes little more than an archetype and then a carbon copy of many others is just not a good character. Good characters in any medium are those that defy the limitations of mere archetypes.
Why are you blaming the system for how some people approach/use it?
You don't need to teach an older system to teach people how to RP. That's ridiculous. If anything, you doing a disservice to new players, because they'll have a lot harder time finding another table where they actually know the rules
I live in a country where the 'popularity' of D&D pales in comparison to that of other games. So no. I am not doing these people any sort of 'disservice.' The Mentzer red box sold ten times more copies in its first year than were sold of the 2014 PHB over the course of ten years here.
Who is doing whom a disservice? I have probably introduced people to more systems than you have. I've run different campaigns using different games per term for classes for which I run them. I'd sooner call it a disservice to others to have them believe there isn't really anything out there worth playing but current D&D.
The current system is built with optimization in mind. The way ability scores are decided. The options available at level ups. This has been the case since 3rd. Edition.
The only 5E I have ever seen that did not feel that way was homebrewed beyond recognition.
Who is doing whom a disservice? I have probably introduced people to more systems than you have.
LOL. Suuuuure you have
If you can't find a way to RP in 5e without heavy homebrew, that's a you problem, because the rest of us who are interested in RP are doing it just fine
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At lower levels it might be about fighting monsters 'to a great extent.' But a high level campaign in which you are still doing that is a bit sad really. Are characters so flavorless and lacking in impact they play no greater role in the world in which they live but to kill things?
The first session of the latest campaign I have been running had a single moment of combat near the beginning. That did not last more than two rounds. The remaining four hours were focused on the exploration of a region and discoveries about its past and encounters with important NPCs. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you or anyone else are playing 'wrong.' But don't act like my friends and I—two of us playing for decades now—are playing 'wrong' just because we aren't as obsessed as you might be about being able to hit things.
Not all rogues 'wanna stab kidneys.' Some players actually prefer to focus on the more social aspects of the class more befitting its name. The classes are templates upon which to build what should seem like three-dimensional characters in my view. One that becomes little more than an archetype and then a carbon copy of many others is just not a good character. Good characters in any medium are those that defy the limitations of mere archetypes.
The game as written and designed is about fighting stuff - to a very great extent. Characters scale level by level, getting ever better at fighting stuff. There's no comparable scaling for anything else. Sure your skill modifiers increase as well at a certain pace, but I hope you realise that you don't get higher level Diplmacy spells, or multiple Persuasion attacks per round.
What makes you say 'flavourless and lacking in impact'? Why 'sad'?
The rogue is built around Sneak Attack. It can do other things, but Sneak Attack is really the thing that makes a rogue a rogue.
Point me towards any official, published high level campaign where the primary focus is ... not sad, as you say.
I don't know anything about you, or your friends, or how you play, or what you find fun. Do me a favor and assume the same the other way. But for the record, I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest. I'm guessing, but I feel confident regardless. If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If you can't find a way to RP in 5e without heavy homebrew, that's a you problem, because the rest of us who are interested in RP are doing it just fine
Let's see. Over a decade of teaching. At least half of which has been spent running games for students. A different game every term. You do the math and tell me if you have introduced players to more games than I have. And that is not to mention games run outside of work.
You accused me doing others a 'disservice' for introducing them to an edition other than 5E: The translation of the old red box sold 100,000 copies in its first year here. While that of the 2014 PHB sold merely 10,000 over the course of ten years. And in case you're wondering I've run Call of Cthulhu here. It is the most popular game here. Wouldn't want to be doing others a 'disservice.' Something you accused me of for no good reason.
And you are now misrepresenting what I said:
Where did I say I "can't find a way to RP in 5e without heavy homebrew"?
That is not what i said.
What I said is 5E is very much geared towards optimization.
Think about people who see D&D played in shows like Stranger Things and Freaks & Geeks and want to give it a go.
Are you really claiming running 5E for them is going to give them that experience? It takes longer to make a character than it takes to sit through an episode of either show.
The game as written and designed is about fighting stuff - to a very great extent. Characters scale level by level, getting ever better at fighting stuff. There's no comparable scaling for anything else. Sure your skill modifiers increase as well at a certain pace, but I hope you realise that you don't get higher level Diplmacy spells, or multiple Persuasion attacks per round.
What makes you say 'flavourless and lacking in impact'? Why 'sad'?
The rogue is built around Sneak Attack. It can do other things, but Sneak Attack is really the thing that makes a rogue a rogue.
Point me towards any official, published high level campaign where the primary focus is ... not sad, as you say.
I don't know anything about you, or your friends, or how you play, or what you find fun. Do me a favor and assume the same the other way. But for the record, I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest. I'm guessing, but I feel confident regardless. If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
It is now. Written and designed to be primarily about 'fighting stuff.' Which is why so many look to older editions or variants thereof or third-party resources for domain-level play at those higher levels. In earlier editions when gold equalled experience many were the other ways to obtain it.
In earlier editions reaction tables saw a lot of what today would inevitably lead to combat lead to unexpected results.
The Thief class had a role beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' Others of that class type in other games have roles beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' It was inevitable that the 'rogue' would become little more than a 'kidney-stabber' in combat when it was drained of much of what its predecessors were to be reduced to one feature. Unless of course that one feature is being utilized to assassinate NPCs the 'rogue' has been tasked with 'disappearing.' It would be a much more interesting 'rogue' than one who just hits things in fights and does more damage when it does so. Like everyone else.
You're right though. In most high level campaigns today people wish to continue to kill things. Because they approach D&D like a video game. Moving from one scenario to another and just killing whatever is in it. You are making my case for me about how the current version of the game is not at all conducive to introducing people to a style of play popular in the early days when things might have started with the exploration of crypts but rose to tales more of intrigue and even at times of romance.
A high level campaign for 5E that isn't about simply killing things? I couldn't name one. But there were and remain resources to run high level campaigns in which the characters are lords of their own domains or managing thieves' guilds or colleges of wizardry. Campaigns with more to tell than just We killed the next thing to be killed.
The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay—a game that takes combat to the next level—had one of the hobby's most well received multi-volume campaigns. And much of it is about court intrigue.
Some people come to D&D provided the mainstreaming of fantasy we have seen with Game of Thrones.
So much if some of these people want to play a game that is more investigative in nature and more about that court intrigue than just hitting the next thing with their axe.
I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest
I would dispute that strongly. My current rogue is more or less a riff on a Call of Cthulhu sort of character -- high investigation and arcana skills. He can stab kidneys, but that's absolutely not what he was built for
Any recent campaign I've been in that's had a rogue, they were way more interested in RP and non-combat stuff than they were trying to find a way to get another Sneak Attack in, even if they had a combat-oriented subclass like Swashbuckler
If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
White-room theorycrafting has very little to do with how the game is played at actual tables
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is now. Written and designed to be primarily about 'fighting stuff.'
The game rules have always been about 'fighting stuff', and most people are going to expect that what the rules focus on is what they'll mostly do in the game. Every edition has allowed you to do things that aren't much covered by the rules, and 5e is no different, but the rules don't really lead you towards that style of play.
It is now. Written and designed to be primarily about 'fighting stuff.' Which is why so many look to older editions or variants thereof or third-party resources for domain-level play at those higher levels. In earlier editions when gold equalled experience many were the other ways to obtain it.
In earlier editions reaction tables saw a lot of what today would inevitably lead to combat lead to unexpected results.
The Thief class had a role beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' Others of that class type in other games have roles beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' It was inevitable that the 'rogue' would become little more than a 'kidney-stabber' in combat when it was drained of much of what its predecessors were to be reduced to one feature. Unless of course that one feature is being utilized to assassinate NPCs the 'rogue' has been tasked with 'disappearing.' It would be a much more interesting 'rogue' than one who just hits things in fights and does more damage when it does so. Like everyone else.
You're right though. In most high level campaigns today people wish to continue to kill things. Because they approach D&D like a video game. Moving from one scenario to another and just killing whatever is in it. You are making my case for me about how the current version of the game is not at all conducive to introducing people to a style of play popular in the early days when things might have started with the exploration of crypts but rose to tales more of intrigue and even at times of romance.
A high level campaign for 5E that isn't about simply killing things? I couldn't name one. But there were and remain resources to run high level campaigns in which the characters are lords of their own domains or managing thieves' guilds or colleges of wizardry. Campaigns with more to tell than just We killed the next thing to be killed.
The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay—a game that takes combat to the next level—had one of the hobby's most well received multi-volume campaigns. And much of it is about court intrigue.
Some people come to D&D provided the mainstreaming of fantasy we have seen with Game of Thrones.
So much if some of these people want to play a game that is more investigative in nature and more about that court intrigue than just hitting the next thing with their axe.
I played AD&D. I played 3e and 3.5, 4e and 5e.
Am I remembering correctly if I say you're the Swedish guy? It's unimportant, but I played Drager & Demoner. I've played Mythos, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Vampire, Camelot, Cyberpunk, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands. I've played a couple of made by hand indie games. I've played Fate, and Powered by the Apocalypse. I've played some E6.
It's always the same. Across any number of games, with any number of different people: Play is based on fights, with story to bring you from fight to fight, and with roleplaying for fun, to make the game social rather than strictly tactical.
Rogues stab kidneys, paladins smite, wizards and sorcerers cinder people, bards sing and dance. You don't defy the stereotype, you play around with it. Or even lean into it - doesn't matter even in the very, very slightest so long as you're having fun with it.
Honestly I love that you bring up reaction tables - because rolling for stuff is better roleplaying than ... roleplaying. Right?
I feel like you want newer RPG's to be videogamey - but I simply do not agree with you.
I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest
I would dispute that strongly. My current rogue is more or less a riff on a Call of Cthulhu sort of character -- high investigation and arcana skills. He can stab kidneys, but that's absolutely not what he was built for
Any recent campaign I've been in that's had a rogue, they were way more interested in RP and non-combat stuff than they were trying to find a way to get another Sneak Attack in, even if they had a combat-oriented subclass like Swashbuckler
That's fine. I stand by my claim regardless. Having not played in 'the vast majority' of games, I have to extrapolate from personal experience, these and other forums, the internet and youtube and so on. I stand by my claim. Despite you and your guys doing differently =)
If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
White-room theorycrafting has very little to do with how the game is played at actual tables
I didn't bring up high level play. I just said .. well what I said. If pressed, I'd add that in essence, no one plays high level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The game as written and designed is about fighting stuff - to a very great extent. Characters scale level by level, getting ever better at fighting stuff. There's no comparable scaling for anything else. Sure your skill modifiers increase as well at a certain pace, but I hope you realise that you don't get higher level Diplmacy spells, or multiple Persuasion attacks per round.
What makes you say 'flavourless and lacking in impact'? Why 'sad'?
The rogue is built around Sneak Attack. It can do other things, but Sneak Attack is really the thing that makes a rogue a rogue.
Point me towards any official, published high level campaign where the primary focus is ... not sad, as you say.
I don't know anything about you, or your friends, or how you play, or what you find fun. Do me a favor and assume the same the other way. But for the record, I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest. I'm guessing, but I feel confident regardless. If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
It is now. Written and designed to be primarily about 'fighting stuff.' Which is why so many look to older editions or variants thereof or third-party resources for domain-level play at those higher levels. In earlier editions when gold equalled experience many were the other ways to obtain it.
In earlier editions reaction tables saw a lot of what today would inevitably lead to combat lead to unexpected results.
The Thief class had a role beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' Others of that class type in other games have roles beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' It was inevitable that the 'rogue' would become little more than a 'kidney-stabber' in combat when it was drained of much of what its predecessors were to be reduced to one feature. Unless of course that one feature is being utilized to assassinate NPCs the 'rogue' has been tasked with 'disappearing.' It would be a much more interesting 'rogue' than one who just hits things in fights and does more damage when it does so. Like everyone else.
You're right though. In most high level campaigns today people wish to continue to kill things. Because they approach D&D like a video game. Moving from one scenario to another and just killing whatever is in it. You are making my case for me about how the current version of the game is not at all conducive to introducing people to a style of play popular in the early days when things might have started with the exploration of crypts but rose to tales more of intrigue and even at times of romance.
A high level campaign for 5E that isn't about simply killing things? I couldn't name one. But there were and remain resources to run high level campaigns in which the characters are lords of their own domains or managing thieves' guilds or colleges of wizardry. Campaigns with more to tell than just We killed the next thing to be killed.
The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay—a game that takes combat to the next level—had one of the hobby's most well received multi-volume campaigns. And much of it is about court intrigue.
Some people come to D&D provided the mainstreaming of fantasy we have seen with Game of Thrones.
So much if some of these people want to play a game that is more investigative in nature and more about that court intrigue than just hitting the next thing with their axe.
Good grief, the Stormwind Fallacy rears its ugly head yet again. Roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to be an excellent role player and to enjoy role playing while also being an unabashed optimizer who enjoys optimization. There is nothing about 5e that particularly discourages role playing and there is nothing about earlier editions that particularly encourages it either. It is a poor musician who blames their instrument. Please find a less divisive way to express your preferences, one that does not include casting aspersions on the way others choose to play D&D.
As this thread has once again gotten off topic and given that the poster's original question has been thoroughly answered, I'll be locking this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Why are you blaming the system for how some people approach/use it?
You don't need to teach an older system to teach people how to RP. That's ridiculous. If anything, you doing a disservice to new players, because they'll have a lot harder time finding another table where they actually know the rules
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At lower levels it might be about fighting monsters 'to a great extent.' But a high level campaign in which you are still doing that is a bit sad really. Are characters so flavorless and lacking in impact they play no greater role in the world in which they live but to kill things?
The first session of the latest campaign I have been running had a single moment of combat near the beginning. That did not last more than two rounds. The remaining four hours were focused on the exploration of a region and discoveries about its past and encounters with important NPCs. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you or anyone else are playing 'wrong.' But don't act like my friends and I—two of us playing for decades now—are playing 'wrong' just because we aren't as obsessed as you might be about being able to hit things.
Not all rogues 'wanna stab kidneys.' Some players actually prefer to focus on the more social aspects of the class more befitting its name. The classes are templates upon which to build what should seem like three-dimensional characters in my view. One that becomes little more than an archetype and then a carbon copy of many others is just not a good character. Good characters in any medium are those that defy the limitations of mere archetypes.
I live in a country where the 'popularity' of D&D pales in comparison to that of other games. So no. I am not doing these people any sort of 'disservice.' The Mentzer red box sold ten times more copies in its first year than were sold of the 2014 PHB over the course of ten years here.
Who is doing whom a disservice? I have probably introduced people to more systems than you have. I've run different campaigns using different games per term for classes for which I run them. I'd sooner call it a disservice to others to have them believe there isn't really anything out there worth playing but current D&D.
The current system is built with optimization in mind. The way ability scores are decided. The options available at level ups. This has been the case since 3rd. Edition.
The only 5E I have ever seen that did not feel that way was homebrewed beyond recognition.
LOL. Suuuuure you have
If you can't find a way to RP in 5e without heavy homebrew, that's a you problem, because the rest of us who are interested in RP are doing it just fine
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The game as written and designed is about fighting stuff - to a very great extent. Characters scale level by level, getting ever better at fighting stuff. There's no comparable scaling for anything else. Sure your skill modifiers increase as well at a certain pace, but I hope you realise that you don't get higher level Diplmacy spells, or multiple Persuasion attacks per round.
What makes you say 'flavourless and lacking in impact'? Why 'sad'?
The rogue is built around Sneak Attack. It can do other things, but Sneak Attack is really the thing that makes a rogue a rogue.
Point me towards any official, published high level campaign where the primary focus is ... not sad, as you say.
I don't know anything about you, or your friends, or how you play, or what you find fun. Do me a favor and assume the same the other way. But for the record, I'd say the exceedingly vast majority of players who play a rogue, stab kidneys as a primary point of interest. I'm guessing, but I feel confident regardless. If you look at theoretical highlevel builds - here, on this forum - you'll find (again, I'm guessing, I haven't surveyed them) that they're mostly about combat and damage and tweaking the rules to do unreasonable things ... in a fight.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Let's see. Over a decade of teaching. At least half of which has been spent running games for students. A different game every term. You do the math and tell me if you have introduced players to more games than I have. And that is not to mention games run outside of work.
You accused me doing others a 'disservice' for introducing them to an edition other than 5E: The translation of the old red box sold 100,000 copies in its first year here. While that of the 2014 PHB sold merely 10,000 over the course of ten years. And in case you're wondering I've run Call of Cthulhu here. It is the most popular game here. Wouldn't want to be doing others a 'disservice.' Something you accused me of for no good reason.
And you are now misrepresenting what I said:
Where did I say I "can't find a way to RP in 5e without heavy homebrew"?
That is not what i said.
What I said is 5E is very much geared towards optimization.
Think about people who see D&D played in shows like Stranger Things and Freaks & Geeks and want to give it a go.
Are you really claiming running 5E for them is going to give them that experience? It takes longer to make a character than it takes to sit through an episode of either show.
It is now. Written and designed to be primarily about 'fighting stuff.' Which is why so many look to older editions or variants thereof or third-party resources for domain-level play at those higher levels. In earlier editions when gold equalled experience many were the other ways to obtain it.
In earlier editions reaction tables saw a lot of what today would inevitably lead to combat lead to unexpected results.
The Thief class had a role beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' Others of that class type in other games have roles beyond just 'stabbing kidneys.' It was inevitable that the 'rogue' would become little more than a 'kidney-stabber' in combat when it was drained of much of what its predecessors were to be reduced to one feature. Unless of course that one feature is being utilized to assassinate NPCs the 'rogue' has been tasked with 'disappearing.' It would be a much more interesting 'rogue' than one who just hits things in fights and does more damage when it does so. Like everyone else.
You're right though. In most high level campaigns today people wish to continue to kill things. Because they approach D&D like a video game. Moving from one scenario to another and just killing whatever is in it. You are making my case for me about how the current version of the game is not at all conducive to introducing people to a style of play popular in the early days when things might have started with the exploration of crypts but rose to tales more of intrigue and even at times of romance.
A high level campaign for 5E that isn't about simply killing things? I couldn't name one. But there were and remain resources to run high level campaigns in which the characters are lords of their own domains or managing thieves' guilds or colleges of wizardry. Campaigns with more to tell than just We killed the next thing to be killed.
The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay—a game that takes combat to the next level—had one of the hobby's most well received multi-volume campaigns. And much of it is about court intrigue.
Some people come to D&D provided the mainstreaming of fantasy we have seen with Game of Thrones.
So much if some of these people want to play a game that is more investigative in nature and more about that court intrigue than just hitting the next thing with their axe.
I would dispute that strongly. My current rogue is more or less a riff on a Call of Cthulhu sort of character -- high investigation and arcana skills. He can stab kidneys, but that's absolutely not what he was built for
Any recent campaign I've been in that's had a rogue, they were way more interested in RP and non-combat stuff than they were trying to find a way to get another Sneak Attack in, even if they had a combat-oriented subclass like Swashbuckler
White-room theorycrafting has very little to do with how the game is played at actual tables
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The game rules have always been about 'fighting stuff', and most people are going to expect that what the rules focus on is what they'll mostly do in the game. Every edition has allowed you to do things that aren't much covered by the rules, and 5e is no different, but the rules don't really lead you towards that style of play.
I played AD&D. I played 3e and 3.5, 4e and 5e.
Am I remembering correctly if I say you're the Swedish guy? It's unimportant, but I played Drager & Demoner. I've played Mythos, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Vampire, Camelot, Cyberpunk, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands. I've played a couple of made by hand indie games. I've played Fate, and Powered by the Apocalypse. I've played some E6.
It's always the same. Across any number of games, with any number of different people: Play is based on fights, with story to bring you from fight to fight, and with roleplaying for fun, to make the game social rather than strictly tactical.
Rogues stab kidneys, paladins smite, wizards and sorcerers cinder people, bards sing and dance. You don't defy the stereotype, you play around with it. Or even lean into it - doesn't matter even in the very, very slightest so long as you're having fun with it.
Honestly I love that you bring up reaction tables - because rolling for stuff is better roleplaying than ... roleplaying. Right?
I feel like you want newer RPG's to be videogamey - but I simply do not agree with you.
That's fine. I stand by my claim regardless. Having not played in 'the vast majority' of games, I have to extrapolate from personal experience, these and other forums, the internet and youtube and so on. I stand by my claim. Despite you and your guys doing differently =)
I didn't bring up high level play. I just said .. well what I said. If pressed, I'd add that in essence, no one plays high level.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Good grief, the Stormwind Fallacy rears its ugly head yet again. Roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to be an excellent role player and to enjoy role playing while also being an unabashed optimizer who enjoys optimization. There is nothing about 5e that particularly discourages role playing and there is nothing about earlier editions that particularly encourages it either. It is a poor musician who blames their instrument. Please find a less divisive way to express your preferences, one that does not include casting aspersions on the way others choose to play D&D.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAs this thread has once again gotten off topic and given that the poster's original question has been thoroughly answered, I'll be locking this thread.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources