I'm a newer player and I've read/seen some things that seem to allude to the fact that newer players and seasoned players tend to go about things a bit differently. I think I want to know more about this and why.
What are some things players do that are hallmarks or give aways that they are newer players? (what do newer players do that's really cringy?)
Are choices about alignment informed by experience level? What about the kinds of backstories players write? Use of flavor and language? What they consider fun? Use of humor? Problem solving? Ethical consideration? What they put effort into or prioritize or find interesting?
I think newer players are allowed more leeway in certain areas. Does that include things like character concept choices and our roleplaying choices? I'm extremely aware that other players are showing tolerance in other areas like knowledge of game rules and mechanics, but maybe I'm also being shown tolerance in ways that I'm not even aware of. It feels like that might be the case, and perhaps the leeway and tolerance that newer players might be given, in order to encourage them to love the game might affect the way we play, not that that's bad or anything, I'm very grateful that when I very fist started out, that I wasn't expected to know about everything and was sort of allowed to play with a lighter version of the rules, for a while, but now I think I might like to at least know when that sort of thing might be happening.
What lessons does experience give you than informs they way you play and the choices that you make about your character and how you play and roleplay them? What do veteran players know and do, that newer players haven't figured out yet, that make things better?
What positives might possibly be lost over time, as someone has played perhaps dozens of characters, (if anything might be lost)? Or does it just keep getting better and better? I feel like there might be something that newer players have to offer, beyond just perpetuation and expansion of the game, otherwise, maybe we would not be warmly invited in and tolerated until we figure some stuff out. Is there some kind of a sweet spot to aim for, that combines the best traits of newer and seasoned players?
I might think the basic thing any experienced player will do is know what kind of game they like. Rules heavy? Light? Heavy role playing or little to none? Ability to play high level characters well? Game style? Horror, Fantasy, Steam Punk, straight up dungeon crawls, etc.
An experienced player will like one or all of the things mentioned and that's the game they want to play, and they know it. New players are just figuring that out.
It kind of depends on how seasoned you mean. Those of us who’ve been playing since 1e, for example didn’t really write much in terms of backstory back then. Most (well, lots of) characters died fairly quickly and there wasn’t near the focus on role playing as there is today. We didn’t really get as attached to characters as people do now. I don’t mean that as a value judgment, and I’m not trying to say either way is necessarily better. But it explains (to me, at least) why I don’t get near as upset about character death as some of the people I play with who’ve only played 5e.
One piece of advice I’d have is, don’t expect other players to care as much about your backstory as you do. Certainly there are some that do, and if you find a group like that, that’s great. Just don’t go in with the assumption that the rest of the table is invested in watching you resolve your personal side-story. They should make space for you to be able to, as you should in return.
New players don't have their expectations aligned yet with the reality of the game. Obviously every game is different, but you can make some broad strokes observations. There are some that stand out, that I've seen on several occasions.
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons, to the extent that they're inflexible in their tactics. A goblin could be right next to them and they have two swords handy, but they won't think to stab the goblin, because they're a Ranger.
2. They'll expect stealth to work like it does in video games, and they'll demonstrate this by using "stealth" as a verb. Hiding in open areas just outside of some imaginary vision cone.
3. They'll have absolutely no idea where the line is between metagaming and playing an informed character. They might suspect there is a distinction, they just can't tell where it is yet, so they'll alternately play omniscient characters who can hear their allies' conversations from miles away, or clueless ones who don't know dragons are extremely dangerous, and they won't realize they can just ask the DM.
4. They will either think too much or too little about things like ammunition, carry weight, light, and supplies -- they don't know whether their group values these things. Also, NPC attitudes, weather, and even things that don't have tiny blurbs of useless rules text, like local laws, the morality of treating initiative as murder mode, and prayer -- Cleric players in particular will often pray one or two times before they come to the correct conclusion that it makes no difference at all, and stop.
5. They think in terms of Pokemon type advantages. Lightning damage has some bonus effect on water, fire beats ice, and so on.
6. They'll want to multiclass. Nobody wants to multiclass as much as new players.
That all sounds negative. Really, I think these behaviors are mostly kind of charming, but I suppose they are negative. But there are good things too. Because it's very possible to get jaded, to fall into routines, and to lose sight of the bigger picture while you're trying to master a system.
7. New players don't play to the action economy. They play to the story in combat. You might see them interact with the scene using their action instead of making two attacks, which would be more efficient. They will aim attacks at the monsters who have personally offended them instead of the ones that have the lowest hit points, because they're not thinking about removing the number of turns the opposition gets, they're thinking of the way their character feels. You get more dynamic and cinematic fights this way, I feel. But you also die more.
8. They won't stop themselves from attempting something just because they realized their bonus isn't the highest in the party for that thing. They'll try to persuade NPCs even with a +0 because it makes sense to do so.
9. They'll take the DM's narration at face value instead of trying to guess what's going on behind the screen. An NPC will tell them not to go into the dangerous mountains, and they'll think, "mountains are pretty dangerous," not "mountains are a later part of the quest, we need to do the other part first," or "DM didn't prepare the mountains." They'll hear "you are surrounded by wolves" and think "oh shit" instead of "this is probably a random encounter, and our DM wouldn't kill us in a random encounter."
It’s not that set in stone, for example I have been playing since the early 1980’s and I disagree with almost everything that Choir said above.
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons.
This is definitely not true of just new players. I currently play in 2 games. In one I play a ranger (multiclass). The group comprises of guys that I have been playing with for decades - and assumed I was going for an archer, and a few new players who joined us during lockdown - who made no such assumptions. The long time players were really shocked when I plowed head on into melee combat with paired shortswords at lvl 1 and not a bow. Even though I discussed my build in the pre game chat. She easily outfights all of the melee based characters including the pure fighters.
3. They'll have absolutely no idea where the line is between metagaming and playing an informed character.
While stealthing ahead to scout an underground cultist base, I found a couple of treasure chests and was investigating them for traps etc. one of the long term (2 decade +) players immediately asked the dm to move his token to mine so he could look at the treasure in the chests, even though his character was on the other side of the map with no clue of what I had found, he (the player) was acting on what he heard of the conversation between myself and the dm and decided he wanted in on the loot.
That’s just a couple of examples. I’m not going to do a point by point. Every table is different, just as every player is different. I can’t remember the last time I played a single class character- generally they all are until the multiclass point for example I have a barbarian who will multiclass once he gets to level 5 in barbarian because extra attack is to good to delay when you’re one of the primary meatsacks. Of the people that play with or in games I have run, I have 2 players that have started playing this summer and there are 2 other long term players that have never multiclassed and 2 other long term players who almost always do.
As far as back story goes, there are people in my groups that just have a few sentences and some (like me) with multiple paragraphs. Although mine are usually to explain my multiclassing - check the description tab for example; https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/75129405
There is no ‘newbs’ play like this and ‘vets’ play like this answer, though I would agree that new players get way more attached to their characters and really get upset if they die. For me it’s just 1’s and 0’s, if a character dies then its just an opportunity to try something else new. Some older players have the mindset that they mindlessly charge enemies, others like myself like to plan and use tactics. Some new players are the same, though I have noticed a lot of newer players would rather avoid combat encounters entirely. They also try to do really crazy things in situations where it is really inappropriate. Like trying to use animal handling on a guard dog to let him passed while the human guard was standing right next to it holding the mastiff’s lead. Another player once thought it would be fun to ‘speed rappel’ down a 30 foot cliff with a 50 foot rope and didn’t realise his mistake until the dm rolled falling damage.
In general new players bring a new perspective and fresh energy into a group. Certainly the new younger peoples sensitivities make us older people rethink our ideas - like all goblins are evil because they are goblins. There’s also - again in some cases - more desire for just social rp and not combat or exploration whereas us oldtimers were more exploration and combat focused. Socialising happened for 5 minutes while we were getting the next mission from the npc’s.
New players often have a significant gap between their character concept and their mechanical choices in character creation.
I find it's helpful to see what a new player comes up with and then ask questions about what they want their character to do. And then experienced players can help find ways to make that happen. And it's more than just helping them pick their stats well.
For example, I saw a new player take Animal Handling (I believe) and some other stuff because he wanted a raven. All he really needed was a Feat that gave him Find Familiar. 10 times better, and he was happy. He just didn't know that such things were an option.
So it might help to ask new players what they want their characters to be able to do and then help guide them with their mechanical choices. With all the books, feats, stats, custom backgrounds, races, subclasses, etc., it can be overwhelming for them whereas an experienced player can instantly think of three ways to achieve what they want to do. Not to min-max, exactly, but to help them create an effective character that reflects their vision.
One thing experienced players can lose, then, is the emphasis on the vision they have for their character.
Experienced players know 15 different powerful combos they'd love to try out. Their characters can be mechanics first, then character vision. This can be both good and bad - and neutral.
For I've found I don't enjoy characters that are simple to play anymore. I can't get into a martial class like I used to unless its in a system I don't know well like Pathfinder or it's a somehow bonkers build (like a Monk I built once with a walking speed of 55 feet). In 5e, I generally need to be a gish or full spellcaster, no matter how much being a Rogue appeals to me thematically, just for the complexity and mechanics. That is limiting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blood Frenzy. The quipper has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage.
Roleplay, backstory, multiclassing etc are no real indicator. Ie, ChairOfFire above pt 6.. I almost always multi-class, and started playing D&D.. before “Advanced” came out. I find single class boring..
But rules interpretation is a big one, as despite appearances, 5E can be “RAI’d” many ways, and “stretched” many ways, and miss-interpreted in many ways.
For example; Using the Cantrip Shape Water to “Suck all the water from someone and kill them”… or Minor Illusion to “Create thick fog, so all the monsters are blind”.
(NOTE: A good DM will let the player try, and fail.. so you get a tear or some snot, and the fog is actually transparent, so no effect.)
It’s easy to not “know” a rule, ie.. Fire Bolt can target a door, Ray of Frost cannot.. (/shrug), and agree/disagree with why.
But it’s more basic than that.. not knowing the limits of what is possible at a grand scale, within the “rules” of 5E, which requires a deeper understanding of the classes, mechanics, rules and just.. “playing”.
The first character a player plays is usually heavily based on something they know well. Either it's themselves (but better!), a character from media, or a fantasy archetype. These expy characters are often difficult to manage for two main reasons: 1) the player wants the character be exactly the same to the point of ignoring the world they're in or 2) what makes a character interesting in another setting doesn't work in a group dynamic (aka the Batman problem). Characters based on others are not all bad; they can work if you're willing to change and grow as the story progresses.
The second character a player makes is usually an effort to be unique in the extreme. They pore through books and websites looking for unusual combinations of race and subclass and use exotic weapons or whimsically flavored magic. This is often a reaction to perceived failures in the first character. The problems with this approach are 1) nothing is ever truly unique in fiction and 2) The character often becomes a mishmash of quirks or gimmicks that become tiresome after a time.
After the first two characters, players usually settle down into a mixture of the two approaches: borrow liberally, but borrow from multiple sources at once and change enough that it feels real. Overplanning pages of backstory is usually pointless unless it's for your own benefit; don't expect others to ask you how you got that scar on your left thigh, but if it helps you understand your character, write it down and keep it to yourself unless it comes up. Work with the DM and other players to come up with a character that fits in and has a personality that will complement the playstyle of others.
My advice to new players: Keep it Simple. Give the character a basic motivation for adventuring, a bond and a flaw, then let them grow as you play. Some groups will be heavy into role-playing, but you can improvise backstory on the fly. Other groups will be more mission-focused and you can let interesting reactions to the events of the story build your character. Don't worry about what others will think, just pick a simple idea and go with it.
New players seem to always want 10 different multiclasses... Kinda ruins it for me, but to each their own.
I have to strongly disagree. Some of the most powerful builds have 2, sometimes 3 classes, and are run by long time players with a deep understanding of the interaction of rules, action economy, spell vs mele etc.
Pit a L8 Fighter/Cavalier vs a L4 Barbarian/Totem (Bear)/L4 Fighter (Echo Knight) and who will win every time.
A L8 Rogue who never uses Steady Aim, forgets to use his Uncanny Dodge and thinks shooting a FireBolt (no Sneak damage) is better than an arrow (can get Sneak damage)… ya, single class… It’s not the class, single or multi… it’s how you play that character and use their skills to survive. And I can honestly say I’ve seen terribly played single class builds, and excellent builds, same for multi.
That experienced players do a thing, is not to say that new players don't do it more. Newbies love multiclassing, and they want to do it even when it makes no mechanical sense. My friend's first 5e character was a Barbarian/Sorcerer multiclass. It didn't work very well, obviously.
That experienced players do a thing, is not to say that new players don't do it more. Newbies love multiclassing, and they want to do it even when it makes no mechanical sense. My friend's first 5e character was a Barbarian/Sorcerer multiclass. It didn't work very well, obviously.
And on this I 100% agree.. It is easier to “make mistakes” [on a build] with multi-classing, by not understanding class mechanics and action economy, which comes with experience. But multiclass can be a very powerful mechanism on builds… there’s a reason Paladin and Lock/Sorc m/c is so successful & widely used !
But the same can be said of single classes; Artificer/Armoror is an example, single-class your have very few Bonus Action uses (go go Homonculeous!). Similarly Druids… had a game where the single class Druid was “very disappointed” in his action economy, as he didnt use BA’s as much as he could have.
One funny quirk I've noticed with multiple new players is the specific instance of them wanting to design a character that sucks at everything. And I don't mean that disparagingly, I mean that's that explicitly stated goal. I've had more than one new player think that that's just a great idea for a jokey character, and they usually end up frustrated when they're character functions as designed and they can't do much.
I think this happens when new players are genre-savvy enough to understand conventions and want to subvert them, but are unfamiliar with the game enough that they think this is a Cool Unique Idea that Nobody's Done Before and they don't actually expect to get invested in play and want to accomplish anything in the world.
It's all opinion and subjective mumbo jumbo - obviously. Myself included. New players can be a highlight and welcome addition to any table and veteran players can be an absolute drain. I'll highlight one thing, which I believe is most important. Don't be selfish, understand and respect that it's a cooperative experience, be cool, and try to have fun. The rest is details that don't really matter in the grand scheme. ******** are ********, regardless of playing for 30 years or 30 minutes. Excited players that put in lots of effort isn't exclusive to new or old. Old players can provide great input, knowledge, and help move things forward but they can also be grumpy for no good reason. New players can flounder, be fickle, indecisive, and expecting too much but can also be curious and excited.
Just have fun. There's no right, wrong, absolute, best, or even preferred way. It's what you and the group you play with decide and it's all correct. Follow every rule or follow none. Play by the book or make a random character inspired by a video game. It's all right if you and those around agree, enjoy it, and it creates a fun and memorable experience.
One thing I think players lose over time is the ability to be all-in while not metagaming. To give an example: Players probably have no idea the first time they come across Trolls that fire stops them from regenerating, or that if you deal slashing damage to a Ochre Jelly that it splits in two*. It's hard to put your thinking hat on and properly experiement like a character would if they met these creatures for the first time when you already know what the solution is. What is a lucky strike that you happen to guess the right way to attack them? It's like playing chess against yourself...you have to shut a part of you down in order to make it work, which prevents the all in attitude of new players.
That's something I think new players have that veterans (and especially DMs) lack - the freedom to be all in without worrying about metagaming.
* I have an interesting situation about that. My wife came across one and hit it with its sword, causing it to split. She, quite understandably, reasoned that it was because she hit it with a non magical weapon, so hit it again with a magical one. However, because of the strength of the hit, the two halves did not split again, and now she's convinced that it proved her hypothesis and Ochre Jellies will not split if she uses magic weapons. It's going to be interesting when she tries to metagame that aspect again - and I'm curious whether she'll think I'm cheating.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
New players seem to always want 10 different multiclasses... Kinda ruins it for me, but to each their own.
I have to strongly disagree. Some of the most powerful builds have 2, sometimes 3 classes, and are run by long time players with a deep understanding of the interaction of rules, action economy, spell vs mele etc.
Pit a L8 Fighter/Cavalier vs a L4 Barbarian/Totem (Bear)/L4 Fighter (Echo Knight) and who will win every time.
A L8 Rogue who never uses Steady Aim, forgets to use his Uncanny Dodge and thinks shooting a FireBolt (no Sneak damage) is better than an arrow (can get Sneak damage)… ya, single class… It’s not the class, single or multi… it’s how you play that character and use their skills to survive. And I can honestly say I’ve seen terribly played single class builds, and excellent builds, same for multi.
That's fine and I see what your saying, but I've just noticed the newer generation has (somewhat) taken from what they learn in video games and try to min/max everything... Its almost like solo play in a group setting. Who cares if there is a sorcerer or cleric in the party I can heal myself or shoot my own fireball... Again, just my observation everyone is different and everyone's campaign is different.
I'm sure that's why all the min/max meta build videos on YouTube are a dime a dozen and everyone does them... Its popular.
I don't play video games, but I feel like that "solo play in a group setting" thing might be an issue for some newer players, maybe because of being overwhelmed, wanting to seem cool and with it or have character seem cool and with it (wanting approval), not really grasping yet how different classes and races have different strengths and weakness and how parties work cooperatively to solve problems and achieve goals, as a team (that one seems really hard in the beginning - really playing a game that isn't a zero-sum game was a new concept). I guess seeing other characters being good at particular things and wanting to emulate that, even though the character are very different and I guess, if we're being honest, wanting one's own character to be good at absolutely everything.
I don't think there's a simple binary between "what new players do" vs "what experienced players do." Novice players can run a spectrum from very timid to very aggressive on varying aspects of the game both mechanical and "role playing" with a lot of middle ground between those, same for experienced players. Everyone's relationship with the game is always evolving based on game play and "game culture" and game products. The DM's challenge or talent is to bring out the best aspects of those varying positions of relationship to the game, though that's from my experience as someone who's run games since the mid 80s and my main group consists of players ranging from age 12 to 70 something and with a wide range of both life and game experiences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think I might be even more confused about metagaming, what it is, and when it's benign (perhaps necessary) and when it's not and when it's harmful. Also the difference between being an informed character vs being an informed player too; sometimes a character would make different decisions that the player would, based on their knowledge, experience, intelligence (and perhaps wisdom, temperament and emotional state in the moment) : that one seems hard like knowing when it is the right thing to do to choose to make the less good decision because your character doesn't know as much as you do, or has a different prospective and moral temperament than you do, as the player or as a person.
(correct me if I'm wrong, an ability modifier of 0 is neutral/average, not a real plus, but not a handicap either . . I mean saying your intelligence "is zero" feels like it would mean your character would be dumber than nails, (and I've seen people try to roleplay it that way) but it's really more like normal human intelligence, right? It's just that adventurers are extraordary at least in one or two areas?)
Probably the difference re Metagame and what's okay and what's not, is what adds to the fun and what detracts from it for you or anybody else, including the DM (or maybe the test wheither sometime is really unreasonable or provides too much of an unfair, or unreasonable, advantage).
I think the point was made that sometimes it's fun to have players, who don't know all of the stats and tricks of all of the monsters and to have someone have to problem solve from the position of that lack of knowlegde. (that piece of advice might affect the way I go about things going forward, and might lessen some of my anxiety about feeling like I have to know everything about the game and everything in it, in order for my character to carry their own weight, in the party - that level of anxiety and pressure is decidely not fun for me, so nice to know that there might be something actually lost in giving into it)
I think if you were actually physically in the middle of an active combat situation, based on what you would see, from that prospective, what would have your attention, all the commotion going on around you, and what emotions you would feel, it would be difficult (perhaps unlikely) always to use good action economy (I suppose, depending on level of military training). But then that conept if not taken too far, seems to mostly add to the fun, for the most part and to your point, tends to prevent unfun character death. I suppose after a while thinking about stratigy is more fun than just waloping on mosters with sharp objects and damage spells, haphazardly .
Hard core character optimization isn't my kind of fun, (I've played with people who play that way and have had to then adapt, in order to make that game as much fun for me as posssible) but then I'm always very aware that the choices that I reget in buiding a character; those seem to diminish my fun, everytime I'm confrounted with them, even in games where character optimization isn't the biggest priority.
A stat of 9-11 is considered to be the average Joe Bloggs that you would meet. Metagaming is where you use your knowledge to inform your character’s decisions and actions. For example the party rogue goes ahead scouting and finds a bunch of treasure, he tells the dm he is taking that rather lovely gold and ruby necklace and hiding it in his pack, then brings the rest back to the party to share. You the player knows he did it, but your character has no clue so if you bring it up or question him about if there happened to be any other treasure then you are metagaming.
Maybe you come across a map or adventure or even just a monster so you the player knows what’s happening and have your character act differently then that is metagaming for example over the last few years I have run the Lost Mines adventure path as DM 4 times, and played a character in it twice. I knew it very well so tried to make sure my character didn’t make any of the important decisions or revealed info about traps and creatures . It’s actually harder for mew players to metagame from that aspect as they don have the experience but it’s much easier for them to do things like the first example - because they don’t have the experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a newer player and I've read/seen some things that seem to allude to the fact that newer players and seasoned players tend to go about things a bit differently. I think I want to know more about this and why.
What are some things players do that are hallmarks or give aways that they are newer players? (what do newer players do that's really cringy?)
Are choices about alignment informed by experience level? What about the kinds of backstories players write? Use of flavor and language? What they consider fun? Use of humor? Problem solving? Ethical consideration? What they put effort into or prioritize or find interesting?
I think newer players are allowed more leeway in certain areas. Does that include things like character concept choices and our roleplaying choices? I'm extremely aware that other players are showing tolerance in other areas like knowledge of game rules and mechanics, but maybe I'm also being shown tolerance in ways that I'm not even aware of. It feels like that might be the case, and perhaps the leeway and tolerance that newer players might be given, in order to encourage them to love the game might affect the way we play, not that that's bad or anything, I'm very grateful that when I very fist started out, that I wasn't expected to know about everything and was sort of allowed to play with a lighter version of the rules, for a while, but now I think I might like to at least know when that sort of thing might be happening.
What lessons does experience give you than informs they way you play and the choices that you make about your character and how you play and roleplay them? What do veteran players know and do, that newer players haven't figured out yet, that make things better?
What positives might possibly be lost over time, as someone has played perhaps dozens of characters, (if anything might be lost)? Or does it just keep getting better and better? I feel like there might be something that newer players have to offer, beyond just perpetuation and expansion of the game, otherwise, maybe we would not be warmly invited in and tolerated until we figure some stuff out. Is there some kind of a sweet spot to aim for, that combines the best traits of newer and seasoned players?
I might think the basic thing any experienced player will do is know what kind of game they like. Rules heavy? Light? Heavy role playing or little to none? Ability to play high level characters well? Game style? Horror, Fantasy, Steam Punk, straight up dungeon crawls, etc.
An experienced player will like one or all of the things mentioned and that's the game they want to play, and they know it. New players are just figuring that out.
It kind of depends on how seasoned you mean. Those of us who’ve been playing since 1e, for example didn’t really write much in terms of backstory back then. Most (well, lots of) characters died fairly quickly and there wasn’t near the focus on role playing as there is today. We didn’t really get as attached to characters as people do now. I don’t mean that as a value judgment, and I’m not trying to say either way is necessarily better. But it explains (to me, at least) why I don’t get near as upset about character death as some of the people I play with who’ve only played 5e.
One piece of advice I’d have is, don’t expect other players to care as much about your backstory as you do. Certainly there are some that do, and if you find a group like that, that’s great. Just don’t go in with the assumption that the rest of the table is invested in watching you resolve your personal side-story. They should make space for you to be able to, as you should in return.
New players don't have their expectations aligned yet with the reality of the game. Obviously every game is different, but you can make some broad strokes observations. There are some that stand out, that I've seen on several occasions.
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons, to the extent that they're inflexible in their tactics. A goblin could be right next to them and they have two swords handy, but they won't think to stab the goblin, because they're a Ranger.
2. They'll expect stealth to work like it does in video games, and they'll demonstrate this by using "stealth" as a verb. Hiding in open areas just outside of some imaginary vision cone.
3. They'll have absolutely no idea where the line is between metagaming and playing an informed character. They might suspect there is a distinction, they just can't tell where it is yet, so they'll alternately play omniscient characters who can hear their allies' conversations from miles away, or clueless ones who don't know dragons are extremely dangerous, and they won't realize they can just ask the DM.
4. They will either think too much or too little about things like ammunition, carry weight, light, and supplies -- they don't know whether their group values these things. Also, NPC attitudes, weather, and even things that don't have tiny blurbs of useless rules text, like local laws, the morality of treating initiative as murder mode, and prayer -- Cleric players in particular will often pray one or two times before they come to the correct conclusion that it makes no difference at all, and stop.
5. They think in terms of Pokemon type advantages. Lightning damage has some bonus effect on water, fire beats ice, and so on.
6. They'll want to multiclass. Nobody wants to multiclass as much as new players.
That all sounds negative. Really, I think these behaviors are mostly kind of charming, but I suppose they are negative. But there are good things too. Because it's very possible to get jaded, to fall into routines, and to lose sight of the bigger picture while you're trying to master a system.
7. New players don't play to the action economy. They play to the story in combat. You might see them interact with the scene using their action instead of making two attacks, which would be more efficient. They will aim attacks at the monsters who have personally offended them instead of the ones that have the lowest hit points, because they're not thinking about removing the number of turns the opposition gets, they're thinking of the way their character feels. You get more dynamic and cinematic fights this way, I feel. But you also die more.
8. They won't stop themselves from attempting something just because they realized their bonus isn't the highest in the party for that thing. They'll try to persuade NPCs even with a +0 because it makes sense to do so.
9. They'll take the DM's narration at face value instead of trying to guess what's going on behind the screen. An NPC will tell them not to go into the dangerous mountains, and they'll think, "mountains are pretty dangerous," not "mountains are a later part of the quest, we need to do the other part first," or "DM didn't prepare the mountains." They'll hear "you are surrounded by wolves" and think "oh shit" instead of "this is probably a random encounter, and our DM wouldn't kill us in a random encounter."
I'm sure there's more!
It’s not that set in stone, for example I have been playing since the early 1980’s and I disagree with almost everything that Choir said above.
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons.
This is definitely not true of just new players. I currently play in 2 games. In one I play a ranger (multiclass). The group comprises of guys that I have been playing with for decades - and assumed I was going for an archer, and a few new players who joined us during lockdown - who made no such assumptions. The long time players were really shocked when I plowed head on into melee combat with paired shortswords at lvl 1 and not a bow. Even though I discussed my build in the pre game chat. She easily outfights all of the melee based characters including the pure fighters.
3. They'll have absolutely no idea where the line is between metagaming and playing an informed character.
While stealthing ahead to scout an underground cultist base, I found a couple of treasure chests and was investigating them for traps etc. one of the long term (2 decade +) players immediately asked the dm to move his token to mine so he could look at the treasure in the chests, even though his character was on the other side of the map with no clue of what I had found, he (the player) was acting on what he heard of the conversation between myself and the dm and decided he wanted in on the loot.
That’s just a couple of examples. I’m not going to do a point by point. Every table is different, just as every player is different. I can’t remember the last time I played a single class character- generally they all are until the multiclass point for example I have a barbarian who will multiclass once he gets to level 5 in barbarian because extra attack is to good to delay when you’re one of the primary meatsacks. Of the people that play with or in games I have run, I have 2 players that have started playing this summer and there are 2 other long term players that have never multiclassed and 2 other long term players who almost always do.
As far as back story goes, there are people in my groups that just have a few sentences and some (like me) with multiple paragraphs. Although mine are usually to explain my multiclassing - check the description tab for example; https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/75129405
There is no ‘newbs’ play like this and ‘vets’ play like this answer, though I would agree that new players get way more attached to their characters and really get upset if they die. For me it’s just 1’s and 0’s, if a character dies then its just an opportunity to try something else new. Some older players have the mindset that they mindlessly charge enemies, others like myself like to plan and use tactics. Some new players are the same, though I have noticed a lot of newer players would rather avoid combat encounters entirely. They also try to do really crazy things in situations where it is really inappropriate. Like trying to use animal handling on a guard dog to let him passed while the human guard was standing right next to it holding the mastiff’s lead. Another player once thought it would be fun to ‘speed rappel’ down a 30 foot cliff with a 50 foot rope and didn’t realise his mistake until the dm rolled falling damage.
In general new players bring a new perspective and fresh energy into a group. Certainly the new younger peoples sensitivities make us older people rethink our ideas - like all goblins are evil because they are goblins. There’s also - again in some cases - more desire for just social rp and not combat or exploration whereas us oldtimers were more exploration and combat focused. Socialising happened for 5 minutes while we were getting the next mission from the npc’s.
New players often have a significant gap between their character concept and their mechanical choices in character creation.
I find it's helpful to see what a new player comes up with and then ask questions about what they want their character to do. And then experienced players can help find ways to make that happen. And it's more than just helping them pick their stats well.
For example, I saw a new player take Animal Handling (I believe) and some other stuff because he wanted a raven. All he really needed was a Feat that gave him Find Familiar. 10 times better, and he was happy. He just didn't know that such things were an option.
So it might help to ask new players what they want their characters to be able to do and then help guide them with their mechanical choices. With all the books, feats, stats, custom backgrounds, races, subclasses, etc., it can be overwhelming for them whereas an experienced player can instantly think of three ways to achieve what they want to do. Not to min-max, exactly, but to help them create an effective character that reflects their vision.
One thing experienced players can lose, then, is the emphasis on the vision they have for their character.
Experienced players know 15 different powerful combos they'd love to try out. Their characters can be mechanics first, then character vision. This can be both good and bad - and neutral.
For I've found I don't enjoy characters that are simple to play anymore. I can't get into a martial class like I used to unless its in a system I don't know well like Pathfinder or it's a somehow bonkers build (like a Monk I built once with a walking speed of 55 feet). In 5e, I generally need to be a gish or full spellcaster, no matter how much being a Rogue appeals to me thematically, just for the complexity and mechanics. That is limiting.
Blood Frenzy. The quipper has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage.
For me, it’s “rules interpretation”.
Roleplay, backstory, multiclassing etc are no real indicator. Ie, ChairOfFire above pt 6.. I almost always multi-class, and started playing D&D.. before “Advanced” came out. I find single class boring..
But rules interpretation is a big one, as despite appearances, 5E can be “RAI’d” many ways, and “stretched” many ways, and miss-interpreted in many ways.
For example; Using the Cantrip Shape Water to “Suck all the water from someone and kill them”… or Minor Illusion to “Create thick fog, so all the monsters are blind”.
(NOTE: A good DM will let the player try, and fail.. so you get a tear or some snot, and the fog is actually transparent, so no effect.)
It’s easy to not “know” a rule, ie.. Fire Bolt can target a door, Ray of Frost cannot.. (/shrug), and agree/disagree with why.
But it’s more basic than that.. not knowing the limits of what is possible at a grand scale, within the “rules” of 5E, which requires a deeper understanding of the classes, mechanics, rules and just.. “playing”.
The first character a player plays is usually heavily based on something they know well. Either it's themselves (but better!), a character from media, or a fantasy archetype. These expy characters are often difficult to manage for two main reasons: 1) the player wants the character be exactly the same to the point of ignoring the world they're in or 2) what makes a character interesting in another setting doesn't work in a group dynamic (aka the Batman problem). Characters based on others are not all bad; they can work if you're willing to change and grow as the story progresses.
The second character a player makes is usually an effort to be unique in the extreme. They pore through books and websites looking for unusual combinations of race and subclass and use exotic weapons or whimsically flavored magic. This is often a reaction to perceived failures in the first character. The problems with this approach are 1) nothing is ever truly unique in fiction and 2) The character often becomes a mishmash of quirks or gimmicks that become tiresome after a time.
After the first two characters, players usually settle down into a mixture of the two approaches: borrow liberally, but borrow from multiple sources at once and change enough that it feels real. Overplanning pages of backstory is usually pointless unless it's for your own benefit; don't expect others to ask you how you got that scar on your left thigh, but if it helps you understand your character, write it down and keep it to yourself unless it comes up. Work with the DM and other players to come up with a character that fits in and has a personality that will complement the playstyle of others.
My advice to new players: Keep it Simple. Give the character a basic motivation for adventuring, a bond and a flaw, then let them grow as you play. Some groups will be heavy into role-playing, but you can improvise backstory on the fly. Other groups will be more mission-focused and you can let interesting reactions to the events of the story build your character. Don't worry about what others will think, just pick a simple idea and go with it.
https://sayeth.itch.io/
New players seem to always want 10 different multiclasses... Kinda ruins it for me, but to each their own.
I have to strongly disagree. Some of the most powerful builds have 2, sometimes 3 classes, and are run by long time players with a deep understanding of the interaction of rules, action economy, spell vs mele etc.
Pit a L8 Fighter/Cavalier vs a L4 Barbarian/Totem (Bear)/L4 Fighter (Echo Knight) and who will win every time.
A L8 Rogue who never uses Steady Aim, forgets to use his Uncanny Dodge and thinks shooting a FireBolt (no Sneak damage) is better than an arrow (can get Sneak damage)… ya, single class… It’s not the class, single or multi… it’s how you play that character and use their skills to survive. And I can honestly say I’ve seen terribly played single class builds, and excellent builds, same for multi.
That experienced players do a thing, is not to say that new players don't do it more. Newbies love multiclassing, and they want to do it even when it makes no mechanical sense. My friend's first 5e character was a Barbarian/Sorcerer multiclass. It didn't work very well, obviously.
And on this I 100% agree.. It is easier to “make mistakes” [on a build] with multi-classing, by not understanding class mechanics and action economy, which comes with experience. But multiclass can be a very powerful mechanism on builds… there’s a reason Paladin and Lock/Sorc m/c is so successful & widely used !
But the same can be said of single classes; Artificer/Armoror is an example, single-class your have very few Bonus Action uses (go go Homonculeous!). Similarly Druids… had a game where the single class Druid was “very disappointed” in his action economy, as he didnt use BA’s as much as he could have.
One funny quirk I've noticed with multiple new players is the specific instance of them wanting to design a character that sucks at everything. And I don't mean that disparagingly, I mean that's that explicitly stated goal. I've had more than one new player think that that's just a great idea for a jokey character, and they usually end up frustrated when they're character functions as designed and they can't do much.
I think this happens when new players are genre-savvy enough to understand conventions and want to subvert them, but are unfamiliar with the game enough that they think this is a Cool Unique Idea that Nobody's Done Before and they don't actually expect to get invested in play and want to accomplish anything in the world.
Ill say this.
It's all opinion and subjective mumbo jumbo - obviously. Myself included. New players can be a highlight and welcome addition to any table and veteran players can be an absolute drain. I'll highlight one thing, which I believe is most important. Don't be selfish, understand and respect that it's a cooperative experience, be cool, and try to have fun. The rest is details that don't really matter in the grand scheme. ******** are ********, regardless of playing for 30 years or 30 minutes. Excited players that put in lots of effort isn't exclusive to new or old. Old players can provide great input, knowledge, and help move things forward but they can also be grumpy for no good reason. New players can flounder, be fickle, indecisive, and expecting too much but can also be curious and excited.
Just have fun. There's no right, wrong, absolute, best, or even preferred way. It's what you and the group you play with decide and it's all correct. Follow every rule or follow none. Play by the book or make a random character inspired by a video game. It's all right if you and those around agree, enjoy it, and it creates a fun and memorable experience.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
One thing I think players lose over time is the ability to be all-in while not metagaming. To give an example: Players probably have no idea the first time they come across Trolls that fire stops them from regenerating, or that if you deal slashing damage to a Ochre Jelly that it splits in two*. It's hard to put your thinking hat on and properly experiement like a character would if they met these creatures for the first time when you already know what the solution is. What is a lucky strike that you happen to guess the right way to attack them? It's like playing chess against yourself...you have to shut a part of you down in order to make it work, which prevents the all in attitude of new players.
That's something I think new players have that veterans (and especially DMs) lack - the freedom to be all in without worrying about metagaming.
* I have an interesting situation about that. My wife came across one and hit it with its sword, causing it to split. She, quite understandably, reasoned that it was because she hit it with a non magical weapon, so hit it again with a magical one. However, because of the strength of the hit, the two halves did not split again, and now she's convinced that it proved her hypothesis and Ochre Jellies will not split if she uses magic weapons. It's going to be interesting when she tries to metagame that aspect again - and I'm curious whether she'll think I'm cheating.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's fine and I see what your saying, but I've just noticed the newer generation has (somewhat) taken from what they learn in video games and try to min/max everything... Its almost like solo play in a group setting. Who cares if there is a sorcerer or cleric in the party I can heal myself or shoot my own fireball... Again, just my observation everyone is different and everyone's campaign is different.
I'm sure that's why all the min/max meta build videos on YouTube are a dime a dozen and everyone does them... Its popular.
I don't play video games, but I feel like that "solo play in a group setting" thing might be an issue for some newer players, maybe because of being overwhelmed, wanting to seem cool and with it or have character seem cool and with it (wanting approval), not really grasping yet how different classes and races have different strengths and weakness and how parties work cooperatively to solve problems and achieve goals, as a team (that one seems really hard in the beginning - really playing a game that isn't a zero-sum game was a new concept). I guess seeing other characters being good at particular things and wanting to emulate that, even though the character are very different and I guess, if we're being honest, wanting one's own character to be good at absolutely everything.
I don't think there's a simple binary between "what new players do" vs "what experienced players do." Novice players can run a spectrum from very timid to very aggressive on varying aspects of the game both mechanical and "role playing" with a lot of middle ground between those, same for experienced players. Everyone's relationship with the game is always evolving based on game play and "game culture" and game products. The DM's challenge or talent is to bring out the best aspects of those varying positions of relationship to the game, though that's from my experience as someone who's run games since the mid 80s and my main group consists of players ranging from age 12 to 70 something and with a wide range of both life and game experiences.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think I might be even more confused about metagaming, what it is, and when it's benign (perhaps necessary) and when it's not and when it's harmful. Also the difference between being an informed character vs being an informed player too; sometimes a character would make different decisions that the player would, based on their knowledge, experience, intelligence (and perhaps wisdom, temperament and emotional state in the moment) : that one seems hard like knowing when it is the right thing to do to choose to make the less good decision because your character doesn't know as much as you do, or has a different prospective and moral temperament than you do, as the player or as a person.
(correct me if I'm wrong, an ability modifier of 0 is neutral/average, not a real plus, but not a handicap either . . I mean saying your intelligence "is zero" feels like it would mean your character would be dumber than nails, (and I've seen people try to roleplay it that way) but it's really more like normal human intelligence, right? It's just that adventurers are extraordary at least in one or two areas?)
Probably the difference re Metagame and what's okay and what's not, is what adds to the fun and what detracts from it for you or anybody else, including the DM (or maybe the test wheither sometime is really unreasonable or provides too much of an unfair, or unreasonable, advantage).
I think the point was made that sometimes it's fun to have players, who don't know all of the stats and tricks of all of the monsters and to have someone have to problem solve from the position of that lack of knowlegde. (that piece of advice might affect the way I go about things going forward, and might lessen some of my anxiety about feeling like I have to know everything about the game and everything in it, in order for my character to carry their own weight, in the party - that level of anxiety and pressure is decidely not fun for me, so nice to know that there might be something actually lost in giving into it)
I think if you were actually physically in the middle of an active combat situation, based on what you would see, from that prospective, what would have your attention, all the commotion going on around you, and what emotions you would feel, it would be difficult (perhaps unlikely) always to use good action economy (I suppose, depending on level of military training). But then that conept if not taken too far, seems to mostly add to the fun, for the most part and to your point, tends to prevent unfun character death. I suppose after a while thinking about stratigy is more fun than just waloping on mosters with sharp objects and damage spells, haphazardly .
Hard core character optimization isn't my kind of fun, (I've played with people who play that way and have had to then adapt, in order to make that game as much fun for me as posssible) but then I'm always very aware that the choices that I reget in buiding a character; those seem to diminish my fun, everytime I'm confrounted with them, even in games where character optimization isn't the biggest priority.
A stat of 9-11 is considered to be the average Joe Bloggs that you would meet. Metagaming is where you use your knowledge to inform your character’s decisions and actions. For example the party rogue goes ahead scouting and finds a bunch of treasure, he tells the dm he is taking that rather lovely gold and ruby necklace and hiding it in his pack, then brings the rest back to the party to share. You the player knows he did it, but your character has no clue so if you bring it up or question him about if there happened to be any other treasure then you are metagaming.
Maybe you come across a map or adventure or even just a monster so you the player knows what’s happening and have your character act differently then that is metagaming for example over the last few years I have run the Lost Mines adventure path as DM 4 times, and played a character in it twice. I knew it very well so tried to make sure my character didn’t make any of the important decisions or revealed info about traps and creatures . It’s actually harder for mew players to metagame from that aspect as they don have the experience but it’s much easier for them to do things like the first example - because they don’t have the experience.