This guy's opinion is totally valid, but I would not want him at my table. My favorite part of TTRPGs is the collaborative storytelling. It is a lot of work for everyone, but that's what makes it so rewarding. Your GM is putting a lot of effort in no matter what anyway, so it's nice to get that back from the players as well
this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
40 points (90.0% liked)
rpg
3176 readers
1 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't know, this doesn't sound very reflective to me at all. The poster is just making a lot of general statements about games it's not clear they've even played.
Every one of these games is as simple or as complicated as we want to make them. They can be pared down or beefed up at will. How much investment you need to make at the table is dictated more by who's sitting around it with you than what's printed in the book. And most of these games have much, much smaller books than 5e.
And the one that I play that doesn't, doesn't require any more investment than 5e if you don't want it to.
With less popular games, though, you tend to get more fanatical player bases. It may be harder as a lone player to find a chill table. But if your already chill table is trying to convince you to try something else...
Like, no one needs to play apologetics for 5e. It's the biggest TTRPG of all time. A case for it does not need to be made. The fans of every other game are just trying to sell their own interests to the largest known market for the genre, because they want people to play with, too. D&D does not need people to justify it in response.
He has been "playing one campaign or another since mid-2014". Also, "Of the last three years, one was spent entirely on a level 1-10 campaign of Pathfinder 2E, with the other two years jumping between Shadowdark, Mork Borg, Blades in the Dark, Monster of the Week, and finally a Heart: the City Beneath campaign that's ending next week."
Also, he writes "with the exception of PF2E, all the other systems I've tried are less mechanically demanding." So he seems to have at least a vague understanding of multiple systems. Enough to voice an opinion at least.
The final aesthetic is called submission, though I prefer the term that the Extra Credits’ team use: abnegation. It just sounds cooler and more complicated. Submission is the pleasure you get from turning off your brain and losing yourself in a task you don’t have to think too hard about. Grinding levels in World of Warcraft. Mining minerals in Minecraft. Farming item drops in Diablo III.
Now, submission is an odd one to discuss in tabletop RPGs because it is one that tabletop RPGs doesn’t handle so well. The thing is, even the simplest tasks in an RPG require a high cognitive load. You have to think things through. But still, the concept of “beer and pretzels” play exists for a reason. Go down into a dungeon, kick down doors, kill orcs, take their loot, go back to town. Lather, rinse, repeat. That is submission or abnegation.
And there are people who want exactly that. They look like challenge seekers sometimes, but they don’t want to work too hard or think too hard. They just want to goof around and enjoy a simple game with clear, straightforward goals.
I've talked about how I really like Fate, and how if you have players like the one in this post it won't really work. Fate requires players to engage with the game- think about how aspects apply, think about when declaring a story detail would be cool, and so on. If you just DND style phone it is, it's not going to sing.
I imagine this kind of player would hate it.
And that's fine. This guy found his niche and enjoy it. But wow I do not really want to play with him.
But wow I do not really want to play with him.
To be fair, he's "playing" as much as someone texting America's Got Talent is on the judges panel. He's a glorified audience member that's taking up a seat, and I highly doubt the rest of the table feel as nonchalant about this petulant no-effort view of his.
but I mostly just want to be along for the ride until it's time to roll some dice to hit something and let the other players figure out what to do otherwise
I'd say all RPGs, even 5e, require players to actively engage with the game, he just wants other people to do the active engaging. Nobody wants to play with people like this, because either you want to engage and want to play with other engaged people, or you don't want to engage and want to play with engaged people you can piggyback off.
A party of players like him wouldn't get anything done, even in 5e, because they don't actually want to be playing a ttrpg; they want to hang out with their friends and play something more like Ludo or Snakes And Ladders - roll some dice, move some pieces, go back to the conversation until your turn comes up again. HeroQuest if they really need the fantasy aspects.
I agree with the post. I don’t want game night to be a second job or a mental investment. I just want to show up and play something. And I don’t want to grind away figuring out how to play optimally, or wait for others to do so. I just want to dungeon crawl and hit things with my sword and do some light occasional RP.
Okay, but you can only do that stuff because other people are picking up your slack.
If they are at a full table of people who do not want to play that way, maybe. But if this person is at a table of people with similar attitudes, with a GM who enjoys that kind of vibe, there is no slack to be picked up, no group feeling of "why isn't this person contributing" and resentment.
No, there absolutely IS slack to be picked up. It's by the DM. You get to have that fun, relaxed dungeon crawl because the DM busted their ass making it happen. Any work you put into your character's backstory is work the DM doesn't have to do themselves.
And it's not a resentment thing. It's fun to work on an adventure and balance things. I know, I like doing it myself. But don't assume that just because YOU aren't doing the work, nobody's doing any work.
YOU
I never said I'm like this. I think you are just assuming I am because I am defending a type of player you don't like instead of agreeing with you, therefore I must be that type of player if I am willing to speak up in contradiction and potentially risk disapproval.
with a GM who enjoys that kind of vibe
Explicitly noted that in my first reply to you because I'm aware the GM is a player too. There would indeed be slack if the GM didn't like it, but like I said earlier, if they like this vibe then it's not really a problem… I simply want to argue that this attitude is not going to always be a problem because I imagine there are tables where all people, including the GM, enjoy it. And it seems as if you think this attitude is always a problem. It is only a problem if someone at the table has a problem with it. Some people enjoy games with vibes that others would absolutely hate. Beer and pretzels TTRPG is just as valid as serious roleplay TTRPG, and with both types you have to make sure everyone there is happy to play it that way.
(There technically would be slack because a lot of people will argue that even the most invested, full "I am optimizing and going full roleplay" player is putting in less work than the GM. I also doubt that's what you're referring to.)
If you're going to reply to me, at least pay attention to what I said.
At no point did I demonise casual styles of play. Beer and pretzels is a legitimate way to play, and it can be a ton of fun. If the point of the game is just to have some fun with a bunch of friends, you don't need them to deliver monologues. They can just be there, rolling dice and making puns.
The more you invest into a campaign, the less work on the DM. Conversely, the less you invest into a campaign, the more work on the DM. And if the DM is fine with that, no problem!
But don't for a second think that the dungeon just formed itself. Don't think that all the combat encounters are a fun challenge for your unbalanced party by pure luck. Don't assume this world is full of fun hooks for your character by random chance. And don't assume that, just because the work was fun, it wasn't work.
Don't assume that spilling food on the carpet isn't causing more work for the cleaners. Don't assume your mother, who cooks as a hobby, wouldn't delight at you offering to help peel potatoes at thanksgiving.
Don't assume that, just because the DM picked up the slack, there is no slack.
It's not casual play I condemn. It's people who don't appreciate the DM for working hard to make casual play happen.
I can make one case for people like that: if it's a paid game. I can tolerate people like that because if I don't get their emotional investment in the game, at least I got paid. Not that I would invite them to play another session, of course, because there are a lot of better people out there.
I am really confused here, because I did read everything you said.
The way I interpreted your reply to the user Bye was that you felt more casual play always means putting an undesired extra burden on others, and thus the only valid way to play is the opposite style. Especially because the tone I read from your reply was kind of aggressive. It seems I misinterpreted you, and I am glad you do not have a problem with that kind of play.
The more you invest into a campaign, the less work on the DM. Conversely, the less you invest into a campaign, the more work on the DM. And if the DM is fine with that, no problem!
I actually wasn't aware of this, I figured the less you invest, the more a DM might pull back and also prep less in detail, do less intensive character backstory stuff, etc. Because the players are not going to go all-in on everything, the DM doesn't have to prepare accordingly. I take it my assumption is wrong, and I'm curious why less investment on the player side, if already anticipated by the DM, results in a greater burden on them.
Don't assume
I would think by me talking about the importance of a GM's happiness and the part about how you could argue everyone always puts in less than the GM, I am already fully aware of the work a GM does. I am also writing this paragraph assuming you're telling me, specifically, not to assume, and I do hope I'm wrong and you just mean it as a general point.
The downvotes are by people I would clearly hate to have at my table, and the infantile selfism at the core of their justification is despicable.
I don’t want game night to be a second job or a mental investment. I just want to show up and play something
It's interesting, because actually this part is one of the reason why I don't play D&D. Everytime I try a D&D game, It's quickly think about how to spend your XP wisely because you're impacting a whole progression tree, and if you choose the right feats you'd get a combo or whatever and then the whole combat looks quite intimidating when you start thinking how the party should work to be the most efficient at overcoming an challenge.
While tons of other RPG are more like sit down at the table, have a laid back chat with NPC, and sometimes roll a couple of dice.
I don't say that your point of view or way to play is wrong, but find interesting that your premise to play D&D is my premise to not to play D&D
I'm the same except I'd rather avoid action as much as possible. I know it's technically another RP opportunity, but my brain turns off as soon we start ruffling pages and rolling dice. A session with like 3 dice rolls, just to throw in a little randomness, is my ideal
If he is in a group of like minded people, then all the power to them.
We have played with people like this in the past, it can get really old really fast. We constantly had to remind them what to roll, what skills / feats / abilities they had, etc. Sometimes there would be a side bar for a character or two for a quick 15-20-minutes. After the PC(s) involved would finish their actions, the player not invested would add what they want to do and we would remind them that they didn't go. Same thing as above, they were not on their phone or having side conversations. They were just a backseat passenger in their own mind when it came to the game.
We are far from a hardcore group. We regularly interrupt the session for other conversations, it is almost always parallel to a beer share so there is lots of distractions. Even then, the bare minimum for play is at least wanting to participate. The above post is the kind of play I need to do when hand holding my 5-year old along. They are just social loafing and want the "fun parts" (to them) to them at the rest of the tables expense.
If he is in a group of like minded people, then all the power to them.
And that is the important part! If everyone's having fun. If someone feels it's at their expense clearly it needs to change.
I think I'm interpreting the original Reddit thread poster as saying they like 5E instead of other games because they already know the rules. So they wouldn't be slowing down the table with not knowing the rules (stuff like what to roll) like you describe. If they tried a new game they'd have to put effort into learning new rules—which for some involves focusing on others' turns play out, because learning by example instead of just reading the rules is pretty helpful. In other words, I am thinking they are saying "with 5e I know it well enough to check out and not be disruptive, with other systems I have to actually pay attention and learn before I can hit 'non-disruptive without 100% focus' status".
I think there's a difference between the level of checked out you describe and what I'm taking away from this post. I do hope that poster knows their character sheet and isn't causing disruptions like the kind you described in your reply because I don't think most people find that fun, regardless of how casual the level of play at the table is. Past tense in your reply suggests these people who caused disruptions no longer play with you, so that's good.
I have a player who is also very clearly there to be vibin with the friends. She's an elderly lady, who I had trouble adjust to because she will pivot to most simple playstyle possible (when she was playing Bard/Rogue she would each turn do sneak attack plus healing word and ignore other spells or bardic inspiration) and ignores plot hooks I place for her. It took me time to realize she is there to hang out with her friends and I don't have to press her to participate more, she is having fun just being in the group and watch others roleplay. She is okay to play any rpg, however, not just d&d. I actually plan to ask her, after we finish this campaign, to try moving to my other group, which plays more narrative games, as I see she struggles with d&d ruless.
Critical mass and cognitive load problems manifest
Fair points. I'm a walking rules encyclopedia type, and I've been in a number of games where I was like, "What the hell am I supposed to be doing?" And not having any fun.
On the other hand, I've brought "D&D only" people along for the ride on other games with good success. The trick is running a good "tutorial level" introductory adventure, where nobody is either bored or frustrated. That's going to involve introducing the mechanics in digestible bites.
Funny thing about a D&D only mindset is that there are games that are much simpler, where thinking tactically is much less important.