this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
40 points (90.0% liked)

rpg

3176 readers
27 users here now

This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs

Rules (wip):

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Full post on Reddit. Final paragraphs:

And I know that sounds bad. I know! I know this basically all sounds like "you prefer 5E to these other games because you have to actually try to play them?" But the answer is actually yeah, exactly! It's not that I'm checked out on my phone or something, but I've learned I'm not actually interested in thinking too much about my part at the table. I think being there at game night with friends is fun, 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, maybe get in some banter-in character in between encounters, and chill. In everything else I've played, I'm dead weight if I'm not actively participating. In 5E, I can just kind of vibe until it's time to roll to unlock a door or stab someone, and I'm not penalized for doing that. The game is neither loose enough that it needs my constant input outside of combat, nor complex enough to need any serious tactical decisions. That's a very comfortable spot for me!

So yeah. I imagine there's a lot of players who would prefer other systems if they tried them, but I'm not one of them. And I imagine there's actually a lot more people like me at tables than you'd expect! Hopefully this gives some insight into why someone would still prefer 5E over everything else, even after giving a lot of other games a shot. Thanks for giving me a chance.

Interesting reflective statement from a 5e player.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

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.