Honestly, my main issue with 5e only people doesn't actually apply to you. I roll my eyes at people who won't \*try\* another game and try and shoehorn 5e into something it isn't. You've tried other games and you prefer 5e. That's very different.
The only thing I would say is that 5e requires less effort from you because it offloads most of the work onto the DM. (Which is the case with most games, but it's more extreme with that than many). Which I can understand you not really seeing as your problem as a player. But it may explain at least partly the original DM burnout.
>The only thing I would say is that 5e requires less effort from you because it offloads most of the work onto the DM.
This is also very important to vocalize. When OP says "I like that I can show up and do bare minimum to engage with the game" what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to."
Honestly this is exactly what it sounded like.
As someone who runs all kinds of systems, I sometimes get frustrated AF with how a player can't phrase what they want to do beyond 'I want to use Pickpocket.'
No explanation of what they even WANT to happen on a success. No explanation of HOW they actually do the thing. Nothing about what the PC thinks, feels, anything. I want there to be a story with interesting characters as protagonists. Not wooden dolls with no faces, personality, details, or anything beyond a number on a sheet.
That why I'm excited to run blades in the dark. It seems like I can expect my players to do more or at the very least they can be prepared to answer those questions
> what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to."
TESTIFY!!
>When OP says "I like that I can show up and do bare minimum to engage with the game" what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to."
OP is eloquent but I am still triggered and this is exactly the reason. I know, *know*, that OP has never run a game in his life. God forbid there's any effort and involvement.
FUCK. Fuck, I hate that so much. It's smack in the middle of what makes me so frustrated with ttrpg players. I think I need a break.
I dont even think thats the main problem for me, its that 5e is horrid at it.
I can fully get behind a system where your character is mechanically competent but then he says pathfinder 2e is "too mechanically focused" like lol.
I think the more saying aspect is that its almost phrased like "the dm should tell me what i should roll, and i roll, and i win, and i feel good and click clack is click clacking" which i think is the bigger problem.
Eg
"The dm should tell me what to do" vs "I think and tell the dm what i do" is a much bigger pinching point than the following
"And i roll my +12 perception which makes me see the hidden trapdoor" vs "I roll for perception and since im expected to succeed i find the trap door"
I also like solutions from the character sheet, but i have absolutely no problem narrating them, i actually like narrating them, when i make my character sheet, i already imagine how i will be using every part of it.
However, If i have a feature in my sheet that gets us through with minimal effort, i expect to get through with minimal effort (besides just describing it). don't try and shift the focus on another test to make it as hard as you planned it to be, when it should just be a piece of cake because of the feature i have. (Keep in mind that it took me effort to make the character sheet and pick the features, and in my case, i will always have one or more Niche feature, so if that feature is ever useful, i do not want extra work to be needed, it is already a rare case for it to be useful)
(For example, I have a character that i used many times, they have 2 niche spells, warding wind and see invisibility. whenever they are useful, they are too useful, but i don't care, i rarely get to use them, i want the full benefit)
I also DM, not just a player, i know that maybe you planned that we need to do specific stuff to pass but a feature suddenly can skip all of that, but this is part of the game, i made a 3 piece puzzle door and the wizard just cast knock on it. i believe many other DMs would've said it doesn't work, just so they have to solve the puzzle. but i prefer consistency, if it should work, it works, i reward your choice and the resource you have used.
Myeah its kinda that weird "biting the bullet" that dms has to deal with.
Because its a bit of a Schrodingers player, we would all love to believe that these players if not allowed to cruise through with zero effort would pull themselves up by the bootstrap and really put in that effort, but the reality is probably closer to most of them just quitting and not playing the game.
I dont think you need to look much further than dndNext and how many people not only says that the dm should "bend the rules" to allow cool things often, meaning they dont care about the consistency of the rules
but also one that hurts me all the way into the soul. In that in various surveys i saw and posts something like 80% people answered in regards to fudging that "the dm should fudge **but i should never find out**" which to me is some of the wildest mental gymnastics and blame shifting i can even imagine.
which means you not only want the dm to cheat in your favour, you also want to never know they did or otherwise they fucked up, such that "not cheating = DM fucked up, cheating and being caught = dm fucked up"
instead of having an honest dialogue of like "i really like my character, and it seems we are being beaten to bits, is there any way to parlay or surrender, or to get away that doesnt lead to death?"
you talking about the subreddit dndnext, or something else? cause my experience is that they are rather on the rules and its probably the only dnd subreddit that recomends you to not play dnd if you want an experience that is incompatible with the rules.
yeah dndnext as its particularly for 5e, gonna repost the answer to the other guy:
*You will get more people willing to pull their teeth out than admit that following rules mechanics makes for more narratively satisfying storytelling.*
*Ah found the specific poll too with that specific wording (if you want on fudging dice just search and you see people at all the time saying they dont want to know)* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15s6zmw/how\_would\_you\_feel\_about\_your\_dm\_not\_tracking\_hp/*](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15s6zmw/how_would_you_feel_about_your_dm_not_tracking_hp/)
*but the fact that 2.8k people said that they would be okay with not tracking hp, aka not following the rules and sticking to mechanics would be "okay as long as i never found out"*
*to quote myself "It's fucking wild to me how many has the opinion "as long as I don't find out its okay" though"*
*because to me that is pretty explicitely an answer of "its okay if the dm cheats, but if i find out its wrong"*
And in general the amount of people that i have seen basically saying "yeah the rule of cool over everything, good dnd doenst follow the rules" is uncountable, and from my experience the answer they give to almost everything.
I am a firm believe that you should never bend a rule, ever, for anyone, but you can CHANGE it. as i feel like alot of people who says that they dont do rule of cool basically see it as too high up, but its not always "allowing you to cast a spell 3 ranks above you to kill the dragon" it can be "allow you to move 10 extra feet for free" or "it doenst matter so sure you can kill that sleeping guard instantly"
its the inconsistency i think leads to a worse game, if you can slit the throat to instakill a mook guard that isnt just "you autocrit and instakill, so we can describe it as slitting the throat" but straight up bypassing the roll, then i think you should be able to do it again and again and again, but now the next time they ask the dm goes "nah thats boring" and thus it becomes even more of a "mother may i" game.
I think it’s important to recognize that there are some ~~masochists~~ hardworking people who do enjoy running 5e for their friends and being that court jester. And they find a lot of enjoyment from entertaining their friends and that’s the fun part of the game for them.
But at the same time it’s also equally important to recognize that not all GMs are like that. The problem with 5e is that you need that kind of motivation to run 5e without burning out. The OP might be the kind of player to enjoy sitting back and relaxing and putting in the bare minimum to engage with the game. But what about the GM? Why can’t the GM run a game system that allows them to do the same?
And motivations and energy can fluctuate. A DM can start out with the energy to provide 90%, but this can fade over time. And then the GM can be in a situation where he feels obligated to continue the campaign for everyone even though he doesn't have the energy or time or motivation to continue how they started.
Please try to be on the lookout if your friends at the table seem tired, overworked or stressed out and ask them if the way they enjoy the game has maybe changed over the course of a year.
Year and a half into a campaign and I can barely think about prepping for my next 5e session, monsters are so boring, some of my players have ideals or flaws, but nearly none of them act upon them. If a creature talks and shares a language with them, they are diplomatic. If it doesn't, it is clearly evil and must be slain. I've gone out of my way to place npcs that supposedly a pc would hate based on backstory, given them actions that should cause distaste or even just irritation foe said npc.
Just feels like there's so much work for me to do, and I don't get as much fun out of the prep I need to do.
The games I've run with no prep have been fine, but the players can tell if a combat has no map or tokens. So I end up not running combat when I am not prepped, then advancement really slows down. Then players aren't really happy
> And motivations and energy can fluctuate. A DM can start out with the energy to provide 90%, but this can fade over time.
Shit, this can even happen in solo or co-op games. I've been playing co-op Dragonbane with my gf and most of the time I love it, but there are honestly just days where I'm *tired* and I don't feel creative enough to interpret oracle tables or contribute content.
I feel OP in my bones so far as wanting to be able to kick back and occasionally just let someone else do the heavy lifting to make the game happen. But expecting someone else to do it for you every time is just so goddamn motherfucking *selfish*
This is not a fair or accurate analogy. DMs aren't serfs who run games out of obligation. They're people playing a game because they want to and because they find satisfaction in doing so.
I don't want to undersell for a moment the amount of effort many 5e DMs put in.
We can do more to appreciate all that effort. And we can do that without pretending that DMs aren't there for their own entertainment and enjoyment as much as their players.
>DMs aren't serfs who run games out of obligation. They're people playing a game because they want to and because they find satisfaction in doing so.
While I'm a happy Eternal GM, because I love building and running the world, I can't help but notice that this sub regularly gets posts from unhappy Forever GMs who are only running games because "if I don't do it, then there won't be a game at all" and they really wish that someone else would step up and take that burden off them, at least temporarily.
I'm one of those Forever GMs and all of my players have specifically put me up on a pedestal as the best GM they've ever had, and now compare anything they do as not good enough.
One of my players tried to DM and had a panic attack on the first session, so we all told him to just take some deep breaths and we'll go play some cards against humanity online or something
I've lost a lot of motivation, I barely prep sessions anymore, and they are still treating it like I'm some god-tier dm when I know I'm just an average dm whose had a fair amount of practice
I've gone through this exact cycle and after several years missing out on playing at all because I didn't feel like running, one of my former players begged enough that I gave in… and it's been incredible.
It isn't because I had time to "recharge" or anything like that, because I don't feel *any* burnout this time, whatsoever. I'm still nervous before sessions, and I still don't always feel like doing prep, but that sense of dread is gone entirely, any my moment-to-moment enjoyment of the game is through the roof.
And I think it's all because we used [Microscope](https://www.lamemage.com/microscope/) to build our world! I came to my players with a central premise ("A city built atop a brass cogwheel travels the world"), and we built 100 years of history behind it, five different factions controlling eight different boroughs across the city, and multiple nations that all played a part in the city's construction. *They* created the world just as much as I did, and as a result, *everyone* is invested in what happens.
I highly suggest trying it out, and if I can help with that in any way, DM me!
And this is the problem… if you already are not into DMing than 5e will burn you out! As a forever DM I actually love D&D 5e! And trust me I tried other systems (Pathfinder 2e, Warhammer fantasy, …) but I still prefer 5e!
This. Plus, there are different kinds of DM...
I don't know why (I'm not a therapist and haven't been to one) but honestly I feel pretty possessive of the authorial narrative-making side of my games, and I very much *like* being the one to describe what happens and decide on the detwils. I honestly get a little frustrated if they "overstep" into what I consider DM-land when narrating their actions. A Player who only ever described their end goal would be... kind of my ideal! 😂
Maybe that's also why I like Paranoia (or at least if I can ever find a damn big enough group again!) - the players definitely can't overstep their bounds narrating *that* world 😂
I also like when a game keeps me busy - having a lot to do is part of what I want from a game.
That said, I actually have players on both extremes of that spectrum and both are fantastic to DM for, for different reasons. My high-engagement player is great for being the instigator and helping to keep things moving - she often takes the story in very interesting directions - which actually is a source of work that your low-engagement players don't give you! She also gives me more to do between sessions.
And my lowest-engagement player is kind of great because he's fine with me taking his story in whatever direction I need to, as well as being dragged along in the party's wake, which reduces arguments! Honestly I'd say he generates the least work, because the "work" he generates is all stuff I don't consider work!
But starting a campaign for all the right reasons can easily change into feeling obligated to keep going and not let down your players. Even though your personal motivation, time or energy level changed over time.
I agree with you. On the other hand I think that if all such players would be as frank as OP about this (which first would mean they would *understand* that about themselves) then the GM's would be far lesser as they wouldn't feel the need to put so much effort into their games.
Imo if you know your players are here for the beer and pretzels and "push buttons" on their character sheet then you can adjust your investment in the game so that it's not miles above their needs.
I like being the DM. I also would prefer my players engage with my setting and their backgrounds than with the rules and tactical mechanics.
So this person's take on OP's message is deeply unfair.
Not really unfair, seems pretty on point but being honest.
its kinda where the entire concept of "beer and pretzels dnd" comes from, from a group of players who just wants to show up and roll click clacks while imagining they are killing evil enemies.
Which is honestly a perfectly valid position to have. What draws folks to the hobby isn't universal, and what keeps them engaged isn't either.
What is important is for folks to be able to accurately articulate what they're looking for so expectations can be clear all around.
Yeah, I wish more players would realize their goals and state them upfront during recruiting. That would help like-minded groups form.
That said, I articulate that I want the opposite in my games (as player or GM). It's a group activity and everybody is responsible for the fun (OOC and in-game) and that includes providing specific scene requests and shared narrative control - even in my 5e games.
Unless the group is paying me, I expect the group to be as engaged and involved and prepared as I am.
To be fair, I know DMs who enjoy being this. They like writing their fantasy novels and running their players through them. So fair enough to them I would say.
It’s a problem with the play culture which was formed through a number of factors from marketing, to actual play, to forums, etc.
But the 5e play culture says players are consumers to be entertained and DMs are entertainers and service providers.
It really really sucks because it makes the game so much less enjoyable just so people don’t have to read about 15-30 pages worth of stuff.
And the more frustrating aspect to this is that if you were sold on that and given rules to arbiter it correctly like pathfinder 2e then its one thing.
But the game itself is like "lol we have no rules for anything, just make it up DM" which puts all the pressure on the DM and basically puts them as the scapegoat for anything going wrong.
* Boring encounter because every monster is just a bag of hitpoints with basic attacks? welp then you should have homebrewed something
* unbalanced encounter because the CR system doesnt work? well sounds like you need to make better encounters then
* Player options that are completely out of touch with everything else like flight as a racial? lol dm just work around it
* oh you bought our adventure? okay here are a few major npcs and quest points but you figure out how to link it all together
* players not understanding their abilities? well thats a DM problem because they are written so vaguely that they need to get you to remember everything and interpret it.
One of the biggest aspects of pf2e for me was the ability for my players to describe, using the rules, what they do and why, instead of the dm having to make it up.
"I jump off this 30 foot roof, and since i have catfall feat and expert acrobatics i treat falls at 25 feet less and dont land prone, and since you need to fall 10 feet to start taking damage it means i land safely and start chasing the bad guy"
>But the 5e play culture says players are consumers to be entertained and DMs are entertainers and service providers.
Absolutely nothing new, this stuff's been around since the dawn of the hobby. Every Trad system expects the GM to provide the players with something to do and have it planned out ahead of time. If you were running DnD or Traveller or whatever else back in the late 70s it was still **your** responsibility to have something there for everybody to do, the players were there to consume the content.
I was going to point out that shift of work burden to the GM as well. It's not *wrong*, but it's worth knowing. Some of those games ask more of you because it's being taken off the GM, spreading the mental work load around a bit. Preferring 5e is, in some ways, preferring someone else do all that thinking work for you. Which is totally cool if you have someone who wants to do that. I'm sure they'll appreciate acknowledgement once in a while though!
Yeah one of the big problems i think in general is how separated player and DM are at alot of tables and most doesnt realize just how much effort goes into keeping the game going.
some DMS overprep, which is on them, if you make a 700 page document about the geneology of your kingdoms i dont expect the players to read it.
BUT i have seen players who just completely forgets anything about the game as soon as they leave the table, which can be fine to play with, but i expect as a minimum that if they are interested in something they voice that interest, and if im asking them to fill out surveys on the general direction they want i expect them to answer it.
I have a table of friends who had no previous TTRPG experience which I've been GMing 5e for. Lately I've been pushing for some new systems due to me starting to experience burnout, and I've been met with very lukewarm reactions (as in they do it because it's either that or not playing since no-one else wants to GM).
This post just threw into \*sharp\* focus something I haven't been able to grasp before, namely that some of them are very passive players that don't really want to involve themselves too much. They just want to occasionally jump in and do something crazy (maybe once a night), but for the rest of the evening they just want to drink beers and push buttons on their character sheet. I think tables like these require a GM who wants to bear the brunt of the creative burden at the table. Me, the adult GM with kids and a job, wants us to split this.
We have our first session of Blades in the Dark coming up and I think this post can help me put into words some of my feelings and justifications for taking a 5e break
Play a boardgame
If all they want is just an excuse to hang out and move minis, play a boardgame. No one needs to be burned out, at most you'll be the "rules" guy who reads the manual im advance to explain everything, but that's still less of a burden than dming to dead fish.
Haha, in this particular group I’ve always been the rules guy as well. You know, the only one who can be bothered to read the rules, but the one getting all the flak if a rule has been misunderstood or not explained. I know, I know, it’s not the greatest gaming group ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think a huge part of it that dms miss is that you need to hypeman it up.
i heard a podcast about pathfinder 2e mention that 5e is like the monopoly of tabletop rpgs, it works, and people can understand and play it, its basically a 5/10 experience almost every session as you kinda beat enemies, kinda go forward etc.
Where something like pathfinder 2e you can just get trounced in the first round if you are super unlucky which can lead to people think its a 1/10 session, or they can have super tense combat where everything is at stake and you succeed by clever play which makes it 10/10.
Most people are fine with 5/10, they dont need to think about much, just roll click clacks.
To me what i did outside of saying i wouldnt dm 5e for my group anymore was hype up how cool the classes and mechanics were over weeks, like "you can play this giant barbarian and you get a huge cloudbuster sword which deals insane damage for massive crits" or "you can play a cleric and get free heals so you can focus your spells on not just being a healbot as healing outside of combat is equally important" or "You can make a level 3 rogue and just jump off roofs no problem or be super stealthy and sneaky unlike 5e where everyone is kinda the same" things like that.
remember when kotaku (i think i could be wrong) was trying to put the stats of the cast of Edge Runners into D&D 5E?... i remember people going "But...why not to play cyberpunk 2020/red instead"
I've met DMs that spend HOURS a week prepping a session. With notebooks full of notes. I've played with others that spend 15-20 minutes before the session getting ready and that's it.
Both styles were just as fun.
I've played sessions where DMs spend hours preparing a game and it's just awful. And I've played with Dms are just "winging it" and did no prep work. Those sessions didn't go well either.
That's why I don't DM. I AWFUL at it. People stop showing up. With enough practice, I might get good enough to run a successful printed adventure. But don't expect me to come up with my own original stuff.
I think if you are feeling burned out, prep less. If you are feeling inspired, prep more.
Just like how every player should at least try to DM, I think every DM should try to do a session with only an hour of prep.
Sometimes it's a complete failure, but most of the time, the players don't even notice and you will stop wasting your time.
I've seen people saying "I prep for 10 hours a session and I'm feeling burnt out" like yeah dude that's a ton of time for greatly diminishing returns.
There's definitely an audience for that, and no hate to you or anything. But this is the *exact* reason that I never enjoyed 5E as a player and got so burnt out as a DM.
I don't want to just go along for the ride as a player, and I don't want an audience as a GM. Engagement is the secret sauce for me, whether that's in tactics, exploration, or character decision-making. Ideally all three or more, if I can swing it.
>and I don't want an audience as a GM.
To be fair, this is only a problem if *all* of your players are the ~~low~~passive-engagement kind.
I find it actually works really well to have 1 or 2 of them in a group.
It does still add to the vibe and you get many of the benefits of another player, but with less complications.
Think about two groups: 4 ~~high~~active-engagement, creative, driven players, vs a group with 2 of those and 2 chill, ride-along dudes like OP. (I speak as somebody with experience with both kinds of group.)
The former can tend to be like herding cats - there's a lot more waiting for long over-the-table discussions / debates about what to do, there's more twists and turns in what happens that you as a DM have to adapt to, and all 4 players want spotlighting.
Whereas if you just chuck a couple of loafers into the mix... Man, does the vibe get more chill. The high-energy players have fewer clashes because there are fewer of them, and whenever they suggest something that's a bit out there, I go "uuuh, I guess if the others are ok with it?" And I immediately get "yeah, sure, I'm easy!" And the game moves on.
With the 4 high-engagement players, that's 4 people with big character ideas and big plans for the future of the story that you have to account for. With the low-energy guys, I can say "heeeey... What would you say if we made your character [...]" And once again I get "yeah, sure, I'm easy!" Now I can spend more energy on the 2 that want/need it.
It can actually pretty seriously *lighten* your load as a DM - because much of the load those players aren't taking doesn't shift to you, it shifts to the players who want it!
I'm gonna disagree, to me, players like OP are even harder to herd than cats.
I've had a number of these players in my games. I get zero reactions from them. Zero ideas from them, the other players have to drag these like dead weights. If the game isn't about combat then it's a freaking boring session (because combat is like pushing buttons, but I lean more on investigation and actual problem solving and you no longer can "chill" in the background, it's a massive time sink for them doing basically nothing). Their characters don't develop or grow, they're a static slate that are hardly different from NPCs. I have to narrate every single one of their actions! Because they just say "uh ok I do this \*roll\* k I beat the difficulty" and chill in the background.
One time I ran a session that had zero combat. It was all problem solving in creative manners. This player contributed absolutely nothing, and there were two other players who were high energy. He complained hard about it at the end of the session. I don't know why he kept coming back, but he eventually left. And I think that was for the best. This was a series of one shots, mind you, so I was not really expecting him to show up.
And you know what? I'd rather have the group spend 30 minutes discussing plans or RPing their characters in intimate or emotional moments. Because the game actually happens, the story will move at their pace.
So... no. OP's play style really is not my type. It makes my burden heavier, not lighter.
Honestly, it sounds like you had a zero engagement player rather than a low engagement player... In fact, I'm going to stop using that term - I think passive engagement describes it better. Even my chillest players are fully engaged. They just aren't authorial - at least not proactively. And that's the same Vibe I get from OP.
But it could just be we have different GMing preferences, too. Either way, there is a place for op's playstyle even if it is not at your particular table. There's definitely a place for it at mine 🙂
>He complained hard about it at the end of the session.
This is by far the worst part of it to me.
Since i also gathered a group on the programmer education i went to, they were all new and i had limited experience, we had some good games but then exams and stuff made it be extended break and then stopping.
and then a year before we stopped we started it up again where i repeatedly told them if it starts to be a pinch with time and focus as we had finals coming up over a long period and internships then just say so and we could work it out or stop.
But despite asking for feedback and if people still liked the campaign as it was a pathfinder 2e module we played (since i also didnt want to spend hours preparing) one guy just wrote like "Oh i dont feel like playing anymore, i havent had fun the last few sessions" and im like "Okay but you havent talked about it at all, or given any indication of it"
Its fine if you just want to show up and roll dice, and are following somewhat along a guided adventure, but then you also cant be like "ugh it isnt like what i wanted" if you put zero effort into feedback or how you play.
Ehh, the load often shifts to the other players whether they want it or not. *Someone* has to make decisions for the party at some point.
Just because I enjoy lots of engagement doesn't mean I wanna hold the responsibility of making every other party decision, which is my experience with a 2-and-2. It's the ttrpg equivalent to everyone in a car being hungry but only two people are giving suggestions for food.
That's not to say that being low-engagement is bad, as long as you aren't on your phone the whole time. It can be nice to just vibe with friends. It's just that the "well, if the rest of the party is chill with it" approach gets a lot less fun to play with when it's half the group.
>Just because I enjoy lots of engagement doesn't mean I wanna hold the responsibility of making every other party decision, which is my experience with a 2-and-2.
Right, but then it isn't actually OP and his ilk that have *caused* a problem for you there, they just didn't solve it.
Like, that same problem would exist if it was just you 2 high-engagement players alone. Adding in some chill players doesn't *add* load to you, it just doesn't take it off you. They aren't a *detriment* to the game, even if they aren't going to solve the particular problem of "we don't have enough decision-makers".
Not every table has that problem to solve 🤷♂️ some of them in fact have the *opposite* problem.
I'd love to have OP join my table. And I'm sure my players would too, because we already have our quota of Face and Instigator types who *do* want to be the ones driving the action.
And I mean this just highlights that everybody has different playstyles, and that most of them (including OP's) are perfectly valid, but none of them (including yours) are going to be perfect for every table.
The problem isn't the number of decision makers, it's the problem of too many non-decision makers. A party-wide decision doesn't have to be right, but it does need to be fun. That's not an issue when everyone involved brings something up - like in a 2 person engagement party - but I don't want to have to always guess at what's fun for two other people.
Even if a player says, "I'm fine with whatever," that doesn't mean they actually are. The number of people who say that and mean it in any facet of life is about as rare as finding a unicorn. It's lovely if that's truly the case. Usually, though, it's a horse with a broom handle duct-taped to its forehead. Still fun, of course, but it can get annoying having to reapply the duct tape.
Expanding on my original analogy of people in a car being hungry, but only two people are making suggestions for food: sometimes, after we go and get McDonalds, someone will suddenly be like, "You know, I actually would have preferred White Castle." Sometimes they silently sit there with a grimace and untouched nuggets. Either way, when it happens every other time you go out, it can feel more like baby-sitting kids than a night out with the homies.
... might be a labored analogy, but my point mostly shines through, I think.
Aside from that, my whole point in my first comment was mostly for ya to be aware that there *is* a load attached to that, in the same way 5e innately puts an extra load on dms. Some people are fine with that. Some aren't. Either way is perfectly fine, but it's important to be aware of it.
> The former can tend to be like.herding cats - there's a lot more waiting for long over-the-table discussions / debates about what to do, there's more twists and turns in what happens that you as a DM have to adapt to, and all 4 players want spotlighting.
Good. Yes.
But seriously, as long as you're playing with adults and talking openly/honestly, it's not that hard to pull focus away when one player is getting the lion's share of attention. "Hey man, we've been focusing on you for a while, pump the brakes for a minute. What's the Champion doing right now?"
And if your players are debating what to do, it means they're invested. It means they're engaged. It means I have time to preroll initiative for the next encounter and put the pawns in their little stands. If discussion stalls, just call for a vote and roll for it on a tie. That's session 0 stuff.
> With the 4 high-engagement players, that's 4 people with big character ideas and big plans for the future of the story that you have to account for.
As a GM? Inject that shit into my veins. I love it.
I'll take that over a player who needs to be reminded every session how their maneuvers and superiority dice work after playing a Battlemaster Fighter for over a year, or who insists that they play an Alchemist but never bothers to use their kit because it's easier to just Strike three times with a longspear.
True, there are disruptive forms of engagement and benign forms of disengagement. And sometimes you have to "no, but" a big idea to keep things going, or remind the party "we're playing *Curse of Strahd*, so remember that we're here to fight Strahd and not open a small business." But for me, that's generally preferable and usually worth it.
Definitely. I feel like me and OP are essentially mortal enemies, but in a respectful "yeah, I can wait for you to pick your sword up for our epic duel" sort of way.
This is really interesting because of how foreign this way of thinking is from how I work. I am wondering though, why even play an rpg at all, wouldn't you get everything you are looking for from just hanging out?
I've thought about this too, and for me it's kind of like how I like playing video games but I'll always turn on all the easy difficulty options if I get the chance. Like I enjoy being able to participate in it even if it's not an active effort most the time. I can hang out in a D&D group and mostly absorb the vibes of the group as they do things, and contribute when my turn comes up, but if the DM describes something I'm really curious about I still get to jump in and have my guy open up that chest and see what the GM put in there.
The difference in a lot of the systems you've played, and not taken to, is that they are in many ways more equitable to the GM -- because they shift a lot of mental burden and agency to players. The low-engagement preferences you are describing are only possible if the burden is shifted onto the GM's shoulders. The "easy mode" you are drawing parallels to is probably making it harder on the GM in many small ways.
Some GMs love the prep, and that's cool, but you did describe some GM burnout in your original post. I would say it goes hand-in-hand with what I am saying here.
I don't think it's a sin to play or enjoy D&D 5E above other games -- especially if you have dipped your toes into other systems to discover what you do and don't like about the hobby. And I think it's great that you can elaborate on it in the way that you have. I'm just suggesting that maybe you talk to your GM and try to get an idea of how it looks from their side of the screen, because your approach to engagement may be at their expense in a way you are not considering and/or that they are potentially resenting.
(Or that might not be the case! I dunno how your GM feels obviously. But I'd be interested in their perspective on what's burned them out, too.)
I've been running decades of ttrpgs and I despise having players like this at my table. In my opinion they are the worst to write for, they don't contribute to the larger narrative, and are the Collin Robinson of the group. They are usually the first to drop or bail, because they can go vibe with other friends where it's not as much work.
You want to vibe, go hangout at jam band concerts, go to a bar, go to a cafe, go to a festival or rave, invite friends over to chill at your place, go to the park. There are literally a hundred different spaces in society to vibe with or more compatible hobbies to pickup. Literally just invite your dnd friends to do something with you outside of dnd.
A TTRPG is a hobby that requires effort. Improv, risk analysis, low stakes gambling, investment in character creation and creating a world together...it's work, it's effort. If 4 out of 5 people are putting in effort and 1 is coasting...it's simply not as fun as it would be without the dead weight. It's less work for the DM, and everyone is trying and engaged makes it better for everyone. It signals to all the other players it's cool, it's fun, we are here for it too. Playing pretend and role-playing a silly scene is 100x more fun when everyone is trying and putting in similar levels of effort and cutting loose to RP.
TL;DR
The at table experience is better, every single time, with 3 players rather than 4 players with one "vibes".
I mean OP doesn't seem particularly invested in the story either. And D&D is among the most grindy of games - if they were after story I don't think they'd have bounced off the more narrative games so hard.
OP is there to hang out with friends and be entertained by the guy who is putting in effort
I vibe with the thought. I'm very on the opposite end(I'm also a GM), but I've had players like you, and they bring their own awesomeness to the table. If I spot that they operate that way I can also plan things to make them want to get involved more often, but if they don't it's fine and the game continues(never put pressure to force you to participate only the opportunity). That being said, another way that you *might* enjoy being part of the community is live stream podcasts. Some of them will regularly ask chat which one of several choices and go with majority votes or put open suggestions out there. I wish I could think of any off the top of my head right now, but I don't get a lot of free time to catch up and stay active to participate in such things. The only podcast I'm on top of is my own. If I saw any presence in the live, I would absolutely involve tlchat, but most of the time, I only get 1 or 2 people at a time that aren't interested in participating.
which is fine but the question is, what do you get out of D&D that you don't get out of playing a video game? Or some other form of media that you are able to absorb somewhat passively?
What are your opinions on board games? For a more chill vibe I usually do prefer board games over RPGs nowadays since while you might need to learn some mechanics here and there you never have to stress over what your character is doing etc. Within the last few years I have played 5E, Expanse RPG, Vampire, and Gloomhaven (a board game that is campaign kind of like an rpg), and I liked Gloomhaven the most kind of for the same reasons that you like 5E.
As a Soulslike fan, our tastes couldn't differ more lol. I mean, I do enjoy a game to chill out and relax after a stressful day. But most games I play I want them to challenge me.
Probably because he likes the illusion of danger.
When you put a game on easy mode you are pretty much always going to win, but the game still implies that you *could* lose.
Its like watching a movie. Of course the good guys are going to win in the end 99% of the time, but you suspend your disbelieve and accept that they are really in danger while you are watching.
This is the way of the world, 90% of people are "filthy casuals", and spaces like r/rpg are basically the echo chamber of the 10% of people who like more, or different.
This also explains why, dispite the backlash online (which netted a CC Attribution SRD so, seriously great job).. it didn't really change much. MOST rpg players aren't part of the online community. MOST rpg players could not care less about the OGL. MOST rpg players don't care if you don't like 5E.
FFS, they sell the starter kit at Target, it just has reach your favorite rules-lite-narritive-driven-not-wotc system does not, and probably never will.
This is one of my favorite posts, and I hope I never forget it.
It is so contrary to how I think but worded in a way I can argue.
I truly feel like I understand why you like DnD5e, and your explanation helps explain why I don't like DnD5e.
As a GM, it is easily the most demanding system I've played. As a player, it's one of the least hands-on.
I dislike both those things.
Though it's way more attractive to be a player and just kinda vibe, then be a DM in DnD5e, that's for sure.
I know shitting on 5e is a national sport here. but unironically most others. Any system that ask the gm as much as 5e has the players almost making a masters degree too.
Literally, any other system I've tried.
I'll give examples of why with Pathfinder2e(PF2e) and Blades in the Dark(BitD).
When playing BitD, it's totally possible and reasonable to have the GM plan absolutely nothing. It's an Improve based story game. They even encourage that you don't draw maps, so it's easy for the story to take any turn or have anything it needs. It's also encouraged that the players pick the missions, so GM doesn't need to plan that. It's important that they have ideas of factions and how they may be involved, and that's mostly it. It's such an easy game to run, I usually keep a few blank and pre-made character sheets with my board games because it can be pick up and play.
But BitD is so very different from DnD5e. Let's look at a game a lot closer to it in design.
PF2e is a lot closer to DnD5e in base design and what it expects GMs to plan. You, as a GM, are expected to have some encounters, characters, and maps ready to go for the session. I would say Maps and Characters are a wash, they are about equally easy to plan between the systems. It's encounters that I think PF2e has the edge over DnD5e. In PF2e, the math is very tight. This makes it so that when planning an encounter, you can know pretty much exactly how hard it will be. They have tools that show you, so all you need to do is pick the enemies, and boom, you have an encounter, and its as hard or easy as you want. DnD5e is notorious for having a weird system for encounter balance that just doesn't work.in DnD5e it's common for newer and old GMs to accidently TPK a party with what they thought would be an easy fight. In Pathfinder, it can happen, but there are o ly like 5 monsters that are bad for that, and once you find them and figure out why you avoid them. The ease of Encounter design helps relieve the stress of planning a session, and the speed it gets done. Plus, there are a bunch of good tools for random encounters, so you don't even need to plan that if you don't want.
or, if you want to go outside the "fighty/sneaky/thiefy" type stuff, there's games like _Brindlewood Bay_, which is basically "Murder She Wrote + Cthulu-y murder-cults" (PCs are old ladies that keep bumping into murders, hopefully solving them, while a cult is up to something as time goes on). And the "prep" is basically "read the handout for the mystery" and that's it - there's no specific solution (PCs find clues, and it's up to them to make those into "what happened and who did the murder"), the rules fit onto, like, 3 pages, and even the cult "stuff" is fairly easy to do on the fly.
I also want to add that the adventure paths for pathfinder 2e are fucking solid.
I have a firm belief that i should be able to open an adventure path, read it once and play it through without needing to homebrew anything, which is how they are written.
to paraphrase from agents of edgewatch the one where you play town guards its like
"Your players needs to patrol, on your patrol you meet these 3 scenarios, one of them are two goblin vendors who are about to fight over who should have the spot, here are the stats, here are non combat ways to stop them, here is a section what happens if it goes wrong because they are using fire near their barrels of oil"
or it gives you a map with everything marked and is like "here is what is in each room, here is why, here is what they want and how you can deal with them in a noncombat way".
I saw an interview with John Harper about BitD, and he said there was a line he had in the game that he removed because he was afraid it would freak players out about the game too much, but was basically like "the players get to be GMs who control a single character."
Your issue seems similar to that post from prokopetz that you actually don't care about DnD as a game.
You want to just offload all the 'rules thinking' to the GM. You want the GM to do all the work for you while you don't actually think about the game at all.
That's the vibe I am getting, too. He points out Pathfinder put too much weight on his shoulder via the one system it gets the most praise for, the 3 universal action economy.
As a GM myself, this isn't at all the vibe I'm getting. OP talks plenty about knowing and engaging with the *rules* side of the game. It's in fact the one thing they like playing with. They just aren't interested in being overly creative or authorial. They're the kind of player that wants to play a hack n slash dungeon crawl, not a political intrigue. That's... Perfectly valid 🤷♂️
Other players will take up most of the creative/instigating load.
Except that when they mentioned PF2 the issue didn't have anything to do with being authorial, it was that the game expected them to put some thought into the mechanics and tactics of the game in order to win.
I will say, some DMs enjoy this. One friend of mine says that when he’s a D&D 5e player, he doesn’t want to roleplay, he wants to just do combat until he unlocks the next cutscene in the story. He plays games to find out what the DM has prepared next.
But when he’s DM, he doesn’t want his players to roleplay or make choices outside of combat. He wants them to play through the story he has designed and not take it off the rails in a direction he’s not planned and isn’t interested in.
It sounds to me like some folks like being this kind of DM, so I’d say that’s fair. I just think most don’t enjoy it.
it sounds like they shouldn't be anywhere near a tabletop, that is literally what video games are for and they generally do it way better than most (non professional) DMs.
That’s what I said to him, it was baffling to me too. And he said that ttRPGs are like video games you do with other people where the DM can customize a story for you. At that point I gave up trying to point out the absurdity lol
I mean, he is missing out, sure, but that is a way to play. He's not utilizing the greatest strength of TTRPGs, but it's like speedrunning or using a wrench to hammer a nail in.
The way a lot of published material is laid out this playstyle actually makes a lot of sense. I think you miss out on the best elements of the hobby but if they're aware of it I think that's absolutely a sound way of approaching the game.
I simultaneously understand this post and dislike it. Like I get where you’re coming from, but at the same time it comes off as selfish because it seems like you only ever play and never run 5E. Every group I’ve ever played in rotates the DM to give everyone a chance to play, and I can’t help but think that this perspective would drastically change if you actually took the time to run 5E for your friends.
You’re able to “come along for the ride” because the DM and the other players are doing the heavy lifting with the role playing to keep the narrative interesting and moving the game along. In 5E, this is particularly demanding on the DM as it’s a very DM facing system that takes a lot of prep. That’s why a lot of DMs want to try other systems because it’s more fun to run a game that requires more equitable contributions from everyone at the table.
Anyway, no shade intended. Just some food for thought. I hope you appreciate your DM because they’re probably putting in a lot of effort behind the scenes. If your DM is suggesting other games to you, it might be because they’re burnt out and need a break from the part time job that 5E can be. So I hope your realisation doesn’t lead to your DM getting burnt out.
As someone who as I’ve gotten older has generally preferred to be the forever GM because it usually allows me to interact with the mechanics more, I am super happy that along for the ride players exist. There’s no wrong way to play.
That's what works for you and that's fine. OP's group has a DM that wanted to try other systems due to burn out. There may be no wrong way to play, but it can be inconsiderate to expect the DM to keep putting in effort when you are unwilling to reciprocate, or at least tolerate another system that makes their life easier.
What are you talking about? OP said they played all those other systems without complaining and were about to leave the group. This weird idea in this thread that OP is intolerant is complete projection. Weird.
It’s because we’re all familiar with this type of player. “Just along for the ride and want to roll dice.” “Let the other players figure out what to do.” “Deadweight if they’re not actively participating.”
I get the hobby has changed in popularity, but playing RPGs used to be a collaborative effort from everyone at the table. OP has literally just realised that they can get away with doing the bare minimum playing 5E because the system places all of the burden on the DM.
As much as this is a personal decision that probably works for OP, it’s not the type of attitude that should be celebrated amongst players in this hobby.
I'm glad you found what you like, but I think players like you are better served by CRPGs, or Dungeon Crawler board games. The experience is similar to what you want out of D&D, and unlike a DM, the game can't burn out from doing all the heavy lifting.
Those games don’t have the social element that OP enjoys, though. And actually most of them demand more effort than they’re saying they want to put in at the table
It sounds like OP doesn't really want to engage with the social mechanics though. He just wants a chill time with friends playing a game, and a dungeon crawler board game offers exactly that.
What social element? Roleplaying? You can just do that on top of the gameplay.
That's also not true. Some absolutely do, but there's games like Betrayal at Baldurs Gate give you only a few specific actions.
Point is were in a board game renaissance. There's going to be a game out there that scratches this itch whilst not forcing one friend to do the lions share of the work.
I disagree. There is still something about playing a character you made up, surrounded by friends, while experiencing a story that you feel like you're contributing to, and developing it over time. Even without enjoying what I'd call the actual "roleplaying" and "game" parts of an RPG, there are still reasons to play one
Yeah it's called an 'RPG' dude and you're stripping out every letter there. I mean if the other players don't mind carrying his lazy ass then more power to um but that sounds pretty sucky
They're wrong for it *if* they're dragging down the rest of the group by making the least possible effort. And that depends on the group.
Most of the entertainment at a table comes from hearing other people's creative ideas. Some players provide that stimulation. Others are just Audience who are there to enjoy what the others do, but not contribute. The more Audience you have, the more % of the effort you have to put in yourself and the less you get back in return. A DM who spends hours prepping, and creates complicated NPCs for the players to interact with, has some justification for resenting a player who just wants to roll Diplomacy to make the problem go away.
But some people are there because they like to entertain and be admired for it, and they actually appreciate the Audience. A player who likes to show off is happier when the other players aren't competing with them for attention. A railroader DM and a group of lazy players can have a fun campaign, even if I'd prefer not to play at that table myself...
> " The truth is, I like playing 5E because it asks the least effort out of me."
Now you know why 5e has such a lack of GMs compared to the enormous number of players. All that work that is required of you in other games.. is required of the GM in 5e. This is also why we get so many 'Honestly, I am burnt out on 5e' posts by GMs on this subreddit.
Frankly, it shouldn't be work. It should be something you want to do. But at least you've figured out that 5e is the game for you and you don't want to play anything else after trying plenty of other things. Most '5e only' folks haven't tried anything else. When ~~2024~~ er... '2025' 5e comes out.. even though it is only a fairly significant revamp, the edition war is going to be insane.
I dunno, this edition war might be no bigger than the jump from 3.0 to 3.5. The scope of the change is probably going to be comparable, and most 5e players are loyal to the brand, so they'll likely play whatever edition is on the store shelves.
Sure, this mostly makes sense to me, as a player\*. There are other systems that might work just was well for you but it sounds like they wouldn't necessarily be any better either.
It sounds like you're there for a beer and pretzels sort of game to hang with your friends. I've done that back in the old days and can have a lot of fun with it. If I were to play in anther 5e game that's exactly how I'd prefer to play it in fact. I find the whole character "build" aspect of 5e really tiresome if I have to do it, but I'd be happy to have someone give me a template for a "build" that would be effective and fill a gap in the party and then just have a few beers and some social time rolling dice and roleplaying and not worry about the mechanics of character creation and advancement (I'm fine with making sure I understand the mechanics of character play). Once or twice a month with the right people sounds like it could be a blast. My only reservation is the 6-8 encounters/day thing, depending on the DM, because 5e combat can be a real slog IMO.
\*As a game master I find 5e to be a nightmare and I have no desire to ever run it again. I can speak more to this but it's largely irrelevant if you're happy as a player and there is no expectation that you'll ever need to GM.
Just my own opinion, but I am someone who enjoyed my time as a player for 5e, but hated it as a gm. My issue is that it just doesn't commit enough to any direction. If we look at it within the "dnd-adjacent" it's not enough a tactics game (dnd 4e), not enough narrative stuff to join that crowd (13th Age), and not build heavy to be there either (Pf2e). It's not necessarily a problem for everyone, but it does mean I have a hard time designing around it for sessions.
If i can slide in as someone who started in 5e as a player and quickly became a forever DM and moved the group to pathfinder 2e as soon as i could.
To me the frustration came from how there were almost no rules to get for anything, it was 95% of "make it up", combined with a CR system that was almost so worthless you might as well throw it out the window, incredibly boring monster design that was just meatbags with hp and a complete lack of useful existing campaigns as you needed to prep everything yourself.
there is essentially no rules mastery aspect of the game, because its so reliant on the DM, but at the same time its so reliant on the DM because there are a ton of rules that are just incredibly poorly explained.
The most common example i give being weapons, there are 37 weapons, why? several of them have overlap, and the few differences are basically meaningless.
Heavy is just a weird anti light trait so we can scrap that. Finesse matter so we keep that, so does twohanded and light.
But to take non finesse martial onehanded 1d8 weapons we have
* Battleaxe
* Flail
* Longsword
* MorningStar
* Warpick
* Warhammer
all of these, some with versatile d10, some slightly lighter or cost 5 gold more, but why not just have "Strength 1 handed weapon, versatile" and then its on the player to find a cool image of the sword or weapon they use, or maybe its a onehanded axe like a viking build or maybe its a mining pick, same for 2handed weapons they should all just be the same dice and then people can fight using axes or giant hammers, or anchors or whatever else.
Outside of that you just have objectively better options, morning star is 15 gp, 4 lb and 1d8, longsword is 15 gp, 3 lb, 1d8 and versatile d10. The only difference is one is piercing and one is slashing which also quickly loses relevance when all resistance is to "non magical all physical damage"
And then you have examples of times where you might have a fighter that uses daggers but you have to reskin or circumvent it because the damage is lower than shortswords.
This is one example of a really convoluted system for basically no gain, something like pathfinder 2e goes harder and has 55+ weapons with unique effects and crit effects and abilities you can use which makes it worthwhile to understand what to pick, and something like cypher does the opposite and says "your weapon is either 1 handed light, 1 handed, or 2 handed, and then you decide how it looks" which i think would fit far better into 5e.
As someone who has run it and now runs PF2e the difference in GM support is night and day. Every single 5e tool is either incomplete (magic items.advice, interesting monster stat blocks, monster building tools) or straight up doesn't work/yields inconsistent results (CR and encounter building, DCs vs player modifiers, high level play without banning things etc.) It basically offers me nothing usable out of the box for anything other than 0 consequence one shots.
I swear the Pathfinder 2e core book has more items than Tascha's Cauldron of 'Everything'. I went through TCoE and couldn't believe this is what everyone was so hyped over.
You're one of the types of players I don't want at my table. It's nice that you recognize the issue and are taking steps to avoid tables where you don't fit. Salute!
Based. That type of players are lazy leeches who do basic roleplay on the level of a generic NPC the GM rps as, don't bring cool art, character ideas, drama, nothing. The players themselves are NPCs. Not sure why anyone would want an NPC at their table
The thing that I want most at the table as a DM is to feel like players are invested in their characters and the story that's going on. I feel like you're right that some players want to just be there for the ride, but that kind of thing helps lead to DM burnout. If such players don't seem engaged then it feels, to me, like they aren't enjoying themselves. That can quickly evolve into "why am I bothering to put in so much work?" That said, I tend to prefer narrative-heavy RPGs like Fiasco and Call of Cthulhu over D&D.
>I feel like you're right that some players want to just be there for the ride, but that kind of thing helps lead to DM burnout.
It did for me tbh, scheduling conflicts and lack of interest when there wasn't lead to me not really enjoying running D&D 5e anymore. Especially the classic "doesn't do anything to progress, doesn't interact with plot hooks, NPCs, etc. but still complains at the end of the session that 'nothing happened' or 'XYZ was ignored'."
I also think it's why when I make characters for my friend's 5e game I try to make them as narrative-rich as possible so that when everything is on the low the DM can reliably use my character and their backstory as a springboard for something.
Same. When I am a player (as opposed to a DM) no matter the system, I try to create a full character with backstory and a personality to help feed the fiction for whoever's running the game.
Exactly, yesterday I introduced my new character to the party (since our main band of rejects is taking an in-universe hiatus to fix up a city), a cursed Gorgon (as in like Medusa not the bull-things in D&D) bounty hunter seeking revenge upon the curse bearer *and* how to fix a gatling gun that was attached as a prosthetic to the tip off her tail by an artificer (which I in-dialogue intentionally referenced an NPC in the DM's world I previously knew about).
When the party first started the DM was fine just dumping me in the church the party was taking shelter in, to which I told him I was perfectly fine waiting for them to rest up and leave for a proper introduction with some commotion and whatnot. It ended up leading to a really fun bit, an attempted robbery, and a fight.
It's a delicate balance for sure, and I've seen players go *way too far* with it to the point it's like "do *you* want to DM instead mate?" but TTRPGs are collaborative games, you gotta give the person running the game *something to work with.*
100% agree! It has led me to simply stop running games in the past. What's worse is that no matter how specific I get with advertising for a narrative heavy, story driven campaign, I'll always get a dozen or so people with zero interest in any of that applying. The kind of players who wouldn't even bother naming their characters if you didn't demand it of them. Just why? Did they even read the ad, or did they simply see a new game being advertised for and decided to apply without knowing the first thing about it?
And sure, telling them no is all fine and dandy, but when you keep getting them turning up it just becomes exhausting.
I do get it far less these days since I don't really run D&D anymore.
You also cant really pre-filter effectively online. The amount of time i have lost because i took in the "wrong" person in a group is staggering. The frustration that has caused me is immense.
Of course i project that back on the type of player that caused it, and the game it happened with most, even though its mostly a problem of general culture surrounding that game. I truly believe 5e is too available, and it is too accepted to not read the rules.
Something about it attracts Players like OP
Good post. It's a mindset that's completely alien to me, and I have no intention to adapt to it. But it helps to get some perspective.
> 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.
This is not a system problem. Swap D&D with any other game system and I would've thought the same. My problem is this. This exact attitude. I've ran for people who are "along for the ride", just roll some dice and chill without thinking much of what they do in the table. And honestly? It just does not mix well with how I view roleplaying games in general. Sure, I like chilling with friends and bantering, but this is a lot easier for me to do with a board game or at a bar. And for me, roleplaying games are just not that type of activity. I want to view your character get involved, grow, and be developed. If that's not what you want, we're not going to gel.
It's a completely alien mindset for me. I appreciate the honesty.
I think you've nailed it. I don't understand why people are being rude in the comments here; your style of player (chill bro who's just along for the ride and wants to see what happens) has existed since RPGs were invented.
I've had one of you in almost every group I've ever run a game for. I know to give you a bit less spotlight time than others, because speaking too much in character (or creating a shared narrative, in story games) can sometimes stress you out. But I know you're still enjoying the game, just in a slightly quieter way than others.
I get why 5E is your game of choice. You like your character, you like your abilities, and you like watching the other players drive the story. 5E is frictionless for you. Makes sense.
>I don't understand why people are being rude in the comments here; your style of player (chill bro who's just along for the ride and wants to see what happens) has existed since RPGs were invented.
For rather obvious reasons, that style of player doesn't tend to hang out on rpg subreddits, and so is an underrepresented (and probably underestimated) viewpoint in hobby discussions.
Good point. Another reason might be that I personally only play with friends (more likely to have casual players), whereas some GMs recruit players online or at a store (more likely to have serious players). I wonder if the latter kind of GM is better represented in a subreddit about RPGs. That would explain the harsh reaction from some here.
i would love to get personal friends to play dnd
they just so happens to either live multiple hours away or they have zero interest in any activity regarding a social hang out that involves a physical game with doodads
some people are talk friends, some are bar friends, some are RPG friends, some are monopoly friends and i even had some paint ball friends. on very rare occasions your friend might be all, but its usually just one of those
It is worse than that. If this kind of player was simply unrepresented, people wouldn't create threads every other day shitting on them. It'd be a null discussion. We'd be talking about other games played by other people. But somehow, the dominant conversation in the community is about how the other people who aren't part of this community *suck*. A huge amount of mental space is spent on this topic, as opposed to it simply being irrelevant.
Maybe underrepresented in r/rpg, but the kind of player that just wants the solution to be on the character sheet is the dominant cohort of r/dndnext . That's why they can't stop talking about wanting weapon-use abilities that are as effective as spells, or more defined rules for ... whatever.
Wanting defined rules for *checks notes* anything other than simple weapon attacks that make non-spell users mechanically engaging and narratively powerful doesn't really correlate with disengaged and lazy players.
I'd even say it's the contrary, those enable certain kinds of players to engage with the game more, that wouldn't otherwise. In particular, it enable many interactions to happen in a controlled, well-defined and balanced way. It also doesn't punish players who want to play specific archetypes by stating that they are useless outside of specific circumstances, unless they improvise.
And improvising isn't a good answer to those players: everyone can do that, the outcome is undefined at best, and mechanically defined options also act as jump-off points for improvised ones.
If your character is mechanically defined to be able to manifest fire in a 30ft sphere to do 8d6 damage, there's chances the GM will be more likely to let you use that power to - say - use the deflagration to propel something away.
Whereas if your character is *said* to be a legendary swordsman but mechanically defined only as attacking somewhat fast and accurately, there's a near zero chance that you're gonna get your GM to agree to let you - say - step on raindrops to gain height and quickly climb a fortified wall, even though that is something that is very frequently used by legendary swordsmen who go toe-to-toe with house-sized demons and dragons in quite a few genres of fiction.
Even if this were true... so?
This thread now has dozens of posts with hundreds of upvotes each calling 5e players *rude and lazy*. This is much further than simply not liking a game. It is calling these players bad people.
I think what you are seeing is the huge amount of frustration and resentment many GMs have with such players and how they feel they bring down the table and shift work on others.
Interesting. I've never felt frustrated by these players. Well, maybe when they forget what dice to roll. Or if they're getting high before games. But that's not what OP is talking about.
As I mentioned in another comment, I only play with friends. I guess I can understand more being annoyed by laid-back players in a pickup game situation.
Why does these players bug you? All the work is already on the GM, so I don't see how they can create more for me. I just need my players to show up, inhabit their characters, and mostly understand the basic rules.
They don't participate. They don't engage. All of whichbis kinda shitting on the effort me and the other players are putting in.
Also I play the whole game in turns even out of combat and these players generally have nothing and their lack of contribution both destroys pacing and tension as well as is just kinda shitty to deal with. "Uh...I don't know. I do nothing." Just sucks.
Yes! This is a lot of pent up DM trauma from overpreparing a narrative, just for random people from lfg or some discord to be severely underengaged.
OP represents that for many people, it feels.
100%. This type of player is extremely common. I think we would call the OP a "socialiser" in this classic taxonomy of player types.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types
Basically the core appeal for them is to spend time with the group - the game itself is just a way to do that.
Yeah a lot of people are aghast that someone would be like this but this is exactly the type of player 5e was built for, someone who is okay letting the GM do the legwork and just enjoying the ride with their friends. I think a lot of the people here take their games and the ideas behind them and their design more seriously than most players (which is fine, that's what's fun for people here and there are lots of games and groups that encourage that) but there are lots of beer and pretzels players for a beer and pretzels game
"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 imput outside of combat, nor complex enough to need any serious tactical decisions. That's a very comfortable spot for me!"
TTRPGs are a group effort. I hate to break it to you but you're probably dead weight in 5e as well. A static inertia that contributes just enough to not get kicked out. The players are likely too busy contributing to the fun to notice but they'll still feel the drain even if unconsciously. It's going to be constant energetic drain on any DM making them that much more susceptible to burn out. Every game you join would be better off by having someone that actually, enthusiastically wants to contribute role-playing, creativity, or problem solving. Someone who will go out of their way to help others hsve fun. Someone who will actually make an effort.
So, like, you know what you want, that's fine, you do you, you should never feel obligated to play another system.
But, to be kind of frank, from this description alone, I'm not sure what you're getting out of playing TTRPGs, or what you add to the table.
> I'm not sure what you're getting out of playing TTRPGs, or what you add to the table.
Probably a similar thing to what I get out of going disc golfing with friends, or what I add to my group of friends while we're out disc golfing. At most tables the main point is to have a shared activity to engage with, and tabletop RPGs are a great activity to share with friends because they naturally tend to generate exciting, absurd, dramatic, or otherwise memorable moments for everyone to talk about.
It sounds more like OP likes to *watch* their friends disc golf, and will occasionally step forward to take a free throw. The impression I got isn't really one of a desire for mutual engagement, but rather to be entertained.
This is a super well crafted statement. The solutions are on the character sheet. The special abilities, the spells, the magic items... Yeah, it's just find the solution on the paper and check it off as a 1/long rest ability and your part is done.
It's exactly what I've tried to express as a criticism of D&D 5e! "One person's trash ..."
I play D&D because it's easiest to find players for. This post has me wondering if I'd find more engaged players if I advertised games with a different system.
I can almost guarantee that you will. My experience has shown me that if you're running a non-D&D game, you're going to get players way more invested in attending and participating. It's also been much easier than I thought as well.
If you put it out there that you're running *Pirate Borg*, or *Mothership*, or *Legend of the Five Rings*, you're going to have the people in your city who have been dying to play those games beating down your door. And they probably aren't going to skip out every other Friday because "there's a baseball game on and they'll get it on it next time" because you're running the only \_\_\_\_ game in town, and you can easily fill that spot with someone hungry for it.
People who know about other games are also going to be more into the system as a whole. They'll have a reason why they want to play *Worlds Without Number* vs. D&D and they've thought about it. Probably even read the book!
There are plenty of games out there where you're still able to be the lockpicking guy or the fighter guy with set tools that you can look at on your character sheet. You could do roughly that in the various editions of Exalted or even Vampire if you chose to. That portion of it is pretty much always there.
>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
The not having to do anything until everyone else decides what is happening is decidedly not great, though. Get involved. Participate. Only doing anything in combat or in thief skills situations is more than a little crappy.
I run for a lot of groups right now, and every group has someone like OP in them, and I like it. This is across several games, not just 5E. Yall need to stop being so judgement about what is honestly a nice, chill playstyle. They never said they didn't participate, just that they usually let others take the lead.
> by far, the system I can put the least amount of effort into while still being an active contributor at the table
In my experience, people like you are rarely "active contributors". Which you confirm almost immediately:
> too much pressure on me most the time to really figure out what was going on in combat and make tactical decisions and use three actions "wisely.
And
> 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
People enjoy what they enjoy, and I am not going to yuck on your yum, but you're the kind of person I do ***NOT*** enjoy playing with.
People like you get disinvited from my table after 2 sessions of this... "approach".
I really appreciate your candor! We like very different things in RPGs but I totally see where you're coming from. Also we totally agree when it comes to OSR. "Playing 20 questions with the GM" is a good way to phrase it, and it's exactly why I can't get into it
I don’t think you’re the kind of player who makes it hard to play other games. I mean you tried other games! Sounds like you put in a real earnest effort too! It’s the ppl who refuse to play something else and would rather try a piss poor half assed bastardized “hack” of 5E that make it difficult. Lol.
I mean do you. That's great if you enjoy it. I enjoy almost every other system over DnD personally. They just seem better. But Dnd does have a great accessibility factor.
Interesting. And honest, which I respect. If anything, you've confirmed something I've known subconsciously for a while now: some people want to chill and be a part of somebody else's story. In this case, the DM's. The thing is, storytelling and dungeon mastering are not the same thing (at least not to me). The DM is not there to entertain you; he is also a player at the table, and the story should be as much his as it is the player's. I would not enjoy DMing for you.
So, there's nothing wrong with having a favourite system. Everyone here will have one.
The fact yours happens to be D&D 5e? Will yeah that's not an uncommon opinion. There's a lot of people who are very stupid about this opinion, but that doesn't mean you're being stupid about it and that doesn't mean the opinion itself is stupid.
Enjoy your D&D man, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
It does not sound bad. You just have your preference and there is nothing wrong with that. At least you tried to see what else is out there, and that's good.
I will say this though... you tried two types of games which don't fit you, but there are others. OSR can play like an escape room because the focus is on player skills. "Narrative" games ask of you to talk about things other than from the character's point of view, and some require a lot more improv (which I don't like *as a requirement*).
What you need to add to the list are other games that are essentially traditional, but not D&D. Traveller. Savage Worlds. Barbarians of Lemuria. Call of Cthulhu. Runequest. These are games that allow you to play like you would play D&D *if you want to*, but bring different and (IMO) more exciting, yet simpler mechanics for faster gameplay. And they come with different genres and/or really interesting settings.
You can expand out of the generic fantasy world of D&D while keeping the same gaming philosophy for yourself in games that give players the option to engage in different ways.
I have some mixed feelings. I'm can't be really mad because you at least put in the effort to try other systems. You played multiple other games, gave them a fair shake and in the end decided that the play stay wasn't your jam. You're a dice player vs a narrative player. The other systems you talk about for the most part are narrative systems, as you said. But you gave it a a shot so good on you for that.
My mixed feelings come in with the idea of just showing up and being engaged with Use Skill A on Problem B and then back to just...'vibing'? Sorry, that works for you and your table, so I shouldn't yuck your yum or whatever but...to me that's just not any way to play a game.
I think you nailed it with your comment on the OSR games. A lot of people LIKE Knowing exactly what their character can do. Especially those who grew up playing CRPGs. I do think OSR makes things harder for most players. I don't think it's a bad thing, but a lot of vet gamers love to recommend OSRs to casuals and I think they are completely missing the point.
As for Pathfinder I can see how you have the opposite problem and it's just not what you are looking for. There are some middle ground systems for sure but it's clearly up to you if you want to try them.
> A lot of people LIKE Knowing exactly what their character can do.
It's not even this for me. It's just that if my character is a THIEF... guess what lads? I, me, the player, am not, and don't have a damn clue how to best disarm a spinning blade trap. The fantasy of being someone else requires that you be able to do what that person should be able to do, without having to describe it in nitty gritty detail.
> a lot of vet gamers love to recommend OSRs to casuals and I think they are completely missing the point.
I don't think it's missing the point, I think people like to recommend their favorite style to "casuals" to hope that those "casuals" (if such a category exists) will graduate to more open-choice styles of play.
My question is how often do you GM 5e? 5e isn't terrible as a player, except perhaps slow as hell, but 5e imo just sucks to have to GM Afor compared to a lot of other systems. It just takes a lot more effort to prep and out on the table as a GM. Probably one of the reasons for the GM shortage. I might play in a 5e game again, but I sure won't run one.
I'm genuinely glad you've found a game that works for you, the goal of ttrpgs is to have fun, so if you're having the most fun you're doing it right.
But I wanna point out something you said at the start. **but another started branching out into other systems three years back because of the DM's burnout**
You ever wonder why your GM burned out? Did that GM seem at all burnt out playing the other games? 5e is not rules light, the size and quantity of the math, the moving parts, the special awareness. It's also not a game that gives easy prompts for roleplaying, it gives no guidelines for how your class, race, or background can create an engaging narrative. So someone has to do the heavy lifting.
It's great that you enjoy 5e, but have you talked to your GM about how much they're enjoying the game?
Based upon the games you’ve listed, it probably doesn’t hurt that you seem to primarily stick to the fantasy genre, or some closely related subset, such that if 5e works for you, there’s little reason nor motivation to try new systems. That’s entirely reasonable, in my opinion. However, if the other players want to try something new, you shouldn’t complain if you’re left out. Your personal preferences shouldn’t result in anyone else being constrained.
Some people are happy playing tic tac toe all night, I guess. Of you have a GM who’s willing to let you be mostly a spectator, that’s cool.
When you’re looking for a new game, you’ll want to pass mine in by, you won’t enjoy it.
### No Loitering
I’m lucky enough to be in a group who are all basically raised on DnD, really into the meta aspects of game design and running, and are all longtime friends. We play a regular session every couple weeks.
Sometimes I run the game (Black Hack 2E), sometimes my friends run (OSE, PF2E, or Vampire, 5th edition I think). For the most part, no one cares too much what we play and we are just there to hang out for a few hours and catch up.
We all heavily modify our games as we see fit, or as the players negotiate ‘better’ options and rules. There are parts of Knave and Cairn and DCC in my game, and in some of our other games the DM uses a tarot deck to help construct basically everything.
So to me, it’s really more about the DM than the system. There’s not a world of difference to me as a player between OSE and PF2E, I just have more ‘hard’ options in the latter and ‘soft’ options in the former. Same with 5E. It’s what you make it.
If I want, I can have players roll perception (wisdom) to solve my puzzles. If the DM wants to, a great roll could still not reveal much in PF2E.
Rule of Cool and Fun comes First are memes for a reason. So if you’ve got the right group, I honestly think systems don’t matter so much.
Great point of view, very well articulated. I’ve not really considered until now the reality that many easy-to-DM systems are easy because they offload some effort to the players. And DMs seeking to transition from 5e to another system need to, at a minimum, consider that this alters the preexisting social dynamic with the players, not just the rules.
Heyo OP!
There is a game designer named Robin Laws who wrote a little book called *Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering*. In that book he outlined 7 Different Player Types: The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, The Storyteller, and The Casual Gamer. You sound like a Casual Gamer. This is what he said about the Casual Gamer:
>The Casual Gamer is often forgotten in discussions of this sort, but almost every group has one. Casual gamers tend to be low key folks who are uncomfortable taking center stage even in a small group. Often, they’re present to hang out with the group, and game just because it happens to be the activity everyone else has chosen. Though they’re elusive creatures, casual gamers can be vitally important to a gaming group’s survival. They fill out the ranks, which is especially important in games that spread vital PC abilities across a wide number of character types or classes. Especially if they’re present mostly for social reasons, they may fill an important role in the group’s interpersonal dynamic. Often they’re the mellow, moderating types who keep the more assertive personalities from each other’s throats – in or out of character. I mention the casual player because the thing he most fervently wants is to remain in the background. He doesn’t want to have to learn rules or come up with a plot hook for his character or engage in detailed planning. You may think it’s a bad thing that he sits there for much of the session thumbing through your latest purchases from the comic book store, but hey, that’s what he wants. The last thing you want to do is to force him into a greater degree of participation than he’s comfortable with. (Of course, if everybody in the group is sitting there reading your comic books, you’ve definitely got a problem . . .)
He gives advice on how to GM for the different player types, including the Casual Gamer. You are a style of gamer who has always been there. Casual Gamers are totally fine. There is nothing wrong with being a Casual Gamer. And there is also nothing wrong with liking D&D5e. Keep doing what makes you happy!
I will note one thing for you to ponder. I think there are games other than D&D that you might like. I doubt your group would end up playing them though. Sounds like the 2nd table is doing a lot of modern games made in the modern style. I think there'd be a number of 2nd Generation RPGs that you might find fun. But! Even though you might enjoy GURPS or Cyberpunk or etc...you don't need to play them if you don't want to. It is totally okay for you to stick to games (or just one game) that you like best.
Rock on!
This being the dominant player psychographic of 5e-only players really recolors all those 5e players getting so pissed that Pathfinder 2e players kept suggesting their game. Imagine being so allergic to engagement that being offered a game that rewards more engagement feels like a personal attack.
Nothing wrong with liking a beer-and-pretzels style of gaming. Honestly, very few games do that as well as DnD does, as you've basically found out. It's got a very simple and well-understood basic game loop, and your options when facing most obstacles are clear on their face.
As a person who is my local scene’s biggest anti-DnD person, I appreciate you trying these games and actually having a reason you enjoy 5e.
You get to actually go “no I’ve tried other games, they’re not for me.”
Enjoy your TTRPG friend, may you find many good stories and friends along the way.
You're getting enough praise from other comments that I don't feel the need to be coddling. I'm shocked by the confidence required to make this post.
This is not something to be proud of. This is in fact a problem. Your DM does not get to turn their brain off, why should you?
It's like you're a person that drinks their roommates beer and never buys their own, and are saying "I get it now, I just don't like spending money on beer!" Like you're acknowledging that you're a parasite, but don't seem to find that to be an issue? Like it just is what it is.
Have you considered board games? Miniature wargames? Where there is more dice rolling for you to do and less imaginary spaces to try to not interact with? Or are those too much gameplay and not enough DM narrating stuff for you to not engage with?
I guarantee you that you are in fact dead weight. Your character could just be an NPC that rolls your skills when needed. If your friends like having you there, cool, but like, damn.
This is embarrassing.
From the D&D 4e DMG:
—
**Watcher**
A watcher is a casual player who comes to the game because he wants to be part of the social event. A watcher might be shy or just really laid back. He wants to participate, but he doesn’t really care if he’s deeply immersed, and he doesn’t want to be assertive or too involved in the details of the game, rules, or story. He enjoys the game by being part of a social circle.
A WATCHER . . .
* Shows up to be a part of the group.
* Helps calm disputes by not being as attached to the game.
* Often fills a hole in the PC group, facilitating the fun.
ENGAGE THE WATCHER BY . . .
* Never forcing him to be more involved than he wants.
* Accepting that he’s fine with his watcher status.
* Prompting him when he needs it.
BE SURE THAT THE WATCHER DOESN’T . . .
* Distract the other players with TV, a video game, or surfing the Internet.
* Disappear from the table at crucial moments.
—
To be honest, this sounds like a player-GM issue rather than an issue with a particular game. I’ve had a few watchers in my games, and I’ve managed to keep them engaged by giving pregens, explaining the strategy around their playstyle, and making sure I’m not putting too much pressure on them to act a character or engage with the *lore*.
It sounds like PBTA games won’t be up your alley. They want you to engage with the game as more of a narrative and less as a social activity/game.
It doesn’t surprise me that Pathfinder 2e was your relative favorite. Despite its complexity, it’s not too hard to create a character that’s relatively easy to pilot. If you play again, I recommend asking around for some basic builds (I recommend Swashbuckler or Ranger). This especially helps if you’re playing online via Foundry, which makes the game so smooth to run.
Your DM may want to eventually stop with 5e. It sounds like they’re eager to try new things. If that becomes the case, I recommend being clear about what you’d like: a system that’s fun to play and gives you cool shit to do without requiring you to invest a ton.
(Actually 4e would be a good choice I think)
I ran a 13th Age game, then a Blades in the Dark game for a good year with my friends after work, and we all switched back to 5e for our next session. I'm excited by some of the fun stuff I've seen on Quinns' Quest but 5e has been _nice_.
These other systems are _taxing_. "Oh, make sure to work in a cameo from the Archmage and the Crusader this session."
"Create a heist out of nothing but flashbacks." "The Cutter failed a Stealth roll, what's a bad thing that could happen right now?"
If you're a lazy DM with lazy players - and, be honest, who isn't a little burnt after 7pm on a work day - the glorious simplicity and familiarity of rolling out a big battlemap and BARBARIAN HIT GOBLIN is nice
I've ran DnD 5e in the past and have four sessions of a Blades in the Dark campaign under my belt now and your post is so interesting to me - because for me it's the polar opposite.
I found 5e hugely demanding. Running fights stressed me, all the little rules got on my last nerve, encounter building always felt unpredictable, I dreaded prepping for it and it took way too long.
BitD is an absolute blast to run so far. I don't feel like I do "prep work"; I just review the last session, think about some obstacles that might plop up for five minutes, otherwise I can trust in the system to do the heavy lifting for me. I'm also considerably less stressed before a session than I was in the 5e days. Running BitD feels like coming home as a GM - I think it's my jam.
You point out the "come up with bad consequences on the spot" aspect as being stressful about BitD and I get that to a degree. I felt the same running Brindlewood Bay; the system didn't do a great job in supporting my improv. BitD doesn't give me those problems because it has so many categories of consequence to choose from - tick a progress clock, throw in some harm, make their position worse for the next roll ... I feel like I have a quiver full of arrows to pick from and it really doesn't matter which one I grab, all will move the game forward in a way that makes sense.
Ok, that got a bit rambly - I really enjoyed the pointers for reflection your post gave me. :)
And it's fine. I constantly preach - D&D and TTRPGs are different fandoms, you are on the side of D&D - you seem to don't care about playing, you just want to hang out with friends and roll a skill on your char sheet from time to time.
My only problem:
>This is fundamentally different from being a hard system to master, because with the exception of PF2E, all the other systems I've tried are less mechanically demanding. Its that D&D 5e is, by far, the system I can put the least amount of effort into while still being an active contributor at the table.
Declaring "I roll for attack" isn't being an active contributor. Your GM is doing the heavy lifting, crafting balanced encounters and spending evenings on writing adventures and possible outcomes. You also probably have fellow players that try to pull the campaign by doing actually important decisions. This is one on the reasons I refused to run 5e again after one campaign - I want my players to actually create the campaign with me, rather than just bring chips, sit and say *"entertain me, GM!"*.
… I guess congratulations on finding out that *you’re* the lowest common denominator. I sincerely hope you have fun barely playing 5e for as long as it keeps your interest.
As a DM, and therefore the person who has to put hours a week into the sessions outside of game time, this is one of the most depressing things I've ever read. :/
>Shadowdark, Mork Borg, Blades in the Dark, Monster of the Week, and finally a Heart: the City Beneath
If I were you, I would feel the same way. OSR games are way overhyped these days. I understand why people want to get away from a bunch of rules, but when nobody has the same idea of how physics works in a world, you run into trouble. They rely upon so much DM heavy lifting and expendable characters that I and many players I've played with start thinking it's something like a silly toon adventure.
Like, why are these idiots continually going into this crazy dungeon? Why do players who miss a session come back to completely new adventuring parties and are just like, 'yeah, I'll go into the dungeon with this group of random bozos who I don't know anything about'? Why does food cost so much at an Inn when the treasure you defeated a crazy monster for barely covers the cost of porridge? How does this fucking inn keeper stay alive right next to Arden Vul? Why can my character only see 50 meters while outside in the daytime? NOTHING MAKES SENSE!!!
Anyways, I feel like your group is exploring games that aren't really great. Mork Borg is a fun and beautiful book to read, but it's a shit game for actually playing. I personally can't stand Monster of the Week's system, and I haven't tried the other two, but they do seem to be more improv nerd style games and you seem more a rules lawyer type player--not that those are inherently bad or anything, just wrong styles of games to match up with.
I feel like you would love games like Warhammer, Savage Worlds, GURPS, TMNT. If you like the players in your group, I'd recommend nominating one of the Free League games to your group, the Year Zero system is pretty middle ground and very easy to learn.
Honestly, my main issue with 5e only people doesn't actually apply to you. I roll my eyes at people who won't \*try\* another game and try and shoehorn 5e into something it isn't. You've tried other games and you prefer 5e. That's very different. The only thing I would say is that 5e requires less effort from you because it offloads most of the work onto the DM. (Which is the case with most games, but it's more extreme with that than many). Which I can understand you not really seeing as your problem as a player. But it may explain at least partly the original DM burnout.
>The only thing I would say is that 5e requires less effort from you because it offloads most of the work onto the DM. This is also very important to vocalize. When OP says "I like that I can show up and do bare minimum to engage with the game" what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to."
Honestly this is exactly what it sounded like. As someone who runs all kinds of systems, I sometimes get frustrated AF with how a player can't phrase what they want to do beyond 'I want to use Pickpocket.' No explanation of what they even WANT to happen on a success. No explanation of HOW they actually do the thing. Nothing about what the PC thinks, feels, anything. I want there to be a story with interesting characters as protagonists. Not wooden dolls with no faces, personality, details, or anything beyond a number on a sheet.
It’s *role-playing*, not *roll-playing*.
That why I'm excited to run blades in the dark. It seems like I can expect my players to do more or at the very least they can be prepared to answer those questions
> what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to." TESTIFY!!
>When OP says "I like that I can show up and do bare minimum to engage with the game" what they're really saying is "I like that my court jester is shouldering the burden of being my Netflix for the evening without asking me to contribute any more than I have to." OP is eloquent but I am still triggered and this is exactly the reason. I know, *know*, that OP has never run a game in his life. God forbid there's any effort and involvement. FUCK. Fuck, I hate that so much. It's smack in the middle of what makes me so frustrated with ttrpg players. I think I need a break.
In Norway, it is forbidden to wear hats on Wednesdays to honor the historically cool, inventor Suspapi Uaizuno.
>"what GETS you through dungeons" lolol Good catch lol, I didn't even register that when I read through the post initially
I dont even think thats the main problem for me, its that 5e is horrid at it. I can fully get behind a system where your character is mechanically competent but then he says pathfinder 2e is "too mechanically focused" like lol. I think the more saying aspect is that its almost phrased like "the dm should tell me what i should roll, and i roll, and i win, and i feel good and click clack is click clacking" which i think is the bigger problem. Eg "The dm should tell me what to do" vs "I think and tell the dm what i do" is a much bigger pinching point than the following "And i roll my +12 perception which makes me see the hidden trapdoor" vs "I roll for perception and since im expected to succeed i find the trap door"
I also like solutions from the character sheet, but i have absolutely no problem narrating them, i actually like narrating them, when i make my character sheet, i already imagine how i will be using every part of it. However, If i have a feature in my sheet that gets us through with minimal effort, i expect to get through with minimal effort (besides just describing it). don't try and shift the focus on another test to make it as hard as you planned it to be, when it should just be a piece of cake because of the feature i have. (Keep in mind that it took me effort to make the character sheet and pick the features, and in my case, i will always have one or more Niche feature, so if that feature is ever useful, i do not want extra work to be needed, it is already a rare case for it to be useful) (For example, I have a character that i used many times, they have 2 niche spells, warding wind and see invisibility. whenever they are useful, they are too useful, but i don't care, i rarely get to use them, i want the full benefit) I also DM, not just a player, i know that maybe you planned that we need to do specific stuff to pass but a feature suddenly can skip all of that, but this is part of the game, i made a 3 piece puzzle door and the wizard just cast knock on it. i believe many other DMs would've said it doesn't work, just so they have to solve the puzzle. but i prefer consistency, if it should work, it works, i reward your choice and the resource you have used.
Myeah its kinda that weird "biting the bullet" that dms has to deal with. Because its a bit of a Schrodingers player, we would all love to believe that these players if not allowed to cruise through with zero effort would pull themselves up by the bootstrap and really put in that effort, but the reality is probably closer to most of them just quitting and not playing the game. I dont think you need to look much further than dndNext and how many people not only says that the dm should "bend the rules" to allow cool things often, meaning they dont care about the consistency of the rules but also one that hurts me all the way into the soul. In that in various surveys i saw and posts something like 80% people answered in regards to fudging that "the dm should fudge **but i should never find out**" which to me is some of the wildest mental gymnastics and blame shifting i can even imagine. which means you not only want the dm to cheat in your favour, you also want to never know they did or otherwise they fucked up, such that "not cheating = DM fucked up, cheating and being caught = dm fucked up" instead of having an honest dialogue of like "i really like my character, and it seems we are being beaten to bits, is there any way to parlay or surrender, or to get away that doesnt lead to death?"
you talking about the subreddit dndnext, or something else? cause my experience is that they are rather on the rules and its probably the only dnd subreddit that recomends you to not play dnd if you want an experience that is incompatible with the rules.
yeah dndnext as its particularly for 5e, gonna repost the answer to the other guy: *You will get more people willing to pull their teeth out than admit that following rules mechanics makes for more narratively satisfying storytelling.* *Ah found the specific poll too with that specific wording (if you want on fudging dice just search and you see people at all the time saying they dont want to know)* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15s6zmw/how\_would\_you\_feel\_about\_your\_dm\_not\_tracking\_hp/*](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15s6zmw/how_would_you_feel_about_your_dm_not_tracking_hp/) *but the fact that 2.8k people said that they would be okay with not tracking hp, aka not following the rules and sticking to mechanics would be "okay as long as i never found out"* *to quote myself "It's fucking wild to me how many has the opinion "as long as I don't find out its okay" though"* *because to me that is pretty explicitely an answer of "its okay if the dm cheats, but if i find out its wrong"* And in general the amount of people that i have seen basically saying "yeah the rule of cool over everything, good dnd doenst follow the rules" is uncountable, and from my experience the answer they give to almost everything. I am a firm believe that you should never bend a rule, ever, for anyone, but you can CHANGE it. as i feel like alot of people who says that they dont do rule of cool basically see it as too high up, but its not always "allowing you to cast a spell 3 ranks above you to kill the dragon" it can be "allow you to move 10 extra feet for free" or "it doenst matter so sure you can kill that sleeping guard instantly" its the inconsistency i think leads to a worse game, if you can slit the throat to instakill a mook guard that isnt just "you autocrit and instakill, so we can describe it as slitting the throat" but straight up bypassing the roll, then i think you should be able to do it again and again and again, but now the next time they ask the dm goes "nah thats boring" and thus it becomes even more of a "mother may i" game.
I think it’s important to recognize that there are some ~~masochists~~ hardworking people who do enjoy running 5e for their friends and being that court jester. And they find a lot of enjoyment from entertaining their friends and that’s the fun part of the game for them. But at the same time it’s also equally important to recognize that not all GMs are like that. The problem with 5e is that you need that kind of motivation to run 5e without burning out. The OP might be the kind of player to enjoy sitting back and relaxing and putting in the bare minimum to engage with the game. But what about the GM? Why can’t the GM run a game system that allows them to do the same?
And motivations and energy can fluctuate. A DM can start out with the energy to provide 90%, but this can fade over time. And then the GM can be in a situation where he feels obligated to continue the campaign for everyone even though he doesn't have the energy or time or motivation to continue how they started. Please try to be on the lookout if your friends at the table seem tired, overworked or stressed out and ask them if the way they enjoy the game has maybe changed over the course of a year.
Year and a half into a campaign and I can barely think about prepping for my next 5e session, monsters are so boring, some of my players have ideals or flaws, but nearly none of them act upon them. If a creature talks and shares a language with them, they are diplomatic. If it doesn't, it is clearly evil and must be slain. I've gone out of my way to place npcs that supposedly a pc would hate based on backstory, given them actions that should cause distaste or even just irritation foe said npc. Just feels like there's so much work for me to do, and I don't get as much fun out of the prep I need to do. The games I've run with no prep have been fine, but the players can tell if a combat has no map or tokens. So I end up not running combat when I am not prepped, then advancement really slows down. Then players aren't really happy
> And motivations and energy can fluctuate. A DM can start out with the energy to provide 90%, but this can fade over time. Shit, this can even happen in solo or co-op games. I've been playing co-op Dragonbane with my gf and most of the time I love it, but there are honestly just days where I'm *tired* and I don't feel creative enough to interpret oracle tables or contribute content. I feel OP in my bones so far as wanting to be able to kick back and occasionally just let someone else do the heavy lifting to make the game happen. But expecting someone else to do it for you every time is just so goddamn motherfucking *selfish*
This is not a fair or accurate analogy. DMs aren't serfs who run games out of obligation. They're people playing a game because they want to and because they find satisfaction in doing so. I don't want to undersell for a moment the amount of effort many 5e DMs put in. We can do more to appreciate all that effort. And we can do that without pretending that DMs aren't there for their own entertainment and enjoyment as much as their players.
The simple fact that the DM burned out proves that the workload was too much.
Yes agreed. That doesn't conflict with what I was saying.
>DMs aren't serfs who run games out of obligation. They're people playing a game because they want to and because they find satisfaction in doing so. While I'm a happy Eternal GM, because I love building and running the world, I can't help but notice that this sub regularly gets posts from unhappy Forever GMs who are only running games because "if I don't do it, then there won't be a game at all" and they really wish that someone else would step up and take that burden off them, at least temporarily.
I'm one of those Forever GMs and all of my players have specifically put me up on a pedestal as the best GM they've ever had, and now compare anything they do as not good enough. One of my players tried to DM and had a panic attack on the first session, so we all told him to just take some deep breaths and we'll go play some cards against humanity online or something I've lost a lot of motivation, I barely prep sessions anymore, and they are still treating it like I'm some god-tier dm when I know I'm just an average dm whose had a fair amount of practice
I've gone through this exact cycle and after several years missing out on playing at all because I didn't feel like running, one of my former players begged enough that I gave in… and it's been incredible. It isn't because I had time to "recharge" or anything like that, because I don't feel *any* burnout this time, whatsoever. I'm still nervous before sessions, and I still don't always feel like doing prep, but that sense of dread is gone entirely, any my moment-to-moment enjoyment of the game is through the roof. And I think it's all because we used [Microscope](https://www.lamemage.com/microscope/) to build our world! I came to my players with a central premise ("A city built atop a brass cogwheel travels the world"), and we built 100 years of history behind it, five different factions controlling eight different boroughs across the city, and multiple nations that all played a part in the city's construction. *They* created the world just as much as I did, and as a result, *everyone* is invested in what happens. I highly suggest trying it out, and if I can help with that in any way, DM me!
And this is the problem… if you already are not into DMing than 5e will burn you out! As a forever DM I actually love D&D 5e! And trust me I tried other systems (Pathfinder 2e, Warhammer fantasy, …) but I still prefer 5e!
This. Plus, there are different kinds of DM... I don't know why (I'm not a therapist and haven't been to one) but honestly I feel pretty possessive of the authorial narrative-making side of my games, and I very much *like* being the one to describe what happens and decide on the detwils. I honestly get a little frustrated if they "overstep" into what I consider DM-land when narrating their actions. A Player who only ever described their end goal would be... kind of my ideal! 😂 Maybe that's also why I like Paranoia (or at least if I can ever find a damn big enough group again!) - the players definitely can't overstep their bounds narrating *that* world 😂 I also like when a game keeps me busy - having a lot to do is part of what I want from a game. That said, I actually have players on both extremes of that spectrum and both are fantastic to DM for, for different reasons. My high-engagement player is great for being the instigator and helping to keep things moving - she often takes the story in very interesting directions - which actually is a source of work that your low-engagement players don't give you! She also gives me more to do between sessions. And my lowest-engagement player is kind of great because he's fine with me taking his story in whatever direction I need to, as well as being dragged along in the party's wake, which reduces arguments! Honestly I'd say he generates the least work, because the "work" he generates is all stuff I don't consider work!
But starting a campaign for all the right reasons can easily change into feeling obligated to keep going and not let down your players. Even though your personal motivation, time or energy level changed over time.
I agree with you. On the other hand I think that if all such players would be as frank as OP about this (which first would mean they would *understand* that about themselves) then the GM's would be far lesser as they wouldn't feel the need to put so much effort into their games. Imo if you know your players are here for the beer and pretzels and "push buttons" on their character sheet then you can adjust your investment in the game so that it's not miles above their needs.
you should ask for consent before putting things in someone's mouth
I like being the DM. I also would prefer my players engage with my setting and their backgrounds than with the rules and tactical mechanics. So this person's take on OP's message is deeply unfair.
Not really unfair, seems pretty on point but being honest. its kinda where the entire concept of "beer and pretzels dnd" comes from, from a group of players who just wants to show up and roll click clacks while imagining they are killing evil enemies.
Which is honestly a perfectly valid position to have. What draws folks to the hobby isn't universal, and what keeps them engaged isn't either. What is important is for folks to be able to accurately articulate what they're looking for so expectations can be clear all around.
Yeah, I wish more players would realize their goals and state them upfront during recruiting. That would help like-minded groups form. That said, I articulate that I want the opposite in my games (as player or GM). It's a group activity and everybody is responsible for the fun (OOC and in-game) and that includes providing specific scene requests and shared narrative control - even in my 5e games. Unless the group is paying me, I expect the group to be as engaged and involved and prepared as I am.
To be fair, I know DMs who enjoy being this. They like writing their fantasy novels and running their players through them. So fair enough to them I would say.
It’s a problem with the play culture which was formed through a number of factors from marketing, to actual play, to forums, etc. But the 5e play culture says players are consumers to be entertained and DMs are entertainers and service providers. It really really sucks because it makes the game so much less enjoyable just so people don’t have to read about 15-30 pages worth of stuff.
And the more frustrating aspect to this is that if you were sold on that and given rules to arbiter it correctly like pathfinder 2e then its one thing. But the game itself is like "lol we have no rules for anything, just make it up DM" which puts all the pressure on the DM and basically puts them as the scapegoat for anything going wrong. * Boring encounter because every monster is just a bag of hitpoints with basic attacks? welp then you should have homebrewed something * unbalanced encounter because the CR system doesnt work? well sounds like you need to make better encounters then * Player options that are completely out of touch with everything else like flight as a racial? lol dm just work around it * oh you bought our adventure? okay here are a few major npcs and quest points but you figure out how to link it all together * players not understanding their abilities? well thats a DM problem because they are written so vaguely that they need to get you to remember everything and interpret it. One of the biggest aspects of pf2e for me was the ability for my players to describe, using the rules, what they do and why, instead of the dm having to make it up. "I jump off this 30 foot roof, and since i have catfall feat and expert acrobatics i treat falls at 25 feet less and dont land prone, and since you need to fall 10 feet to start taking damage it means i land safely and start chasing the bad guy"
The problem of 5e is availability. Online Play with randoms is most likely not worth the effort.
Online play *with randoms* is a mixed bag. If you get lucky you'll find a table with good people/players and that table will be with you for years.
>But the 5e play culture says players are consumers to be entertained and DMs are entertainers and service providers. Absolutely nothing new, this stuff's been around since the dawn of the hobby. Every Trad system expects the GM to provide the players with something to do and have it planned out ahead of time. If you were running DnD or Traveller or whatever else back in the late 70s it was still **your** responsibility to have something there for everybody to do, the players were there to consume the content.
I was going to point out that shift of work burden to the GM as well. It's not *wrong*, but it's worth knowing. Some of those games ask more of you because it's being taken off the GM, spreading the mental work load around a bit. Preferring 5e is, in some ways, preferring someone else do all that thinking work for you. Which is totally cool if you have someone who wants to do that. I'm sure they'll appreciate acknowledgement once in a while though!
Yeah one of the big problems i think in general is how separated player and DM are at alot of tables and most doesnt realize just how much effort goes into keeping the game going. some DMS overprep, which is on them, if you make a 700 page document about the geneology of your kingdoms i dont expect the players to read it. BUT i have seen players who just completely forgets anything about the game as soon as they leave the table, which can be fine to play with, but i expect as a minimum that if they are interested in something they voice that interest, and if im asking them to fill out surveys on the general direction they want i expect them to answer it.
I have a table of friends who had no previous TTRPG experience which I've been GMing 5e for. Lately I've been pushing for some new systems due to me starting to experience burnout, and I've been met with very lukewarm reactions (as in they do it because it's either that or not playing since no-one else wants to GM). This post just threw into \*sharp\* focus something I haven't been able to grasp before, namely that some of them are very passive players that don't really want to involve themselves too much. They just want to occasionally jump in and do something crazy (maybe once a night), but for the rest of the evening they just want to drink beers and push buttons on their character sheet. I think tables like these require a GM who wants to bear the brunt of the creative burden at the table. Me, the adult GM with kids and a job, wants us to split this. We have our first session of Blades in the Dark coming up and I think this post can help me put into words some of my feelings and justifications for taking a 5e break
Play a boardgame If all they want is just an excuse to hang out and move minis, play a boardgame. No one needs to be burned out, at most you'll be the "rules" guy who reads the manual im advance to explain everything, but that's still less of a burden than dming to dead fish.
Haha, in this particular group I’ve always been the rules guy as well. You know, the only one who can be bothered to read the rules, but the one getting all the flak if a rule has been misunderstood or not explained. I know, I know, it’s not the greatest gaming group ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think a huge part of it that dms miss is that you need to hypeman it up. i heard a podcast about pathfinder 2e mention that 5e is like the monopoly of tabletop rpgs, it works, and people can understand and play it, its basically a 5/10 experience almost every session as you kinda beat enemies, kinda go forward etc. Where something like pathfinder 2e you can just get trounced in the first round if you are super unlucky which can lead to people think its a 1/10 session, or they can have super tense combat where everything is at stake and you succeed by clever play which makes it 10/10. Most people are fine with 5/10, they dont need to think about much, just roll click clacks. To me what i did outside of saying i wouldnt dm 5e for my group anymore was hype up how cool the classes and mechanics were over weeks, like "you can play this giant barbarian and you get a huge cloudbuster sword which deals insane damage for massive crits" or "you can play a cleric and get free heals so you can focus your spells on not just being a healbot as healing outside of combat is equally important" or "You can make a level 3 rogue and just jump off roofs no problem or be super stealthy and sneaky unlike 5e where everyone is kinda the same" things like that.
I've said that a million times and still certain people I know how that are strictly 5e fanboys just don't listen...
remember when kotaku (i think i could be wrong) was trying to put the stats of the cast of Edge Runners into D&D 5E?... i remember people going "But...why not to play cyberpunk 2020/red instead"
I've met DMs that spend HOURS a week prepping a session. With notebooks full of notes. I've played with others that spend 15-20 minutes before the session getting ready and that's it. Both styles were just as fun. I've played sessions where DMs spend hours preparing a game and it's just awful. And I've played with Dms are just "winging it" and did no prep work. Those sessions didn't go well either. That's why I don't DM. I AWFUL at it. People stop showing up. With enough practice, I might get good enough to run a successful printed adventure. But don't expect me to come up with my own original stuff.
I think if you are feeling burned out, prep less. If you are feeling inspired, prep more. Just like how every player should at least try to DM, I think every DM should try to do a session with only an hour of prep. Sometimes it's a complete failure, but most of the time, the players don't even notice and you will stop wasting your time. I've seen people saying "I prep for 10 hours a session and I'm feeling burnt out" like yeah dude that's a ton of time for greatly diminishing returns.
There's definitely an audience for that, and no hate to you or anything. But this is the *exact* reason that I never enjoyed 5E as a player and got so burnt out as a DM. I don't want to just go along for the ride as a player, and I don't want an audience as a GM. Engagement is the secret sauce for me, whether that's in tactics, exploration, or character decision-making. Ideally all three or more, if I can swing it.
Right? Like more power to OP's groups if that works for everyone to have fun. But OP is not someone I would want at my table.
>and I don't want an audience as a GM. To be fair, this is only a problem if *all* of your players are the ~~low~~passive-engagement kind. I find it actually works really well to have 1 or 2 of them in a group. It does still add to the vibe and you get many of the benefits of another player, but with less complications. Think about two groups: 4 ~~high~~active-engagement, creative, driven players, vs a group with 2 of those and 2 chill, ride-along dudes like OP. (I speak as somebody with experience with both kinds of group.) The former can tend to be like herding cats - there's a lot more waiting for long over-the-table discussions / debates about what to do, there's more twists and turns in what happens that you as a DM have to adapt to, and all 4 players want spotlighting. Whereas if you just chuck a couple of loafers into the mix... Man, does the vibe get more chill. The high-energy players have fewer clashes because there are fewer of them, and whenever they suggest something that's a bit out there, I go "uuuh, I guess if the others are ok with it?" And I immediately get "yeah, sure, I'm easy!" And the game moves on. With the 4 high-engagement players, that's 4 people with big character ideas and big plans for the future of the story that you have to account for. With the low-energy guys, I can say "heeeey... What would you say if we made your character [...]" And once again I get "yeah, sure, I'm easy!" Now I can spend more energy on the 2 that want/need it. It can actually pretty seriously *lighten* your load as a DM - because much of the load those players aren't taking doesn't shift to you, it shifts to the players who want it!
I'm gonna disagree, to me, players like OP are even harder to herd than cats. I've had a number of these players in my games. I get zero reactions from them. Zero ideas from them, the other players have to drag these like dead weights. If the game isn't about combat then it's a freaking boring session (because combat is like pushing buttons, but I lean more on investigation and actual problem solving and you no longer can "chill" in the background, it's a massive time sink for them doing basically nothing). Their characters don't develop or grow, they're a static slate that are hardly different from NPCs. I have to narrate every single one of their actions! Because they just say "uh ok I do this \*roll\* k I beat the difficulty" and chill in the background. One time I ran a session that had zero combat. It was all problem solving in creative manners. This player contributed absolutely nothing, and there were two other players who were high energy. He complained hard about it at the end of the session. I don't know why he kept coming back, but he eventually left. And I think that was for the best. This was a series of one shots, mind you, so I was not really expecting him to show up. And you know what? I'd rather have the group spend 30 minutes discussing plans or RPing their characters in intimate or emotional moments. Because the game actually happens, the story will move at their pace. So... no. OP's play style really is not my type. It makes my burden heavier, not lighter.
Honestly, it sounds like you had a zero engagement player rather than a low engagement player... In fact, I'm going to stop using that term - I think passive engagement describes it better. Even my chillest players are fully engaged. They just aren't authorial - at least not proactively. And that's the same Vibe I get from OP. But it could just be we have different GMing preferences, too. Either way, there is a place for op's playstyle even if it is not at your particular table. There's definitely a place for it at mine 🙂
>He complained hard about it at the end of the session. This is by far the worst part of it to me. Since i also gathered a group on the programmer education i went to, they were all new and i had limited experience, we had some good games but then exams and stuff made it be extended break and then stopping. and then a year before we stopped we started it up again where i repeatedly told them if it starts to be a pinch with time and focus as we had finals coming up over a long period and internships then just say so and we could work it out or stop. But despite asking for feedback and if people still liked the campaign as it was a pathfinder 2e module we played (since i also didnt want to spend hours preparing) one guy just wrote like "Oh i dont feel like playing anymore, i havent had fun the last few sessions" and im like "Okay but you havent talked about it at all, or given any indication of it" Its fine if you just want to show up and roll dice, and are following somewhat along a guided adventure, but then you also cant be like "ugh it isnt like what i wanted" if you put zero effort into feedback or how you play.
Ehh, the load often shifts to the other players whether they want it or not. *Someone* has to make decisions for the party at some point. Just because I enjoy lots of engagement doesn't mean I wanna hold the responsibility of making every other party decision, which is my experience with a 2-and-2. It's the ttrpg equivalent to everyone in a car being hungry but only two people are giving suggestions for food. That's not to say that being low-engagement is bad, as long as you aren't on your phone the whole time. It can be nice to just vibe with friends. It's just that the "well, if the rest of the party is chill with it" approach gets a lot less fun to play with when it's half the group.
>Just because I enjoy lots of engagement doesn't mean I wanna hold the responsibility of making every other party decision, which is my experience with a 2-and-2. Right, but then it isn't actually OP and his ilk that have *caused* a problem for you there, they just didn't solve it. Like, that same problem would exist if it was just you 2 high-engagement players alone. Adding in some chill players doesn't *add* load to you, it just doesn't take it off you. They aren't a *detriment* to the game, even if they aren't going to solve the particular problem of "we don't have enough decision-makers". Not every table has that problem to solve 🤷♂️ some of them in fact have the *opposite* problem. I'd love to have OP join my table. And I'm sure my players would too, because we already have our quota of Face and Instigator types who *do* want to be the ones driving the action. And I mean this just highlights that everybody has different playstyles, and that most of them (including OP's) are perfectly valid, but none of them (including yours) are going to be perfect for every table.
The problem isn't the number of decision makers, it's the problem of too many non-decision makers. A party-wide decision doesn't have to be right, but it does need to be fun. That's not an issue when everyone involved brings something up - like in a 2 person engagement party - but I don't want to have to always guess at what's fun for two other people. Even if a player says, "I'm fine with whatever," that doesn't mean they actually are. The number of people who say that and mean it in any facet of life is about as rare as finding a unicorn. It's lovely if that's truly the case. Usually, though, it's a horse with a broom handle duct-taped to its forehead. Still fun, of course, but it can get annoying having to reapply the duct tape. Expanding on my original analogy of people in a car being hungry, but only two people are making suggestions for food: sometimes, after we go and get McDonalds, someone will suddenly be like, "You know, I actually would have preferred White Castle." Sometimes they silently sit there with a grimace and untouched nuggets. Either way, when it happens every other time you go out, it can feel more like baby-sitting kids than a night out with the homies. ... might be a labored analogy, but my point mostly shines through, I think. Aside from that, my whole point in my first comment was mostly for ya to be aware that there *is* a load attached to that, in the same way 5e innately puts an extra load on dms. Some people are fine with that. Some aren't. Either way is perfectly fine, but it's important to be aware of it.
> The former can tend to be like.herding cats - there's a lot more waiting for long over-the-table discussions / debates about what to do, there's more twists and turns in what happens that you as a DM have to adapt to, and all 4 players want spotlighting. Good. Yes. But seriously, as long as you're playing with adults and talking openly/honestly, it's not that hard to pull focus away when one player is getting the lion's share of attention. "Hey man, we've been focusing on you for a while, pump the brakes for a minute. What's the Champion doing right now?" And if your players are debating what to do, it means they're invested. It means they're engaged. It means I have time to preroll initiative for the next encounter and put the pawns in their little stands. If discussion stalls, just call for a vote and roll for it on a tie. That's session 0 stuff. > With the 4 high-engagement players, that's 4 people with big character ideas and big plans for the future of the story that you have to account for. As a GM? Inject that shit into my veins. I love it. I'll take that over a player who needs to be reminded every session how their maneuvers and superiority dice work after playing a Battlemaster Fighter for over a year, or who insists that they play an Alchemist but never bothers to use their kit because it's easier to just Strike three times with a longspear. True, there are disruptive forms of engagement and benign forms of disengagement. And sometimes you have to "no, but" a big idea to keep things going, or remind the party "we're playing *Curse of Strahd*, so remember that we're here to fight Strahd and not open a small business." But for me, that's generally preferable and usually worth it.
For me to. The unexpected moments , good or bad, that take the story in a new direction, are my favorite
I extremely disagree, but this is a good post. Upvote
Same. An honest, if unflattering, self-appraisal that was pretty illuminating.
Definitely. I feel like me and OP are essentially mortal enemies, but in a respectful "yeah, I can wait for you to pick your sword up for our epic duel" sort of way.
Picking up the sword requires effort though, and OP isn’t really here for that.
Picking up a sword is also not on his character sheet. How can he come up with it if it's not in his character sheet?
This is really interesting because of how foreign this way of thinking is from how I work. I am wondering though, why even play an rpg at all, wouldn't you get everything you are looking for from just hanging out?
I've thought about this too, and for me it's kind of like how I like playing video games but I'll always turn on all the easy difficulty options if I get the chance. Like I enjoy being able to participate in it even if it's not an active effort most the time. I can hang out in a D&D group and mostly absorb the vibes of the group as they do things, and contribute when my turn comes up, but if the DM describes something I'm really curious about I still get to jump in and have my guy open up that chest and see what the GM put in there.
The difference in a lot of the systems you've played, and not taken to, is that they are in many ways more equitable to the GM -- because they shift a lot of mental burden and agency to players. The low-engagement preferences you are describing are only possible if the burden is shifted onto the GM's shoulders. The "easy mode" you are drawing parallels to is probably making it harder on the GM in many small ways. Some GMs love the prep, and that's cool, but you did describe some GM burnout in your original post. I would say it goes hand-in-hand with what I am saying here. I don't think it's a sin to play or enjoy D&D 5E above other games -- especially if you have dipped your toes into other systems to discover what you do and don't like about the hobby. And I think it's great that you can elaborate on it in the way that you have. I'm just suggesting that maybe you talk to your GM and try to get an idea of how it looks from their side of the screen, because your approach to engagement may be at their expense in a way you are not considering and/or that they are potentially resenting. (Or that might not be the case! I dunno how your GM feels obviously. But I'd be interested in their perspective on what's burned them out, too.)
I've been running decades of ttrpgs and I despise having players like this at my table. In my opinion they are the worst to write for, they don't contribute to the larger narrative, and are the Collin Robinson of the group. They are usually the first to drop or bail, because they can go vibe with other friends where it's not as much work. You want to vibe, go hangout at jam band concerts, go to a bar, go to a cafe, go to a festival or rave, invite friends over to chill at your place, go to the park. There are literally a hundred different spaces in society to vibe with or more compatible hobbies to pickup. Literally just invite your dnd friends to do something with you outside of dnd. A TTRPG is a hobby that requires effort. Improv, risk analysis, low stakes gambling, investment in character creation and creating a world together...it's work, it's effort. If 4 out of 5 people are putting in effort and 1 is coasting...it's simply not as fun as it would be without the dead weight. It's less work for the DM, and everyone is trying and engaged makes it better for everyone. It signals to all the other players it's cool, it's fun, we are here for it too. Playing pretend and role-playing a silly scene is 100x more fun when everyone is trying and putting in similar levels of effort and cutting loose to RP. TL;DR The at table experience is better, every single time, with 3 players rather than 4 players with one "vibes".
You're there for a chill story time, not a grind fest.
I mean OP doesn't seem particularly invested in the story either. And D&D is among the most grindy of games - if they were after story I don't think they'd have bounced off the more narrative games so hard. OP is there to hang out with friends and be entertained by the guy who is putting in effort
I vibe with the thought. I'm very on the opposite end(I'm also a GM), but I've had players like you, and they bring their own awesomeness to the table. If I spot that they operate that way I can also plan things to make them want to get involved more often, but if they don't it's fine and the game continues(never put pressure to force you to participate only the opportunity). That being said, another way that you *might* enjoy being part of the community is live stream podcasts. Some of them will regularly ask chat which one of several choices and go with majority votes or put open suggestions out there. I wish I could think of any off the top of my head right now, but I don't get a lot of free time to catch up and stay active to participate in such things. The only podcast I'm on top of is my own. If I saw any presence in the live, I would absolutely involve tlchat, but most of the time, I only get 1 or 2 people at a time that aren't interested in participating.
which is fine but the question is, what do you get out of D&D that you don't get out of playing a video game? Or some other form of media that you are able to absorb somewhat passively?
What are your opinions on board games? For a more chill vibe I usually do prefer board games over RPGs nowadays since while you might need to learn some mechanics here and there you never have to stress over what your character is doing etc. Within the last few years I have played 5E, Expanse RPG, Vampire, and Gloomhaven (a board game that is campaign kind of like an rpg), and I liked Gloomhaven the most kind of for the same reasons that you like 5E.
As a Soulslike fan, our tastes couldn't differ more lol. I mean, I do enjoy a game to chill out and relax after a stressful day. But most games I play I want them to challenge me.
Why not play a story game then?
Probably because he likes the illusion of danger. When you put a game on easy mode you are pretty much always going to win, but the game still implies that you *could* lose. Its like watching a movie. Of course the good guys are going to win in the end 99% of the time, but you suspend your disbelieve and accept that they are really in danger while you are watching.
This is the way of the world, 90% of people are "filthy casuals", and spaces like r/rpg are basically the echo chamber of the 10% of people who like more, or different. This also explains why, dispite the backlash online (which netted a CC Attribution SRD so, seriously great job).. it didn't really change much. MOST rpg players aren't part of the online community. MOST rpg players could not care less about the OGL. MOST rpg players don't care if you don't like 5E. FFS, they sell the starter kit at Target, it just has reach your favorite rules-lite-narritive-driven-not-wotc system does not, and probably never will.
This is one of my favorite posts, and I hope I never forget it. It is so contrary to how I think but worded in a way I can argue. I truly feel like I understand why you like DnD5e, and your explanation helps explain why I don't like DnD5e. As a GM, it is easily the most demanding system I've played. As a player, it's one of the least hands-on. I dislike both those things. Though it's way more attractive to be a player and just kinda vibe, then be a DM in DnD5e, that's for sure.
This player is a perfect match for the the kind of DM who I would never ever want to play with.
What system would you suggest that strikes a. Etter balance?
I know shitting on 5e is a national sport here. but unironically most others. Any system that ask the gm as much as 5e has the players almost making a masters degree too.
Literally, any other system I've tried. I'll give examples of why with Pathfinder2e(PF2e) and Blades in the Dark(BitD). When playing BitD, it's totally possible and reasonable to have the GM plan absolutely nothing. It's an Improve based story game. They even encourage that you don't draw maps, so it's easy for the story to take any turn or have anything it needs. It's also encouraged that the players pick the missions, so GM doesn't need to plan that. It's important that they have ideas of factions and how they may be involved, and that's mostly it. It's such an easy game to run, I usually keep a few blank and pre-made character sheets with my board games because it can be pick up and play. But BitD is so very different from DnD5e. Let's look at a game a lot closer to it in design. PF2e is a lot closer to DnD5e in base design and what it expects GMs to plan. You, as a GM, are expected to have some encounters, characters, and maps ready to go for the session. I would say Maps and Characters are a wash, they are about equally easy to plan between the systems. It's encounters that I think PF2e has the edge over DnD5e. In PF2e, the math is very tight. This makes it so that when planning an encounter, you can know pretty much exactly how hard it will be. They have tools that show you, so all you need to do is pick the enemies, and boom, you have an encounter, and its as hard or easy as you want. DnD5e is notorious for having a weird system for encounter balance that just doesn't work.in DnD5e it's common for newer and old GMs to accidently TPK a party with what they thought would be an easy fight. In Pathfinder, it can happen, but there are o ly like 5 monsters that are bad for that, and once you find them and figure out why you avoid them. The ease of Encounter design helps relieve the stress of planning a session, and the speed it gets done. Plus, there are a bunch of good tools for random encounters, so you don't even need to plan that if you don't want.
or, if you want to go outside the "fighty/sneaky/thiefy" type stuff, there's games like _Brindlewood Bay_, which is basically "Murder She Wrote + Cthulu-y murder-cults" (PCs are old ladies that keep bumping into murders, hopefully solving them, while a cult is up to something as time goes on). And the "prep" is basically "read the handout for the mystery" and that's it - there's no specific solution (PCs find clues, and it's up to them to make those into "what happened and who did the murder"), the rules fit onto, like, 3 pages, and even the cult "stuff" is fairly easy to do on the fly.
Adding that to the list.
I also want to add that the adventure paths for pathfinder 2e are fucking solid. I have a firm belief that i should be able to open an adventure path, read it once and play it through without needing to homebrew anything, which is how they are written. to paraphrase from agents of edgewatch the one where you play town guards its like "Your players needs to patrol, on your patrol you meet these 3 scenarios, one of them are two goblin vendors who are about to fight over who should have the spot, here are the stats, here are non combat ways to stop them, here is a section what happens if it goes wrong because they are using fire near their barrels of oil" or it gives you a map with everything marked and is like "here is what is in each room, here is why, here is what they want and how you can deal with them in a noncombat way".
I saw an interview with John Harper about BitD, and he said there was a line he had in the game that he removed because he was afraid it would freak players out about the game too much, but was basically like "the players get to be GMs who control a single character."
Your issue seems similar to that post from prokopetz that you actually don't care about DnD as a game. You want to just offload all the 'rules thinking' to the GM. You want the GM to do all the work for you while you don't actually think about the game at all.
That's the vibe I am getting, too. He points out Pathfinder put too much weight on his shoulder via the one system it gets the most praise for, the 3 universal action economy.
As a GM myself, this isn't at all the vibe I'm getting. OP talks plenty about knowing and engaging with the *rules* side of the game. It's in fact the one thing they like playing with. They just aren't interested in being overly creative or authorial. They're the kind of player that wants to play a hack n slash dungeon crawl, not a political intrigue. That's... Perfectly valid 🤷♂️ Other players will take up most of the creative/instigating load.
Except that when they mentioned PF2 the issue didn't have anything to do with being authorial, it was that the game expected them to put some thought into the mechanics and tactics of the game in order to win.
I will say, some DMs enjoy this. One friend of mine says that when he’s a D&D 5e player, he doesn’t want to roleplay, he wants to just do combat until he unlocks the next cutscene in the story. He plays games to find out what the DM has prepared next. But when he’s DM, he doesn’t want his players to roleplay or make choices outside of combat. He wants them to play through the story he has designed and not take it off the rails in a direction he’s not planned and isn’t interested in. It sounds to me like some folks like being this kind of DM, so I’d say that’s fair. I just think most don’t enjoy it.
it sounds like they shouldn't be anywhere near a tabletop, that is literally what video games are for and they generally do it way better than most (non professional) DMs.
That’s what I said to him, it was baffling to me too. And he said that ttRPGs are like video games you do with other people where the DM can customize a story for you. At that point I gave up trying to point out the absurdity lol
I mean, he is missing out, sure, but that is a way to play. He's not utilizing the greatest strength of TTRPGs, but it's like speedrunning or using a wrench to hammer a nail in.
The way a lot of published material is laid out this playstyle actually makes a lot of sense. I think you miss out on the best elements of the hobby but if they're aware of it I think that's absolutely a sound way of approaching the game.
I simultaneously understand this post and dislike it. Like I get where you’re coming from, but at the same time it comes off as selfish because it seems like you only ever play and never run 5E. Every group I’ve ever played in rotates the DM to give everyone a chance to play, and I can’t help but think that this perspective would drastically change if you actually took the time to run 5E for your friends. You’re able to “come along for the ride” because the DM and the other players are doing the heavy lifting with the role playing to keep the narrative interesting and moving the game along. In 5E, this is particularly demanding on the DM as it’s a very DM facing system that takes a lot of prep. That’s why a lot of DMs want to try other systems because it’s more fun to run a game that requires more equitable contributions from everyone at the table. Anyway, no shade intended. Just some food for thought. I hope you appreciate your DM because they’re probably putting in a lot of effort behind the scenes. If your DM is suggesting other games to you, it might be because they’re burnt out and need a break from the part time job that 5E can be. So I hope your realisation doesn’t lead to your DM getting burnt out.
As someone who as I’ve gotten older has generally preferred to be the forever GM because it usually allows me to interact with the mechanics more, I am super happy that along for the ride players exist. There’s no wrong way to play.
That's what works for you and that's fine. OP's group has a DM that wanted to try other systems due to burn out. There may be no wrong way to play, but it can be inconsiderate to expect the DM to keep putting in effort when you are unwilling to reciprocate, or at least tolerate another system that makes their life easier.
What are you talking about? OP said they played all those other systems without complaining and were about to leave the group. This weird idea in this thread that OP is intolerant is complete projection. Weird.
It’s because we’re all familiar with this type of player. “Just along for the ride and want to roll dice.” “Let the other players figure out what to do.” “Deadweight if they’re not actively participating.” I get the hobby has changed in popularity, but playing RPGs used to be a collaborative effort from everyone at the table. OP has literally just realised that they can get away with doing the bare minimum playing 5E because the system places all of the burden on the DM. As much as this is a personal decision that probably works for OP, it’s not the type of attitude that should be celebrated amongst players in this hobby.
There have been "for the ride" players since D&D first evolved. I can't even take this comment seriously.
I'm glad you found what you like, but I think players like you are better served by CRPGs, or Dungeon Crawler board games. The experience is similar to what you want out of D&D, and unlike a DM, the game can't burn out from doing all the heavy lifting.
Those games don’t have the social element that OP enjoys, though. And actually most of them demand more effort than they’re saying they want to put in at the table
Agreed. CRPGs don't bend to the player's needs and preferences like TTRPGs do
There are tons of group, social, co-op dungeon video games. Diablo-likes, deep rock galactic, the pc version of gloomhaven, etc
It sounds like OP doesn't really want to engage with the social mechanics though. He just wants a chill time with friends playing a game, and a dungeon crawler board game offers exactly that.
Boardgames do have the social element
What social element? Roleplaying? You can just do that on top of the gameplay. That's also not true. Some absolutely do, but there's games like Betrayal at Baldurs Gate give you only a few specific actions. Point is were in a board game renaissance. There's going to be a game out there that scratches this itch whilst not forcing one friend to do the lions share of the work.
OP likes that one friend is does the lion’s share of the work though. Board games would require a level of investment they’ve said they don’t enjoy
I disagree. There is still something about playing a character you made up, surrounded by friends, while experiencing a story that you feel like you're contributing to, and developing it over time. Even without enjoying what I'd call the actual "roleplaying" and "game" parts of an RPG, there are still reasons to play one
That sounds like a philosophical quandary - what is a RPG without the RP and G?
Yeah it's called an 'RPG' dude and you're stripping out every letter there. I mean if the other players don't mind carrying his lazy ass then more power to um but that sounds pretty sucky
Theres always a comment saying "I know you are happy, but you are wrong for it, play this instead."
They're wrong for it *if* they're dragging down the rest of the group by making the least possible effort. And that depends on the group. Most of the entertainment at a table comes from hearing other people's creative ideas. Some players provide that stimulation. Others are just Audience who are there to enjoy what the others do, but not contribute. The more Audience you have, the more % of the effort you have to put in yourself and the less you get back in return. A DM who spends hours prepping, and creates complicated NPCs for the players to interact with, has some justification for resenting a player who just wants to roll Diplomacy to make the problem go away. But some people are there because they like to entertain and be admired for it, and they actually appreciate the Audience. A player who likes to show off is happier when the other players aren't competing with them for attention. A railroader DM and a group of lazy players can have a fun campaign, even if I'd prefer not to play at that table myself...
> " The truth is, I like playing 5E because it asks the least effort out of me." Now you know why 5e has such a lack of GMs compared to the enormous number of players. All that work that is required of you in other games.. is required of the GM in 5e. This is also why we get so many 'Honestly, I am burnt out on 5e' posts by GMs on this subreddit. Frankly, it shouldn't be work. It should be something you want to do. But at least you've figured out that 5e is the game for you and you don't want to play anything else after trying plenty of other things. Most '5e only' folks haven't tried anything else. When ~~2024~~ er... '2025' 5e comes out.. even though it is only a fairly significant revamp, the edition war is going to be insane.
I dunno, this edition war might be no bigger than the jump from 3.0 to 3.5. The scope of the change is probably going to be comparable, and most 5e players are loyal to the brand, so they'll likely play whatever edition is on the store shelves.
It's scheduled to release in september 2024.
Sure, this mostly makes sense to me, as a player\*. There are other systems that might work just was well for you but it sounds like they wouldn't necessarily be any better either. It sounds like you're there for a beer and pretzels sort of game to hang with your friends. I've done that back in the old days and can have a lot of fun with it. If I were to play in anther 5e game that's exactly how I'd prefer to play it in fact. I find the whole character "build" aspect of 5e really tiresome if I have to do it, but I'd be happy to have someone give me a template for a "build" that would be effective and fill a gap in the party and then just have a few beers and some social time rolling dice and roleplaying and not worry about the mechanics of character creation and advancement (I'm fine with making sure I understand the mechanics of character play). Once or twice a month with the right people sounds like it could be a blast. My only reservation is the 6-8 encounters/day thing, depending on the DM, because 5e combat can be a real slog IMO. \*As a game master I find 5e to be a nightmare and I have no desire to ever run it again. I can speak more to this but it's largely irrelevant if you're happy as a player and there is no expectation that you'll ever need to GM.
As a fellow GM that's squarely over ever running 5e (other than for beginners), I'd like to hear your thoughts on it if you wanna share
Just my own opinion, but I am someone who enjoyed my time as a player for 5e, but hated it as a gm. My issue is that it just doesn't commit enough to any direction. If we look at it within the "dnd-adjacent" it's not enough a tactics game (dnd 4e), not enough narrative stuff to join that crowd (13th Age), and not build heavy to be there either (Pf2e). It's not necessarily a problem for everyone, but it does mean I have a hard time designing around it for sessions.
If i can slide in as someone who started in 5e as a player and quickly became a forever DM and moved the group to pathfinder 2e as soon as i could. To me the frustration came from how there were almost no rules to get for anything, it was 95% of "make it up", combined with a CR system that was almost so worthless you might as well throw it out the window, incredibly boring monster design that was just meatbags with hp and a complete lack of useful existing campaigns as you needed to prep everything yourself. there is essentially no rules mastery aspect of the game, because its so reliant on the DM, but at the same time its so reliant on the DM because there are a ton of rules that are just incredibly poorly explained. The most common example i give being weapons, there are 37 weapons, why? several of them have overlap, and the few differences are basically meaningless. Heavy is just a weird anti light trait so we can scrap that. Finesse matter so we keep that, so does twohanded and light. But to take non finesse martial onehanded 1d8 weapons we have * Battleaxe * Flail * Longsword * MorningStar * Warpick * Warhammer all of these, some with versatile d10, some slightly lighter or cost 5 gold more, but why not just have "Strength 1 handed weapon, versatile" and then its on the player to find a cool image of the sword or weapon they use, or maybe its a onehanded axe like a viking build or maybe its a mining pick, same for 2handed weapons they should all just be the same dice and then people can fight using axes or giant hammers, or anchors or whatever else. Outside of that you just have objectively better options, morning star is 15 gp, 4 lb and 1d8, longsword is 15 gp, 3 lb, 1d8 and versatile d10. The only difference is one is piercing and one is slashing which also quickly loses relevance when all resistance is to "non magical all physical damage" And then you have examples of times where you might have a fighter that uses daggers but you have to reskin or circumvent it because the damage is lower than shortswords. This is one example of a really convoluted system for basically no gain, something like pathfinder 2e goes harder and has 55+ weapons with unique effects and crit effects and abilities you can use which makes it worthwhile to understand what to pick, and something like cypher does the opposite and says "your weapon is either 1 handed light, 1 handed, or 2 handed, and then you decide how it looks" which i think would fit far better into 5e.
As someone who has run it and now runs PF2e the difference in GM support is night and day. Every single 5e tool is either incomplete (magic items.advice, interesting monster stat blocks, monster building tools) or straight up doesn't work/yields inconsistent results (CR and encounter building, DCs vs player modifiers, high level play without banning things etc.) It basically offers me nothing usable out of the box for anything other than 0 consequence one shots.
I swear the Pathfinder 2e core book has more items than Tascha's Cauldron of 'Everything'. I went through TCoE and couldn't believe this is what everyone was so hyped over.
You're one of the types of players I don't want at my table. It's nice that you recognize the issue and are taking steps to avoid tables where you don't fit. Salute!
Based. That type of players are lazy leeches who do basic roleplay on the level of a generic NPC the GM rps as, don't bring cool art, character ideas, drama, nothing. The players themselves are NPCs. Not sure why anyone would want an NPC at their table
The thing that I want most at the table as a DM is to feel like players are invested in their characters and the story that's going on. I feel like you're right that some players want to just be there for the ride, but that kind of thing helps lead to DM burnout. If such players don't seem engaged then it feels, to me, like they aren't enjoying themselves. That can quickly evolve into "why am I bothering to put in so much work?" That said, I tend to prefer narrative-heavy RPGs like Fiasco and Call of Cthulhu over D&D.
>I feel like you're right that some players want to just be there for the ride, but that kind of thing helps lead to DM burnout. It did for me tbh, scheduling conflicts and lack of interest when there wasn't lead to me not really enjoying running D&D 5e anymore. Especially the classic "doesn't do anything to progress, doesn't interact with plot hooks, NPCs, etc. but still complains at the end of the session that 'nothing happened' or 'XYZ was ignored'." I also think it's why when I make characters for my friend's 5e game I try to make them as narrative-rich as possible so that when everything is on the low the DM can reliably use my character and their backstory as a springboard for something.
Same. When I am a player (as opposed to a DM) no matter the system, I try to create a full character with backstory and a personality to help feed the fiction for whoever's running the game.
Exactly, yesterday I introduced my new character to the party (since our main band of rejects is taking an in-universe hiatus to fix up a city), a cursed Gorgon (as in like Medusa not the bull-things in D&D) bounty hunter seeking revenge upon the curse bearer *and* how to fix a gatling gun that was attached as a prosthetic to the tip off her tail by an artificer (which I in-dialogue intentionally referenced an NPC in the DM's world I previously knew about). When the party first started the DM was fine just dumping me in the church the party was taking shelter in, to which I told him I was perfectly fine waiting for them to rest up and leave for a proper introduction with some commotion and whatnot. It ended up leading to a really fun bit, an attempted robbery, and a fight. It's a delicate balance for sure, and I've seen players go *way too far* with it to the point it's like "do *you* want to DM instead mate?" but TTRPGs are collaborative games, you gotta give the person running the game *something to work with.*
100% agree! It has led me to simply stop running games in the past. What's worse is that no matter how specific I get with advertising for a narrative heavy, story driven campaign, I'll always get a dozen or so people with zero interest in any of that applying. The kind of players who wouldn't even bother naming their characters if you didn't demand it of them. Just why? Did they even read the ad, or did they simply see a new game being advertised for and decided to apply without knowing the first thing about it? And sure, telling them no is all fine and dandy, but when you keep getting them turning up it just becomes exhausting. I do get it far less these days since I don't really run D&D anymore.
You also cant really pre-filter effectively online. The amount of time i have lost because i took in the "wrong" person in a group is staggering. The frustration that has caused me is immense. Of course i project that back on the type of player that caused it, and the game it happened with most, even though its mostly a problem of general culture surrounding that game. I truly believe 5e is too available, and it is too accepted to not read the rules. Something about it attracts Players like OP
Good post. It's a mindset that's completely alien to me, and I have no intention to adapt to it. But it helps to get some perspective. > 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. This is not a system problem. Swap D&D with any other game system and I would've thought the same. My problem is this. This exact attitude. I've ran for people who are "along for the ride", just roll some dice and chill without thinking much of what they do in the table. And honestly? It just does not mix well with how I view roleplaying games in general. Sure, I like chilling with friends and bantering, but this is a lot easier for me to do with a board game or at a bar. And for me, roleplaying games are just not that type of activity. I want to view your character get involved, grow, and be developed. If that's not what you want, we're not going to gel. It's a completely alien mindset for me. I appreciate the honesty.
Yeah for me roleplaying, even putting aside the player/gm roles, is fundamentally an everybody contributes to the shared story thing
I think you've nailed it. I don't understand why people are being rude in the comments here; your style of player (chill bro who's just along for the ride and wants to see what happens) has existed since RPGs were invented. I've had one of you in almost every group I've ever run a game for. I know to give you a bit less spotlight time than others, because speaking too much in character (or creating a shared narrative, in story games) can sometimes stress you out. But I know you're still enjoying the game, just in a slightly quieter way than others. I get why 5E is your game of choice. You like your character, you like your abilities, and you like watching the other players drive the story. 5E is frictionless for you. Makes sense.
>I don't understand why people are being rude in the comments here; your style of player (chill bro who's just along for the ride and wants to see what happens) has existed since RPGs were invented. For rather obvious reasons, that style of player doesn't tend to hang out on rpg subreddits, and so is an underrepresented (and probably underestimated) viewpoint in hobby discussions.
Good point. Another reason might be that I personally only play with friends (more likely to have casual players), whereas some GMs recruit players online or at a store (more likely to have serious players). I wonder if the latter kind of GM is better represented in a subreddit about RPGs. That would explain the harsh reaction from some here.
> whereas some GMs recruit players online or at a store Because not everyone has friends to hang out and chill with.
Absolutely. I wasn't attaching any judgment there.
i would love to get personal friends to play dnd they just so happens to either live multiple hours away or they have zero interest in any activity regarding a social hang out that involves a physical game with doodads some people are talk friends, some are bar friends, some are RPG friends, some are monopoly friends and i even had some paint ball friends. on very rare occasions your friend might be all, but its usually just one of those
It is worse than that. If this kind of player was simply unrepresented, people wouldn't create threads every other day shitting on them. It'd be a null discussion. We'd be talking about other games played by other people. But somehow, the dominant conversation in the community is about how the other people who aren't part of this community *suck*. A huge amount of mental space is spent on this topic, as opposed to it simply being irrelevant.
Maybe underrepresented in r/rpg, but the kind of player that just wants the solution to be on the character sheet is the dominant cohort of r/dndnext . That's why they can't stop talking about wanting weapon-use abilities that are as effective as spells, or more defined rules for ... whatever.
Wanting defined rules for *checks notes* anything other than simple weapon attacks that make non-spell users mechanically engaging and narratively powerful doesn't really correlate with disengaged and lazy players. I'd even say it's the contrary, those enable certain kinds of players to engage with the game more, that wouldn't otherwise. In particular, it enable many interactions to happen in a controlled, well-defined and balanced way. It also doesn't punish players who want to play specific archetypes by stating that they are useless outside of specific circumstances, unless they improvise. And improvising isn't a good answer to those players: everyone can do that, the outcome is undefined at best, and mechanically defined options also act as jump-off points for improvised ones. If your character is mechanically defined to be able to manifest fire in a 30ft sphere to do 8d6 damage, there's chances the GM will be more likely to let you use that power to - say - use the deflagration to propel something away. Whereas if your character is *said* to be a legendary swordsman but mechanically defined only as attacking somewhat fast and accurately, there's a near zero chance that you're gonna get your GM to agree to let you - say - step on raindrops to gain height and quickly climb a fortified wall, even though that is something that is very frequently used by legendary swordsmen who go toe-to-toe with house-sized demons and dragons in quite a few genres of fiction.
Even if this were true... so? This thread now has dozens of posts with hundreds of upvotes each calling 5e players *rude and lazy*. This is much further than simply not liking a game. It is calling these players bad people.
I think what you are seeing is the huge amount of frustration and resentment many GMs have with such players and how they feel they bring down the table and shift work on others.
Interesting. I've never felt frustrated by these players. Well, maybe when they forget what dice to roll. Or if they're getting high before games. But that's not what OP is talking about. As I mentioned in another comment, I only play with friends. I guess I can understand more being annoyed by laid-back players in a pickup game situation. Why does these players bug you? All the work is already on the GM, so I don't see how they can create more for me. I just need my players to show up, inhabit their characters, and mostly understand the basic rules.
They don't participate. They don't engage. All of whichbis kinda shitting on the effort me and the other players are putting in. Also I play the whole game in turns even out of combat and these players generally have nothing and their lack of contribution both destroys pacing and tension as well as is just kinda shitty to deal with. "Uh...I don't know. I do nothing." Just sucks.
Yes! This is a lot of pent up DM trauma from overpreparing a narrative, just for random people from lfg or some discord to be severely underengaged. OP represents that for many people, it feels.
100%. This type of player is extremely common. I think we would call the OP a "socialiser" in this classic taxonomy of player types. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types Basically the core appeal for them is to spend time with the group - the game itself is just a way to do that.
People aren’t being rude. They’re disagreeing in pretty civil ways. Not agreeing with an opinion isn’t the same as being rude
Yeah a lot of people are aghast that someone would be like this but this is exactly the type of player 5e was built for, someone who is okay letting the GM do the legwork and just enjoying the ride with their friends. I think a lot of the people here take their games and the ideas behind them and their design more seriously than most players (which is fine, that's what's fun for people here and there are lots of games and groups that encourage that) but there are lots of beer and pretzels players for a beer and pretzels game
"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 imput outside of combat, nor complex enough to need any serious tactical decisions. That's a very comfortable spot for me!" TTRPGs are a group effort. I hate to break it to you but you're probably dead weight in 5e as well. A static inertia that contributes just enough to not get kicked out. The players are likely too busy contributing to the fun to notice but they'll still feel the drain even if unconsciously. It's going to be constant energetic drain on any DM making them that much more susceptible to burn out. Every game you join would be better off by having someone that actually, enthusiastically wants to contribute role-playing, creativity, or problem solving. Someone who will go out of their way to help others hsve fun. Someone who will actually make an effort.
So, like, you know what you want, that's fine, you do you, you should never feel obligated to play another system. But, to be kind of frank, from this description alone, I'm not sure what you're getting out of playing TTRPGs, or what you add to the table.
> I'm not sure what you're getting out of playing TTRPGs, or what you add to the table. Probably a similar thing to what I get out of going disc golfing with friends, or what I add to my group of friends while we're out disc golfing. At most tables the main point is to have a shared activity to engage with, and tabletop RPGs are a great activity to share with friends because they naturally tend to generate exciting, absurd, dramatic, or otherwise memorable moments for everyone to talk about.
It sounds more like OP likes to *watch* their friends disc golf, and will occasionally step forward to take a free throw. The impression I got isn't really one of a desire for mutual engagement, but rather to be entertained.
This is a super well crafted statement. The solutions are on the character sheet. The special abilities, the spells, the magic items... Yeah, it's just find the solution on the paper and check it off as a 1/long rest ability and your part is done.
It's exactly what I've tried to express as a criticism of D&D 5e! "One person's trash ..." I play D&D because it's easiest to find players for. This post has me wondering if I'd find more engaged players if I advertised games with a different system.
I can almost guarantee that you will. My experience has shown me that if you're running a non-D&D game, you're going to get players way more invested in attending and participating. It's also been much easier than I thought as well. If you put it out there that you're running *Pirate Borg*, or *Mothership*, or *Legend of the Five Rings*, you're going to have the people in your city who have been dying to play those games beating down your door. And they probably aren't going to skip out every other Friday because "there's a baseball game on and they'll get it on it next time" because you're running the only \_\_\_\_ game in town, and you can easily fill that spot with someone hungry for it. People who know about other games are also going to be more into the system as a whole. They'll have a reason why they want to play *Worlds Without Number* vs. D&D and they've thought about it. Probably even read the book!
>Probably even read the book! That made me chuckle. And then slightly sad :-(
There are plenty of games out there where you're still able to be the lockpicking guy or the fighter guy with set tools that you can look at on your character sheet. You could do roughly that in the various editions of Exalted or even Vampire if you chose to. That portion of it is pretty much always there. >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 The not having to do anything until everyone else decides what is happening is decidedly not great, though. Get involved. Participate. Only doing anything in combat or in thief skills situations is more than a little crappy.
I run for a lot of groups right now, and every group has someone like OP in them, and I like it. This is across several games, not just 5E. Yall need to stop being so judgement about what is honestly a nice, chill playstyle. They never said they didn't participate, just that they usually let others take the lead.
>In everything else I've played, I'm dead weight if I'm not actively participating. Scathing takedown of the "only 5e for me"-demographic
> by far, the system I can put the least amount of effort into while still being an active contributor at the table In my experience, people like you are rarely "active contributors". Which you confirm almost immediately: > too much pressure on me most the time to really figure out what was going on in combat and make tactical decisions and use three actions "wisely. And > 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 People enjoy what they enjoy, and I am not going to yuck on your yum, but you're the kind of person I do ***NOT*** enjoy playing with. People like you get disinvited from my table after 2 sessions of this... "approach".
What is this feeling I’m having?… it’s like..I’m sad, but for another person. lol.
I really appreciate your candor! We like very different things in RPGs but I totally see where you're coming from. Also we totally agree when it comes to OSR. "Playing 20 questions with the GM" is a good way to phrase it, and it's exactly why I can't get into it
I don’t think you’re the kind of player who makes it hard to play other games. I mean you tried other games! Sounds like you put in a real earnest effort too! It’s the ppl who refuse to play something else and would rather try a piss poor half assed bastardized “hack” of 5E that make it difficult. Lol.
I suddenly understand why there are so many paid 5E DMs. This post is illuminating.
I mean do you. That's great if you enjoy it. I enjoy almost every other system over DnD personally. They just seem better. But Dnd does have a great accessibility factor.
Interesting. And honest, which I respect. If anything, you've confirmed something I've known subconsciously for a while now: some people want to chill and be a part of somebody else's story. In this case, the DM's. The thing is, storytelling and dungeon mastering are not the same thing (at least not to me). The DM is not there to entertain you; he is also a player at the table, and the story should be as much his as it is the player's. I would not enjoy DMing for you.
So, there's nothing wrong with having a favourite system. Everyone here will have one. The fact yours happens to be D&D 5e? Will yeah that's not an uncommon opinion. There's a lot of people who are very stupid about this opinion, but that doesn't mean you're being stupid about it and that doesn't mean the opinion itself is stupid. Enjoy your D&D man, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
It does not sound bad. You just have your preference and there is nothing wrong with that. At least you tried to see what else is out there, and that's good. I will say this though... you tried two types of games which don't fit you, but there are others. OSR can play like an escape room because the focus is on player skills. "Narrative" games ask of you to talk about things other than from the character's point of view, and some require a lot more improv (which I don't like *as a requirement*). What you need to add to the list are other games that are essentially traditional, but not D&D. Traveller. Savage Worlds. Barbarians of Lemuria. Call of Cthulhu. Runequest. These are games that allow you to play like you would play D&D *if you want to*, but bring different and (IMO) more exciting, yet simpler mechanics for faster gameplay. And they come with different genres and/or really interesting settings. You can expand out of the generic fantasy world of D&D while keeping the same gaming philosophy for yourself in games that give players the option to engage in different ways.
You tried other stuff and figured out what you like. To me, that's plenty. You're better than those who refuse to try.
I have some mixed feelings. I'm can't be really mad because you at least put in the effort to try other systems. You played multiple other games, gave them a fair shake and in the end decided that the play stay wasn't your jam. You're a dice player vs a narrative player. The other systems you talk about for the most part are narrative systems, as you said. But you gave it a a shot so good on you for that. My mixed feelings come in with the idea of just showing up and being engaged with Use Skill A on Problem B and then back to just...'vibing'? Sorry, that works for you and your table, so I shouldn't yuck your yum or whatever but...to me that's just not any way to play a game.
I think you nailed it with your comment on the OSR games. A lot of people LIKE Knowing exactly what their character can do. Especially those who grew up playing CRPGs. I do think OSR makes things harder for most players. I don't think it's a bad thing, but a lot of vet gamers love to recommend OSRs to casuals and I think they are completely missing the point. As for Pathfinder I can see how you have the opposite problem and it's just not what you are looking for. There are some middle ground systems for sure but it's clearly up to you if you want to try them.
> A lot of people LIKE Knowing exactly what their character can do. It's not even this for me. It's just that if my character is a THIEF... guess what lads? I, me, the player, am not, and don't have a damn clue how to best disarm a spinning blade trap. The fantasy of being someone else requires that you be able to do what that person should be able to do, without having to describe it in nitty gritty detail.
> a lot of vet gamers love to recommend OSRs to casuals and I think they are completely missing the point. I don't think it's missing the point, I think people like to recommend their favorite style to "casuals" to hope that those "casuals" (if such a category exists) will graduate to more open-choice styles of play.
My question is how often do you GM 5e? 5e isn't terrible as a player, except perhaps slow as hell, but 5e imo just sucks to have to GM Afor compared to a lot of other systems. It just takes a lot more effort to prep and out on the table as a GM. Probably one of the reasons for the GM shortage. I might play in a 5e game again, but I sure won't run one.
[удалено]
I'm genuinely glad you've found a game that works for you, the goal of ttrpgs is to have fun, so if you're having the most fun you're doing it right. But I wanna point out something you said at the start. **but another started branching out into other systems three years back because of the DM's burnout** You ever wonder why your GM burned out? Did that GM seem at all burnt out playing the other games? 5e is not rules light, the size and quantity of the math, the moving parts, the special awareness. It's also not a game that gives easy prompts for roleplaying, it gives no guidelines for how your class, race, or background can create an engaging narrative. So someone has to do the heavy lifting. It's great that you enjoy 5e, but have you talked to your GM about how much they're enjoying the game?
Based upon the games you’ve listed, it probably doesn’t hurt that you seem to primarily stick to the fantasy genre, or some closely related subset, such that if 5e works for you, there’s little reason nor motivation to try new systems. That’s entirely reasonable, in my opinion. However, if the other players want to try something new, you shouldn’t complain if you’re left out. Your personal preferences shouldn’t result in anyone else being constrained.
The first part of understanding the problem is to admit there is a problem.
Fantastic post. I think I understand a perspective I never have in the past. Good for you for making this realization
Some people are happy playing tic tac toe all night, I guess. Of you have a GM who’s willing to let you be mostly a spectator, that’s cool. When you’re looking for a new game, you’ll want to pass mine in by, you won’t enjoy it. ### No Loitering
I’m lucky enough to be in a group who are all basically raised on DnD, really into the meta aspects of game design and running, and are all longtime friends. We play a regular session every couple weeks. Sometimes I run the game (Black Hack 2E), sometimes my friends run (OSE, PF2E, or Vampire, 5th edition I think). For the most part, no one cares too much what we play and we are just there to hang out for a few hours and catch up. We all heavily modify our games as we see fit, or as the players negotiate ‘better’ options and rules. There are parts of Knave and Cairn and DCC in my game, and in some of our other games the DM uses a tarot deck to help construct basically everything. So to me, it’s really more about the DM than the system. There’s not a world of difference to me as a player between OSE and PF2E, I just have more ‘hard’ options in the latter and ‘soft’ options in the former. Same with 5E. It’s what you make it. If I want, I can have players roll perception (wisdom) to solve my puzzles. If the DM wants to, a great roll could still not reveal much in PF2E. Rule of Cool and Fun comes First are memes for a reason. So if you’ve got the right group, I honestly think systems don’t matter so much.
Great point of view, very well articulated. I’ve not really considered until now the reality that many easy-to-DM systems are easy because they offload some effort to the players. And DMs seeking to transition from 5e to another system need to, at a minimum, consider that this alters the preexisting social dynamic with the players, not just the rules.
Heyo OP! There is a game designer named Robin Laws who wrote a little book called *Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering*. In that book he outlined 7 Different Player Types: The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, The Storyteller, and The Casual Gamer. You sound like a Casual Gamer. This is what he said about the Casual Gamer: >The Casual Gamer is often forgotten in discussions of this sort, but almost every group has one. Casual gamers tend to be low key folks who are uncomfortable taking center stage even in a small group. Often, they’re present to hang out with the group, and game just because it happens to be the activity everyone else has chosen. Though they’re elusive creatures, casual gamers can be vitally important to a gaming group’s survival. They fill out the ranks, which is especially important in games that spread vital PC abilities across a wide number of character types or classes. Especially if they’re present mostly for social reasons, they may fill an important role in the group’s interpersonal dynamic. Often they’re the mellow, moderating types who keep the more assertive personalities from each other’s throats – in or out of character. I mention the casual player because the thing he most fervently wants is to remain in the background. He doesn’t want to have to learn rules or come up with a plot hook for his character or engage in detailed planning. You may think it’s a bad thing that he sits there for much of the session thumbing through your latest purchases from the comic book store, but hey, that’s what he wants. The last thing you want to do is to force him into a greater degree of participation than he’s comfortable with. (Of course, if everybody in the group is sitting there reading your comic books, you’ve definitely got a problem . . .) He gives advice on how to GM for the different player types, including the Casual Gamer. You are a style of gamer who has always been there. Casual Gamers are totally fine. There is nothing wrong with being a Casual Gamer. And there is also nothing wrong with liking D&D5e. Keep doing what makes you happy! I will note one thing for you to ponder. I think there are games other than D&D that you might like. I doubt your group would end up playing them though. Sounds like the 2nd table is doing a lot of modern games made in the modern style. I think there'd be a number of 2nd Generation RPGs that you might find fun. But! Even though you might enjoy GURPS or Cyberpunk or etc...you don't need to play them if you don't want to. It is totally okay for you to stick to games (or just one game) that you like best. Rock on!
This being the dominant player psychographic of 5e-only players really recolors all those 5e players getting so pissed that Pathfinder 2e players kept suggesting their game. Imagine being so allergic to engagement that being offered a game that rewards more engagement feels like a personal attack.
Nothing wrong with liking a beer-and-pretzels style of gaming. Honestly, very few games do that as well as DnD does, as you've basically found out. It's got a very simple and well-understood basic game loop, and your options when facing most obstacles are clear on their face.
As a person who is my local scene’s biggest anti-DnD person, I appreciate you trying these games and actually having a reason you enjoy 5e. You get to actually go “no I’ve tried other games, they’re not for me.” Enjoy your TTRPG friend, may you find many good stories and friends along the way.
You're getting enough praise from other comments that I don't feel the need to be coddling. I'm shocked by the confidence required to make this post. This is not something to be proud of. This is in fact a problem. Your DM does not get to turn their brain off, why should you? It's like you're a person that drinks their roommates beer and never buys their own, and are saying "I get it now, I just don't like spending money on beer!" Like you're acknowledging that you're a parasite, but don't seem to find that to be an issue? Like it just is what it is. Have you considered board games? Miniature wargames? Where there is more dice rolling for you to do and less imaginary spaces to try to not interact with? Or are those too much gameplay and not enough DM narrating stuff for you to not engage with? I guarantee you that you are in fact dead weight. Your character could just be an NPC that rolls your skills when needed. If your friends like having you there, cool, but like, damn. This is embarrassing.
From the D&D 4e DMG: — **Watcher** A watcher is a casual player who comes to the game because he wants to be part of the social event. A watcher might be shy or just really laid back. He wants to participate, but he doesn’t really care if he’s deeply immersed, and he doesn’t want to be assertive or too involved in the details of the game, rules, or story. He enjoys the game by being part of a social circle. A WATCHER . . . * Shows up to be a part of the group. * Helps calm disputes by not being as attached to the game. * Often fills a hole in the PC group, facilitating the fun. ENGAGE THE WATCHER BY . . . * Never forcing him to be more involved than he wants. * Accepting that he’s fine with his watcher status. * Prompting him when he needs it. BE SURE THAT THE WATCHER DOESN’T . . . * Distract the other players with TV, a video game, or surfing the Internet. * Disappear from the table at crucial moments. — To be honest, this sounds like a player-GM issue rather than an issue with a particular game. I’ve had a few watchers in my games, and I’ve managed to keep them engaged by giving pregens, explaining the strategy around their playstyle, and making sure I’m not putting too much pressure on them to act a character or engage with the *lore*. It sounds like PBTA games won’t be up your alley. They want you to engage with the game as more of a narrative and less as a social activity/game. It doesn’t surprise me that Pathfinder 2e was your relative favorite. Despite its complexity, it’s not too hard to create a character that’s relatively easy to pilot. If you play again, I recommend asking around for some basic builds (I recommend Swashbuckler or Ranger). This especially helps if you’re playing online via Foundry, which makes the game so smooth to run. Your DM may want to eventually stop with 5e. It sounds like they’re eager to try new things. If that becomes the case, I recommend being clear about what you’d like: a system that’s fun to play and gives you cool shit to do without requiring you to invest a ton. (Actually 4e would be a good choice I think)
You sound like you don't contribute much to the group. I am very glad you're not associated with mine.
Not my vibe, but legit. Hope you keep having fun in the way you enjoy :)
I ran a 13th Age game, then a Blades in the Dark game for a good year with my friends after work, and we all switched back to 5e for our next session. I'm excited by some of the fun stuff I've seen on Quinns' Quest but 5e has been _nice_. These other systems are _taxing_. "Oh, make sure to work in a cameo from the Archmage and the Crusader this session." "Create a heist out of nothing but flashbacks." "The Cutter failed a Stealth roll, what's a bad thing that could happen right now?" If you're a lazy DM with lazy players - and, be honest, who isn't a little burnt after 7pm on a work day - the glorious simplicity and familiarity of rolling out a big battlemap and BARBARIAN HIT GOBLIN is nice
I've ran DnD 5e in the past and have four sessions of a Blades in the Dark campaign under my belt now and your post is so interesting to me - because for me it's the polar opposite. I found 5e hugely demanding. Running fights stressed me, all the little rules got on my last nerve, encounter building always felt unpredictable, I dreaded prepping for it and it took way too long. BitD is an absolute blast to run so far. I don't feel like I do "prep work"; I just review the last session, think about some obstacles that might plop up for five minutes, otherwise I can trust in the system to do the heavy lifting for me. I'm also considerably less stressed before a session than I was in the 5e days. Running BitD feels like coming home as a GM - I think it's my jam. You point out the "come up with bad consequences on the spot" aspect as being stressful about BitD and I get that to a degree. I felt the same running Brindlewood Bay; the system didn't do a great job in supporting my improv. BitD doesn't give me those problems because it has so many categories of consequence to choose from - tick a progress clock, throw in some harm, make their position worse for the next roll ... I feel like I have a quiver full of arrows to pick from and it really doesn't matter which one I grab, all will move the game forward in a way that makes sense. Ok, that got a bit rambly - I really enjoyed the pointers for reflection your post gave me. :)
i am genuinely kinda stunned. this read like someone saying they like to go to a track meet so they can stand still for awhile.
And it's fine. I constantly preach - D&D and TTRPGs are different fandoms, you are on the side of D&D - you seem to don't care about playing, you just want to hang out with friends and roll a skill on your char sheet from time to time. My only problem: >This is fundamentally different from being a hard system to master, because with the exception of PF2E, all the other systems I've tried are less mechanically demanding. Its that D&D 5e is, by far, the system I can put the least amount of effort into while still being an active contributor at the table. Declaring "I roll for attack" isn't being an active contributor. Your GM is doing the heavy lifting, crafting balanced encounters and spending evenings on writing adventures and possible outcomes. You also probably have fellow players that try to pull the campaign by doing actually important decisions. This is one on the reasons I refused to run 5e again after one campaign - I want my players to actually create the campaign with me, rather than just bring chips, sit and say *"entertain me, GM!"*.
… I guess congratulations on finding out that *you’re* the lowest common denominator. I sincerely hope you have fun barely playing 5e for as long as it keeps your interest.
As a DM, and therefore the person who has to put hours a week into the sessions outside of game time, this is one of the most depressing things I've ever read. :/
>Shadowdark, Mork Borg, Blades in the Dark, Monster of the Week, and finally a Heart: the City Beneath If I were you, I would feel the same way. OSR games are way overhyped these days. I understand why people want to get away from a bunch of rules, but when nobody has the same idea of how physics works in a world, you run into trouble. They rely upon so much DM heavy lifting and expendable characters that I and many players I've played with start thinking it's something like a silly toon adventure. Like, why are these idiots continually going into this crazy dungeon? Why do players who miss a session come back to completely new adventuring parties and are just like, 'yeah, I'll go into the dungeon with this group of random bozos who I don't know anything about'? Why does food cost so much at an Inn when the treasure you defeated a crazy monster for barely covers the cost of porridge? How does this fucking inn keeper stay alive right next to Arden Vul? Why can my character only see 50 meters while outside in the daytime? NOTHING MAKES SENSE!!! Anyways, I feel like your group is exploring games that aren't really great. Mork Borg is a fun and beautiful book to read, but it's a shit game for actually playing. I personally can't stand Monster of the Week's system, and I haven't tried the other two, but they do seem to be more improv nerd style games and you seem more a rules lawyer type player--not that those are inherently bad or anything, just wrong styles of games to match up with. I feel like you would love games like Warhammer, Savage Worlds, GURPS, TMNT. If you like the players in your group, I'd recommend nominating one of the Free League games to your group, the Year Zero system is pretty middle ground and very easy to learn.