• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maybe sometimes. But as player type 1 in that set I was routinely really annoyed at player 2 and 3. We didn’t have a type 4, but I can imagine they might’ve gotten on my nerves too.

    They also weren’t happy with me. One player would often create exchanges like

    • them: “I move around the corner and shoot the monster. The one that’s 100’ away, yep.”
    • them: “ok i’m done”
    • me: “…aren’t you going to move back?”
    • them: “what?”
    • me: “Move back around the corner”
    • them: “what? I already moved”
    • me: (You’ve been playing this game for like a year now…) “You get 30’ of movement. You used 10’. You can move back around the corner.”
    • them: “Oh. But why?”
    • me: “…so they don’t shoot you back.”
    • them: “I don’t understand.”
    • me: “Where you are standing now, you can see them and they can see you. So you can shoot each other. If you move back where you were, you can’t see each other, and they can’t shoot you on their turn.”
    • them: “I don’t see what the big deal is”

    The wizard would also just blow spell slots for any excuse, adventuring day be damned. I was kind of peeved the DM gave him a full recharge during the boss fight for “plot reasons”.

    In retrospect, the problem was me and it was good I left the group. They’re probably having a lot of fun with their playstyle. Maybe one day I’ll find a good group where everyone understands advanced concepts like “cover”.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Make it roleplay. See, this is why I loved Fourth Edition’s Warlord class.

      “Haragrimm, you’ve exposed yourself! Scurry back before they return fire!”

      Power gaming is fun if it’s also roleplay.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is an interesting idea but I think the other player would just be confused and annoyed, out of character.

        Some people don’t play the games for tactics. Don’t have the head or interest for it. And that’s fine. I just don’t really want to be at that table if we’re doing stuff that looks like tactical combat.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          People who don’t like tactics shouldn’t play D&D. They should play fun and cool games like Monster of the Week or Blades in the Dark. D&D is a wargame first. Tactics are part of the fantasy for D&D, especially if you have a warlord in the party. Why didn’t they put the warlord in 5E? It was an awesome class.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            People who don’t like tactics shouldn’t play D&D. They should play fun and cool games like Monster of the Week or Blades in the Dark.

            100%. D&D’s main things are tactics and resource management.

            But D&D is the mega popular brand that people know, and they often don’t want to learn something else. Even if they don’t actually know D&D’s rules.

            I personally like Fate a lot for a simpler ruleset that’s actually flexible and generic. I’ve been running a Fate game for about 20 sessions and it’s been fun, even though the players don’t always remember to spend fate points for story details.