Let's debatte this

I think a lot of the "issues" that pop up in d&d, and brings hate from tg, is that game can be played 3 ways.

method 1: A combat game, where every point counts, and the 'adventure', is a series of battles with little to no RP or plot

method 2: The game focuses little on combat, and heavy on RP. This devalues a +1815 sword and takes the focus off of being bad ass, and puts it more on interaction between players and npcs.

method 3: A hybrid mix of both methods, usually resulting in angst and buttmadness for players and dm's, but sometimes working out perfectly.

My opinion is that most groups end up trying method 3, and finding the game lacking. Mainly because everyone involved has a different idea about what that hybrid method balance should be.

Most of these issues can be prevented/solved by a little prep work before the game begins.

Example: a player wants to play a hybrid game where his PC is bad ass in combat, and still has an interesting back story and plot. The DM tells all players that they'll start in a small fishing village as kids who've grown up together. The pc however, wants to play a half drow warlock or some shit....at this point, there will be issues because the dm and pc's are on different wave lengths about what the game should be.

Your 'three ways' make no sense. They're not distinct categories, they're an incredibly broad spectrum which only describes a single aspect of personal and group playstyle, with no nuance or understanding of why different people enjoy different things, and no real argument for why different playstyles somehow creates more problems in D&D than it does in other systems.

Racial issues should also be worked out ahead of game start up.

>why the fuck would that drow be in a human village?
>why is there a dwarf, a pixie, and a warforged all growing up as kids in a small village? WTF kind of village is that?
>You're an elf? Why aren't you in the forest fucking tree knot holes, instead of living like a human peasant?
>You're a fighter? that's fine, most villages have someone who could have taught you some lv 1 basics.......you're a specialist necromancer? Where in the fuck did you learn that shit? Not in the starting village, where most can't even read/write.

Working these issues out ahead of start up, can set a theme for the campaign or game, and end a lot of issues before they begin.

The "why" different people enjoy different things, doesn't matter user.

Simply put, people just DO. They enjoy different things. They enjoy different parts of different games. Why doesn't matter really.

You can't make someone enjoy something they don't want to enjoy. Thus, being up front about WHAT and HOW you enjoy the game, is important. WHY they enjoy (x), isn't important.

>and no real argument for why different playstyles somehow creates more problems in D&D than it does in other systems

It doesn't. It's not a system issue, it's a player issue. Not that the players are 'wrong', but that they're not getting the type of "fun", they are looking for, because the DM or other players are moving too far from their method of "fun".

Session zero is super important for many, many reasons. Establishing setting and premise is just part of it. Setting out the tone and themes, the expected level of character competence and optimisation and all sorts of other things just makes it super useful to do.

While you're right to an extent, understanding why is important for when a GM needs to compromise, figuring out how to let two players with different priorities have fun simultaneously. It's never ideal, but sometimes it's necessary.

So then why mention D&D at all?

I won't argue either of those points.

I do think that most DM's are only human though, and expecting them to find a perfect balance between the methods, to please everyone involved.....is often impossible.

With normal people, this might not be a big deal. But with some people, the DM failing to provide the PERFECT balance (in their opinion), is the fault of the game, and the dm.

I understand necessary adjustments. A lot of players don't.

I'm addressing the subject of much hate?

Action points solve problems.

Always.

Whenever I'm forced to run a D&D game I house rule that players get their character level halved in action points per game session that they can use as emergency wavers in whatever they manner they choose barring my approval. Doing so lets the mage who sucks in melee combat get good stab in or gets a character out of some stupid bullshit that would otherwise ruin the flow of the game, or lets the elf not be a faggot for an action, as examples.

Almost like "you're kids from a small fishing village" is actually a bad premise for a game where you can play a fighter or a wizard from level 1.

>or lets the elf not be a faggot for an action,
Holy fuck.......your actions points are extremely powerful if they allow that.

It's a better reason for a group to be together, than "You wake up in a cell", or no explanation at all.

Meh. My group has played together long enough that we've fine tuned our style of play. It's not something that's discussed ahead of time, unless we're trying something new (which we don't do too often).

DnD just isnt good at simulating big worlds, political intrigue, 'dialogue combat', etc.

Lock the campaign down to an expansive dungeon with lots of puzzles and encounters and it's great.

>than "You wake up in a cell"

Those are the funnest ones. Especially if the next line is "explain how you got here".

Let the game shape the setting

If you play 3.PF the way PCs tend to be written, which is to say special snowflakes, make the setting a world of special snowflakes from crystal-adorned psychics to warriors of mysterious disciplines who combine magical and martial arts. You end up with a pretty cool place.

In my experience it's better to have the option of multiple solutions, but little requirements. If the group wants to kill everything in their way, let them. If someone made a diplomancer and wants to try occasionally talking down an encounter he can, but that mean no loot and little XP. At the same time, if the party wants to beat a local noble into submission and force his cooperation they can give it a shot, but he's going to be a resentful prick at best, or turn on them almost immediately at worst. You CAN solve combat problem with words, and solve social problems with swords, but in the long run it's not ideal.

>WTF kind of village is that?

So I mapped out a "starting village", and had 10 spots marked on it. Each spot had a short 'family' background. There were homes that had non-humans. And 1 home that the people living there, had traveled a great deal, and if you were playing a non-standard race, then pick that as your starting home.

I told the players it was going to be less focused on being 'ultimate powers!', and more on simple adventures and RP. So pick their starting race/class, as what would be found in in one of those 10 starting points and backgrounds.

I shit you not.......

>1 player wanted to be a drow blade dancer
>1 wanted to be an Arcane Summoner -Gold elf
>1 wanted to be gnome Incarnator
>1 wanted dwarven Eldrich Knight

After telling them, use the core classes guys, and try not to be too exotic and weird.

I won't DM roll20 games anymore, because of that shit.

this still triggers me.

I explained in great detail, the surrounding area and what life in the small village was like.

One guy pops up.....ignoring everything I'd said, and says "My gold elf Arcane summoner also starts with a war horse"

WTF?

Maybe it was you who was wrong?

You don't deserve this bullshit, user.

This is why you have a setting with human PC's only. Demi-human races exist, but are remote and weird. Also no spellcasters beyond "Generic Wizard." Rework Clerics so that they are more grounded- a narrow range of divine abilities, mostly unrelated to combat.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

>Assuming that I do

>Mage
>Nigger

Everyone knows that niggers dont have the INT to become Magic-Users.

OP, your examples fail because it isn't the game type that is the issue, it is the players.
I am currently in a game where I can only rp with exactly 1 other person and the DM, and I fucking hate it because I, as a player, want to rp with the other pcs, want to find out more about them and who they are, what drives them.
I find it 1 step below infuriating that I can't get some of the basics of what I game for, and the DM is willing to indulge my desire to interact with the world, but then I worry about taking over the game, as I have a strong personality, am aware of it, and have done so in the past.
I can play all the types of games you listed, but gaming is a cooperative, social activity, and everyone needs to be on the same page for it to work out.

>DM has to put all the work into the setting and game
>All he asks is for orthodox characters to ease into the setting
>"Fuck you DM I want to play my special snowflake"
Yeah man the DM is in the wrong here.
Dirty dumb entitled player scum.

Maybe so.

I made a detailed map. Created some background info, and village history. Knew who in the village was related, how many acres/pigs/horses etc each villager had. And who was fucking around with who, and who disliked who.

I made it clear to use the core phb for start up. And had several adventures planned for that area. I was up front about it.

I clearly didn't do enough.

>OP, your examples fail because it isn't the game type that is the issue, it is the players.

I think that's OP's point. It's not the system that's at fault, it's the players and DM not establishing what the game theme will be.

Even if the DM did, those players still would contribute nothing to roleplay, and the DM expressly said there would be some combat, some world exploring, some politicking.
We all knew what we were getting into.

>those players still would contribute nothing to roleplay,

Some players don't get into the RP aspect that much. Light to none on the RP. They enjoy making characters and combat and rolling for treasure.

And that's fine if that's what they enjoy I guess. I think anger arises when 2 in the group play that way, and the other two want to RP more. And the DM is pulled both ways at once.

The real problem comes when there are decisions to be made, and I get absolutely no input from them.
Hell, one of the players made a pc who gave absolutely no explanation about themselves, who they were, or why they came along with us, and it's come to a small problem now that someone has been spying on us and we have been dealing with an underground rebellion.
I am planning to, ic, grill him about who he is, why he is here, and why he has superhuman combat capabilities rivaling the scholastic warriors half the party trained under. My pc's idea is that he is a spy, for the rebels, for our boss, or for a third party.

Good luck.

lol, he'll probably just sit there and shrug or say, "I don't fucking know" , or look the DM for help answering background questions.

>Knew who in the village was related, how many acres/pigs/horses etc each villager had. And who was fucking around with who, and who disliked who.
Here's the more important thing to keep in mind when building a setting:

Nobody fucking cares.

If it matters, I would love to play in your game but unfortunately I'm running one and already playing in two and literally have zero time.

Thanks user.

Some people enjoy them, some don't. >Nobody fucking cares.

Here's one of the one's that wouldn't enjoy them. And that's cool, playing isn't mandatory.

>The DM tells all players that they'll start in a small fishing village as kids who've grown up together.
Yeah don't do that.
Let the players put together their own backstories and have them meet up in the first session or ask them what their relationship was before the events of the story.
If I wanted to be told exactly who my character is I would go play a Bioware game.

>let the players tell the GM what the campaign is going to be about

lol

>Let the players put together their own backstories

Ok, you'll get.......

>I dunno, i was in the army i guess
>Oh, my guy was captured and escaped from a horde of demons from hell, now they're all after him
>I'm really a prince, but i'm in hiding

Yeah no.

Telling the pC's where they start, and where they grew up, is fine.

For a real roleplayer, constraints and limitations and direction don't limit creativity, they spur it on. Just look at Picasso and his blue period.

Is the GM not considered a "real roleplayer"?

There is nothing wrong with the GM establishing a setting contrivance as it applies to the players, so long as it does not impinge on further choices.
They are from the same village and knew each other, but nothing prevents them from saying they left town, took up a trade or the king's coin, ecetera.

Pretty much this. Everyone knows the party works much better when they all have the same sort of direction and starting place, rather than trying to jam in five different player's each with their own idea of what's cool.

Suit yourselves I guess.
Personally I would even take a 'you are in a tavern' beginning over a 'this is exactly who you are and where you come from' beginning because that sounds boring as fuck to play or GM.

That's fine for a retarded pulp game but terrible for a simulationist game that's heavy on verisimilitude.

>'this is exactly who you are and where you come from'

That's not how I read that.

I understood it to mean that the DM had houses marked for them to choose from. And each house had a family, that the DM had names for. And a short history. The Player was free to make up their pc. I don't see that as forcing a player to be EXACTLY anything.

if you picked the Smith family......
>I'm a female mage from the smith family
or
>I'm a male fighter from the smith family

The PC's still had control

The majority of 3.PF players in a nutshell

I think his point was that he went overboard with how solid he built the world. That level of detail leads to hardcore railroading because the DM already has what they want to do and the players just deal with it. That can work for some games, but the ideal way to do it is make the world appear solid and living, but also allow room for the players to have some influence on shit rather than micromanaging how many fucking pigs Joe McNpc has and how he's best friends with Bob and his wife is a bitch who nags and yadda yadda yadda. At some point you don't give a shit. The game is about players and their adventures, not the DM's shitty soap opera storyline for every fucking npc they encounter.

It's the starting village. It should be detailed.

I know some people's first instinct will be to run away from the village at full speed on some sort of awesome quest from up on high to save the world, but it's perfectly fine to have more down to earth interactions and roleplaying in town solving some simpler problems before being drawn away. If there's going to be a couple sessions taking place, it's gonna have to have some npcs and details.