Mercurius
Legend
A thought occurred to me (yes, one actually did). Most editions of D&D have followed a pattern of "start classic and relatively simple, then go further and further outward, both in complexity and diversity of ideas." This isn't an exact formula, but it seems to generally hold true. You start with the core game, traditional classes and races, then gradually--through supplementation--you expand the oeuvre to include different styles of fantasy and options for rules variations, in a kind of ripple effect.
Now it may be that one of the main reasons 4E was so controversial is that it didn't take this approach. It started with a lot of variations on traditional fantasy and D&D--both in terms of fluff and crunch--and then had to back-track a bit to include some of the traditional aspects of the game. In other words, it got off on the "wrong" foot, or at least a foot that cleaved too far from expectations and tradition.
The designers of 5E seem well aware of this, and seem to be giving D&D a chiropractic adjustment across the board, from a simpler core rule set to inclusion of all of the major classes and races in the PHB, to the Sundering of the Forgotten Realms which may be bringing the Realms back to a more Gray Boxy feel.
This isn't mere nostalgia, I think. Certainly that has some bearing on design, especially considering the larger number of long-time D&D players in their 30s and up who grew up on AD&D or some variation of the Basic game. It seems like a clear and very intelligent design choice. While I for one enjoyed 4E, it always felt like a "different approach" to D&D, with a more gonzo 21st century Generation Warcraft feel to it. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but it would probably be best presented as a modular option, a variant approach that can be taken in specific campaigns. To put it another way, if you can only serve one fruit then it is probably best to stick with apples, oranges, or bananas rather than go straight to kiwis or guava. I like kiwis and guava, but they're a more specific--and less universally enjoyed--flavor than "the big three fruits."
With 5E, the designers seem to be both "adjusting" the game back to its core traditions, but also providing variant streams that can be taken in a toolbox galore style. Or so I hope. It won't "out 4E 4E"--or OD&D or 3.5, etc--but it does seem to be covering both important polarities in as strong a manner as possible: presenting a relatively simple, traditional D&D game that can be customized in as many ways as individual DMs can dream up--and providing the tools to do so.
Best of both worlds, really.
Addendum: There is no way around the fact that 5E won't be for everyone. That's OK. But from what I've gathered, most of the criticisms of the game will be small (e.g. Why doesn't the PHB include my favorite sub-sub-race or spell?) and/or misplaced (e.g. why isn't 5E more like X edition?). As the saying goes, you can't please everyone all of the time - but with 5E, I'm thinking they've done as good a job as humanly possible with pleasing as many people as they can, most of the time. To be honest, in a way I'm rather curious as to what the major criticisms will be - both in the community as a whole, and for myself. We gamers are an ornery bunch
Now it may be that one of the main reasons 4E was so controversial is that it didn't take this approach. It started with a lot of variations on traditional fantasy and D&D--both in terms of fluff and crunch--and then had to back-track a bit to include some of the traditional aspects of the game. In other words, it got off on the "wrong" foot, or at least a foot that cleaved too far from expectations and tradition.
The designers of 5E seem well aware of this, and seem to be giving D&D a chiropractic adjustment across the board, from a simpler core rule set to inclusion of all of the major classes and races in the PHB, to the Sundering of the Forgotten Realms which may be bringing the Realms back to a more Gray Boxy feel.
This isn't mere nostalgia, I think. Certainly that has some bearing on design, especially considering the larger number of long-time D&D players in their 30s and up who grew up on AD&D or some variation of the Basic game. It seems like a clear and very intelligent design choice. While I for one enjoyed 4E, it always felt like a "different approach" to D&D, with a more gonzo 21st century Generation Warcraft feel to it. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but it would probably be best presented as a modular option, a variant approach that can be taken in specific campaigns. To put it another way, if you can only serve one fruit then it is probably best to stick with apples, oranges, or bananas rather than go straight to kiwis or guava. I like kiwis and guava, but they're a more specific--and less universally enjoyed--flavor than "the big three fruits."
With 5E, the designers seem to be both "adjusting" the game back to its core traditions, but also providing variant streams that can be taken in a toolbox galore style. Or so I hope. It won't "out 4E 4E"--or OD&D or 3.5, etc--but it does seem to be covering both important polarities in as strong a manner as possible: presenting a relatively simple, traditional D&D game that can be customized in as many ways as individual DMs can dream up--and providing the tools to do so.
Best of both worlds, really.
Addendum: There is no way around the fact that 5E won't be for everyone. That's OK. But from what I've gathered, most of the criticisms of the game will be small (e.g. Why doesn't the PHB include my favorite sub-sub-race or spell?) and/or misplaced (e.g. why isn't 5E more like X edition?). As the saying goes, you can't please everyone all of the time - but with 5E, I'm thinking they've done as good a job as humanly possible with pleasing as many people as they can, most of the time. To be honest, in a way I'm rather curious as to what the major criticisms will be - both in the community as a whole, and for myself. We gamers are an ornery bunch
Last edited:
