D&D 5E Too much bickering about 5e, let's get down to what matters.

[Sword of Spirit]

Purely playstyle - 1e is still king for me.
Purely mechanics - 3e is likely the best.

It would cause me pain to play 4e.
2e is enough like 1e that I lump them together a lot.


So for me 5e is probably better than 4e and worse than the rest when it comes to playstyle. Mechanically it's probably better than most due to streamlining and d20.

Pretty much in the same boat, except I'm counting on 5e's overall mechanics fitting me better than 3e. Now, it's gonna need house rules. I can tell things got sacrificed that shouldn't have, and modules can't fix all of it (from what we've heard so far). But when it comes to my own table, I'll probably be able to fix everything I need in a single page of houserules (double-sided if the modules are really useless).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There certainly are a lot of folks looking for a 2.5e d20 or AD&D 3.0 game.

Yes. Probably because if you count AD&D to 3e (including retroclones and Pathfinder) you are covering the preference of the majority of D&D fans.

Commonalities between 2e and 3e are that the system was supportive of a loose simulationism (you could play AD&D with a loose narrativism instead, but it was difficult), and that the systems had clunky and/or slow mechanics.

So the majority of D&D fans wanting to play their favorite game style with a system refined to minimize the clunk and bloat? Yep, sounds like a pretty popular opinion.

(Not to exclude those who like 5e for other reasons--just stating the experience of myself and my friends.)

 

[GravyFingerz]

I will buy all the D&D. Except the minis. They break the bank and I don't like blind packs.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I voted "Worse" because I think it's a step back, overall. While non-combat options like backgrounds are definitely a step forward (even if they're pretty weak), the huge step away from defined mechanics and "rulings, not rules" is a massive step back from what I want in a fantasy game.

Of course, that'll be just the opposite for a lot of other people, so there's that. I'm just saying why I voted the way I did.

 

[Obryn]

I think it might be the 3rd best. Not as good as 4e, certainly. Not as good as RC D&D, either.

I'd much rather play it than anything 3.x though!

 

[Mistwell]

Poll is holding up remarkably well. Overwhelming vote for Better, but as usual most of the minority who voted Worse also are posting to the thread. Proving once again that those who are satisfied say less than those who are dissatisfied...something Mearls also noted in comparing survey voting to message board posting.

 

[CM]

Poll is holding up remarkably well. Overwhelming vote for Better, but as usual most of the minority who voted Worse also are posting to the thread. Proving once again that those who are satisfied say less than those who are dissatisfied...something Mearls also noted in comparing survey voting to message board posting.

"The silent majority." of RPGs.

I have two primary gaming groups. One is mostly newer-school who love 4e. The other is mostly older-school who preferred 1e and 2e but are happy enough playing 4e. That group may make the switch to 5e.

Maybe I'm lucky but all the people I game with have engaging storyline as their primary concern, game mechanics coming in distant second.

 

[Cybit]

I voted "Worse" because I think it's a step back, overall. While non-combat options like backgrounds are definitely a step forward (even if they're pretty weak), the huge step away from defined mechanics and "rulings, not rules" is a massive step back from what I want in a fantasy game.

Of course, that'll be just the opposite for a lot of other people, so there's that. I'm just saying why I voted the way I did.

Indeed; completely get those who are not a fan of rulings versus rules (I'm paying for you to make me rulings game designers!). I enjoy 5E immensely personally, but I also have multiple groups that are not very rules lawyery / I am enough of an alpha to shout down my rules lawyers.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Indeed; completely get those who are not a fan of rulings versus rules (I'm paying for you to make me rulings game designers!). I enjoy 5E immensely personally, but I also have multiple groups that are not very rules lawyery / I am enough of an alpha to shout down my rules lawyers.

Yeah, I'm always the one running the game, and I have never had a problem saying "not in my campaign" or "we're going with this, even if it's not in the rulebook."

At the same time, when creating my own RPG, I wanted the mechanics very clearly defined, so that when players made decisions, it would be fully informed. I didn't want them to have to rely on anyone else; if they wanted a character who could scale houses and jump from rooftop to rooftop, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a character that was great at convincing groups of people to follow him, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a a character that was able to climb a dragon's back while fihgting it, or shoot it in the eye to avoid the armored scales, here's how it's spelled out in the rules.

Of course, I get that the level of nuance I want is too much for a lot of people. I get that a lot of people have an understandable aversion to looking something up in the rulebook while playing the game. I get that people value speed and simplicity. I just value solid, reliable rules more than speed and simplicity. I want rules for things, and I want them spelled out in a way that empowers players to make informed decisions.

Again, though, I totally get why people value simplicity. I've had a lot of fun playing simple games in other genres. So, to each their own, and good luck to 5e. I might play in it, but I can't see myself ever running it. I still hope it succeeds, though. D&D succeeding is good for the industry, and good for the fantasy genre in general.

 

[Emerikol]

I like rulings not rules a lot. I'm a simple rules guy. I like much of what 5e has done. That is why its all the more shame they are only support martial healing in their game.

Sword of the Spirit, I understand your decision but I don't want zero support in the industry for my playstyle ten years from now. I feel I need to support the smaller companies that still offer support.