D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[Bigkahuna]

I agree with that. I've found that the number of house rules I have made to get it to fit my vision of how D&D should be is a lot less than for any other edition. And the way the game is designed it is also a lot easier to make those rules.

So, yeah, if he wants to there are a lot of things he can do with it to make it closer to 3.5. I was just judging by the fact that his dissatisfaction seemed to stem from it differing from a favorite edition that he seems strongly attached to. In my experience, those least likely to want to adopt 5e are those most in love with a particular system. I've called them "Pathfounders", because they've found the edition they like (and Pathfinder is only one of those), rather than are currently playing with the game they like more. It isn't intended to be derogatory.

If I had my way, I'd get everyone to try out 5e for a good long adventure at least, play with the variants and options that appeal, and then see how they feel about it. But then again, if a 6e does come out in another 10-15 years (and I'm not convinced that it will), it's quite likely that I'd be a 5e Pathfounder who wouldn't want to really try it.

I think 5e is a lot easier of a sell to to roleplayers and fans of D&D than most editions that players switched to with the exception of perhaps the 1st to 2nd edition period as 2nd edition was largely just seen a continuation of what people were already doing.

But like 2nd to 3rd edition was painful, 3rd to 3.5 was excruciating as there was so much resentment towards Wizards of the Coast at the time, in fact I ended up having to buy player handbooks for people just to get them to even have a conversation about switching. 3rd to 4th edition ... well everyone knows that bit of history but that was the single worse time for D&D, I couldn't pay people to show up to a 4e game.

5th edition though, its been super easy to get people to try it and the large majority have adopted it. I honestly think its in large part due to the fact that its very easy to convert material. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder material are so easy to convert that you can almost do it on the fly (I know I do). And no one plays 4th edition so I have never had to convert anyone from it.

Pathfinder players though are hard to sell 5e on but I think its because Pathfinder has such an emense library of amazing content that is tailor made for the system that for DM's and players its so easy to continue using it. Though Pathfinder material can almost be used as is in 5th edition so there is great compatibility there. But yeah, Pathfinder players are the toughest, this is a very happy group of RPGers that really has no reason to switch, they have a great system and the love it. I don't blame them for not having any interest in 5e.

 

[Imaculata]

So, yeah, if he wants to there are a lot of things he can do with it to make it closer to 3.5. I was just judging by the fact that his dissatisfaction seemed to stem from it differing from a favorite edition that he seems strongly attached to.

Exactly the opposite of that!

It didn't feel different enough. It felt like a watered down version of an edition I'm familiar with. With most of the flaws and illogical things still there.

To me it feels like having an edition A, with lots of stuff in it that works fine, and with tons of books... and then having edition B, which is almost an identical simplified version of A, but with less stuff, and far less books to choose from. I don't see the merit of picking B over A.
The number crunching of 3.5 never got in the way of role playing for me and my group, and most if not all of my players really enjoy it. And we have so many books to choose from, not to mention all the third party books, and all the Pathfinder books that are all 100% compatible.

If I was to seriously consider a new edition, it would need to be radically different. It would need to at least fix all those illogical things about D&D's combat simulation that have existed since the very beginning.

 

[Sadras]

Exactly the opposite of that! (snip)

It didn't feel different enough. If I was to seriously consider a new edition, it would need to be radically different. It would need to at least fix all those illogical things about D&D's combat simulation that have existed since the very beginning.

I have a player who feels the same way
That player and I slowly tinker away at 5e refining it where we feel it needs some 'fixing'
As a DM though, I find 3.5/Pathfinder overwhelming just because of the sheer volume of material. If I ever had to go back it would be for an E6 game, that I can manage.

By the way cool profile pic, where is it from?

 

[Imaculata]

By the way cool profile pic, where is it from?

It's a piece of concept art I came across while searching for pictures for some of the npc's in my pirate campaign. So I just randomly found it on the internet while searching for a creepy sorceress. I changed the colors a bit myself, to give it a brownish tone. It was originally in full color.

 

[Bigkahuna]

wierd double post ---- snip----

 

[Bigkahuna]

Exactly the opposite of that!

It didn't feel different enough. It felt like a watered down version of an edition I'm familiar with. With most of the flaws and illogical things still there.

To me it feels like having an edition A, with lots of stuff in it that works fine, and with tons of books... and then having edition B, which is almost an identical simplified version of A, but with less stuff, and far less books to choose from. I don't see the merit of picking B over A.
The number crunching of 3.5 never got in the way of role playing for me and my group, and most if not all of my players really enjoy it. And we have so many books to choose from, not to mention all the third party books, and all the Pathfinder books that are all 100% compatible.

If I was to seriously consider a new edition, it would need to be radically different. It would need to at least fix all those illogical things about D&D's combat simulation that have existed since the very beginning.

This is a common complaint though its worth pointing out that 5e has more in common with AD&D and the original vision Gygax had for the game then it does 3rd edition. The core goal of early D&D editions was to create a system built on story and abstracted combat. By the time 3rd edition came out it was back to being about simulating combat with an ever growing level of complexity, in fact there are at least 110 times as many rules in 3rd edition for combat as there ever were in chainmail, which is a direct polar opposite to what D&D conceptually was supposed to be.

The fact that people like it is not surprising, people love combat games, its why combat and war makes up the large majority of all games across all platforms. It is the most used theme in games period.

You might not feel the rules ever got in the way of role-playing because every group has its tolerance of what is "enough" role-playing and what depth is required for it to feel sufficient.

Just to give you an example, I played in a recent game as a guest in a game of Pathfinder with a group that claimed "oh we role-play like crazy". My take on it was that in 5 hours of playing, I saw a grand total of ZERO role-playing by my definition. They where very satisfied with the game, I was very disappointed.

In the end it just confirms the classic adage different strokes for different folks. We are lucky to have a variety of editions to choose from, each catering to a different element of the game but in my experience 3rd and 4th edition where the periods of D&D where the absolute least amount of role-playing took place. In fact by 4th edition, in particular in groups who entered into D&D during this edition, in my humble opinion, they have no idea what role-playing even is. What I saw in most of these groups is people playing a table top battle game.. aka... chainmail.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Like the OP, I'm a player of earlier editions(4E in my case) though in my case I started playing 5E with a negative bias(due to participating in the playtest) and expected to dislike it. That being said, I agree with th OP that I'm finding 5E really lacks a selling point to a veteran of previous editions. It really doesn't do anything new and amazing for me. It's primary attraction to me is being fast and rules light, but I could do that with 2E and with my years of experience and system mastery for 2E I would really rather just stick with that if that's what I wanted. For the sort of game I use 4E for, 5E doesn't really compare and for a 3E style game I'd much prefer 13th Age(it really evokes the feel of the 3E I played with far fewer problems).

 

[Oofta]

Like the OP, I'm a player of earlier editions(4E in my case) though in my case I started playing 5E with a negative bias(due to participating in the playtest) and expected to dislike it. That being said, I agree with th OP that I'm finding 5E really lacks a selling point to a veteran of previous editions. It really doesn't do anything new and amazing for me. It's primary attraction to me is being fast and rules light, but I could do that with 2E and with my years of experience and system mastery for 2E I would really rather just stick with that if that's what I wanted. For the sort of game I use 4E for, 5E doesn't really compare and for a 3E style game I'd much prefer 13th Age(it really evokes the feel of the 3E I played with far fewer problems).

This kind of post brings up so many questions.

If you don't like 5E, why post to this forum?

I played/DMed 4E all the way from first to epic, what can you do with 4E that you can't with 5? The main issue I had with 4E was that everyone used magic (how else do you explain a fighter's "Come and get it").

You think 2E is better? THAC0 anyone? What makes it "better"?

How does the game system affect your campaign? I found 4E, with it's emphasis on ultra-fine-detailed powers ended up limiting creativity, but it was still peripheral to the campaign itself.

To me the rules are what enables me to tell a story with my players. I've played all versions of D&D and to me this version strikes the best balance so far. The system seems to get out of the way of storytelling while still enabling gameplay.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...I'm finding 5E really lacks a selling point to a veteran of previous editions.

Wow. I have the exact opposite opinion. Not only as a three decades plus veteran of every single edition myself (not to mention countless other systems), but as someone who regularly interfaces with literally hundreds and hundreds of TT gamers on a very regular basis. In person. In gaming environments.

I'm seeing things very different from your above statement.

 

[Oofta]

Wow. I have the exact opposite opinion. Not only as a three decades plus veteran of every single edition myself (not to mention countless other systems), but as someone who regularly interfaces with literally hundreds and hundreds of TT gamers on a very regular basis. In person. In gaming environments.

I'm seeing things very different from your above statement.

To each his own, but by every available public measure (including the article on the Enworld front page) 5E is the most popular version of D&D out there including Pathfinder.

But yeah, I agree. I started playing far longer ago than I care to remember, this is my favorite edition.