Sorry if this may ramble a bit, but seeing as everyone is so insistent on promoting their own opinion, here’s mine.
I came back to tabletop roleplaying 5 years ago, and became part of games which mainly used older rulesets (2E, C&C) or fast paced systems which lean towards more time spent storytelling, investigating and roleplaying (FATE, CofC). This is because I like a game to move along at a decent pace and not get bogged down in mechanics. As a DM I detest reading through page after page of dry rules which attempt to codify all possible outcomes. The ‘rulings over rules’ mindset is necessary for me to enjoy running a game.
As a player I like fellow players to be invested in the personalities of their characters, I prefer the focus of the game to be on exploration and interaction, and I need combat to be relatively short and sweet. I cannot abide theorycrafting and hate to see a character planned out mechanically many sessions in advance. I have a similar dislike for combat becoming a game of chess, with players pondering over moves on a gridded board, or an exercise in bookkeeping, with the DM having to keep track of umpteen conditions and modifiers.
Core 5E mostly hits the sweet spot, at least it does for levels 1-10 – sure there are a few bits I’m not too keen on – the speed with which unconscious characters can be up and fighting again, fast levelling, full hitpoints after a single night’s rest, but I can tweak that easily WITHOUT breaking the game. The game allows, nay encourages that minor tweaking.
I’m strict on races and classes being those published in hardback form by WotC, and I disallow multiclassing for purely mechanical reasons – but even with those limitations, in the 5 campaigns in which I have participated/DMed, I’ve yet to see a class/race/archetype combination repeated even once. There are plenty of options there. My ‘by the book’ strictness there may to some, make me look like a harsh DM who prevents players from having any control over their characters. That is not the case, I’m open to reworking and reflavouring, as long as the story, the background, and the personality are the focus. I’ll let someone multiclass if it fits the personality, background and style of play of the character. And during actual play I’m very much a ‘yes’ DM – the simplicity of the game system allows me to be. Saying ‘yes’ during play drives the story and encourages the players to think creatively.
People are talking about a major mechanical crunch expansion. I don’t want it. I don’t want to have to learn the new rules, I don’t want any form of shift away from ‘rulings over rules’, and most importantly I want to continue to be a ‘yes’ DM, and be able to work mostly on the fly. More crunch almost invariably means more combat options, which in turn means the game slows down. I can’t bear the thought of that. More classes mean more ammunition for the theorycrafters, the number crunchers who turn me off gaming, greater opportunity for them to find some loophole to boost their (usually) adversarial style of play.
For me the Warlord class typifies an era when D&D ‘went tactical’, the game board was expected, the focus had moved from the minds of the group, onto a grid and a list of powers. It represents a specific style of gaming that I am glad 5E broke away from. I’m not keen on the Battlemaster archetype for exactly the same reason. But I do try to stick to my ‘pick anything from the WotC hardbacks’ mantra, so I’m not going to remove it – though I may just stick to running lower level games so that the number of tactical options the class has is more limited.
If WotC releases too much crunch in hardback form though, the mantra would have to change. And I’m old and crusty, and therefore resistant (half damage) to change attacks.
