D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Parmandur]

See, that's the kind of thing that makes me bounce off the notion of even trying 4th edition. I love the idea of a more tactically interesting, grid-based, combat-focused experience… but then everything I learn about the system itself speaks to a level of needless complexity that would make my head swim.

True story, a few months back I was literally on my way to a local used bookstore to look for some 4e books to maybe give the system a try, and I listened to this YouTube video on the way there—



—and noped out again a few blocks away from the bookstore.

That video matches my experience, though I think he had more fun than I did.

 

[tetrasodium]

No. I run a ton of 5e in public Adventurers League games. All by the book. They DO deserve credit for it. Despite your hang up with them. They even deserve credit for the rules that make it robust for on the fly ruling in combat like you have done, especially in “on grid” play. Which I’ve also done in home games.

And no, page 42 of 4e doesn’t really count, it was a brilliant idea but couldn’t keep up with the powers and often went flat and ended up being a waste of effort.

edit to add: again I do concede that 4e is an excellent tactical game. Far better than 5e, if that’s what your after. I need something “more” in the other areas of RPGs and am not willing to sacrifice them for the sake of that higher end tactical play.

No @loverdrive is right, it's not the 5e system making it tactical. You are the one doing that by ruling on the fly. Wotc could make optional drop in rules subsystems that are designed to support tactical play rather than the dmg ones that are designed largely to thwart the very idea being one that should be acceptable. That's just not something they have shown any interest in doing or even alluding to considering.

@Kurotowa It's fine that not everyone has a preference for tactical gameplay, but 5e took things a step further than simply enabling those other styles by removing the hooks for it and enacting roadblocks in the rules to make adding it back difficult for people who do have a preference for it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Are the tools still online?
Or are there unofficial versions?

You mean the 4e compendium?

Offline tools are available.

But I was referring to the suite of virtual tabletop, integrated campaign tracker, and procedural battle map generation type tools they were hoping for before tragedy (and reality…there was no way that was realistically on the table back then) struck.

 

[darjr]

No @loverdrive is right, it's not the 5e system making it tactical. You are the one doing that by ruling on the fly. Wotc could make optional drop in rules subsystems that are designed to support tactical play rather than the dmg ones that are designed largely to thwart the very idea being one that should be acceptable. That's just not something they have shown any interest in doing or even alluding to considering.

@Kurotowa It's fine that not everyone has a preference for tactical gameplay, but 5e took things a step further than simply enabling those other styles by removing the hooks for it and enacting roadblocks in the rules to make adding it back difficult for people who do have a preference for it.

No. I run AL games by the book. And they can be plenty tactical using existing non optional rules from the players handbook. I.E. tactical play WITH existing 5e rules.

You can keep denying it but it doesn’t make your statements true.

 

[Aldarc]

Maybe it would be better to drop this line of discussion regarding tactical combat in 5e in favor of the OP's proposed line of discussion regarding 5e's effect on other games. This line of discussion was all spurred by the side comment that there has been a recent positive wave of retrospection regarding 4e, including by Matt Colville. I don't think that positive retrospectives of 4e requires sullying that positivity with a pissing contest between fans of either edition.

 

[darjr]

I think it’s appropriate. If anything it might show how D&D discussion and debate can drown out any other RPG talk.

But to go back to the specific topic.

I’m actually not sure. I think it’s great, right now, and maybe long term, for growing the hobby, which I think is good for other games in the longer run. But maybe not.

Maybe it’s popularity now won’t transfer, especially if there is a bust, if this is a fad, especially if it burns people out of the hobby. Cause maybe, as big as it is, that burnout might scorch everything.

 

[robus]

I could see that. Matt Colville recently said in a Twitch stream that his experiences running 5e have made him realize that he prefers running 4e and that it had tighter, more modern game design. IME, there has definitely been a greater retrospective look at what 4e did right now that we collectively have some years on 5e.

I can see that. I tried to watch Colville run a game and his style really didn’t work for me at all!

 

[loverdrive]

Counter take: If you need to put in effort to get a system to do X, it means X is not a default setting for the system. Enabling optional game components takes a little work precisely because they're less deeply integrated into the system. And the fact that detailed tactical combat isn't the default setting for 5e is absolutely a feature, not a bug.

Lots of people don't enjoy complex tactical combat. Many of them are very bad at it. That's what sunk my group's one attempted 4e campaign. Like, the two wargamers were fine, but the rest of the group was overwhelmed and combats took forever and they weren't having any fun. You only have to look at the sales figures to see that the 4e design model is a very niche one. If you can get a whole group who are comfortable in that niche then they'll have an amazing time, but you're cutting out a lot of potential players if that's the only playstyle you offer.

What 5e offers is a more simple and streamlined play experience, and if your group wants detailed tactical combat you can start enabling optional features. It's easier to do that than it is to take a 4e style system and try to disable the tactical combat features until you achieve the streamlined easy access version. And it's indisputable which approach has a larger potential audience.

I don't think that having a larger audience, potential or real is a sign of good design, more of "inoffensive" one. Like Oscar's Best Picture -- it's something that the majority are okay with, not something that everybody loves to death.

The way 5E "supports" a large variety of playstyles is by not supporting for any of them -- whatever you want to achieve, you have to put a considerable amount of effort into it.

Want tactical combat? Get to work.
Want cinematic combat, flowing like the best scenes of John Wick? Get to work.
Want a dungeon crawler? Get to work.
Want social intrigues? Get to work.
Want drama and naughty word? You guessed right. Get to work.

If you play long enough, you kinda stop noticing it. You stop thinking about all that custom monster statblocks or Word documents filled with plots begging to be turned into big-budget films or creative application of rules you do on the flight. But they are always there.

 

[loverdrive]

I think that there's nothing wrong with making the game your own, rather than choosing a different game. The former gives you significant control over customizing the experience exactly to your preferences, while the latter is a convenient prepackaged experience that can save you the effort of DIY (but may not tick every box on your list). Both are perfectly valid options.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with engaging with game design, on the contrary, it's great!

However, I seriously doubt that someone who was exposed to only one RPG can design anything good.

 

[happyhermit]

Default/Vanilla 5e has more "Tactical combat" than a lot of other ttrpgs, I don't see any way that isn't true.

There's this weird thing I see online a lot (particularly from fellow nerds) where we assume that if a person enjoys something, then they would enjoy the pure, unadulterated, extreme version of it more than a moderate version. In reality, I think the opposite is true and most people who enjoy a thing in moderation are less impressed by the more extreme/pure version.