D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[Morrus]

This answer is quite simple. WOTC 5e is simply not D&D. It is a different game. D&D hasn't been D&D since AD&D. There is a great new youtube video on the subject called "What is Dungeons & Dragons and what is not"

I don't think we need to turn the site into a massive edition war like it was 2007 all over again, thanks. Let's drop the gatekeeper declarations of what editions are not D&D, please.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But in its favor, 5e is at its best when it's customized by the players and DM. While the core of it seems easy, bland, and boring, it's the most adaptable version of D&D we've had in 20 years.

For me this rings true and thus softens any disatisfaction or criticisms against the edition.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Sooooo, back when 4e was obviously pushing a large 3.X audience to start making torches and sharpening pitchforks WotC decided, right 5th edition should be pretty good.about now.

I remember being at GenCon when they made the announcement and gave their road map vision of an edition that could appeal to any player of a previous edition and that a player from each could sit at a table with a 5e DM and be able to quickly grasp the system, the changes and the direction of the game without much of a hiccup.

One disgruntled audience member screamed out 'Great, Suaron's One Ring to bind them all for D&D!' To which Mike Mearls calmly said... 'Yes, exactly.' Which pretty much shut said yahoo up..

But in hindsight, I would say for once WotC DID just what they said they were going to do. It wasn't perfect, but it was accessible. You may hate it, but you had better respect what they were able to accomplish, because I can tell you it wasn't an easy feat, especially in the days of edition wars 2. While not universally loved, 3.X was at least acknowledged as D&D, 4e was acknowledged as a game, made by WotC, but that was about it; they had a huge hill to climb (while wearing flats on a greased surface.)

So, there you have it. The one rules to bind them all. Pretty apropos, eh what?

 

[LordEntrails]

People who say that are not saying that the DM cannot dial things in 5e up to the point where they challenge hard core players. They are saying that the default setting of 5e dials is pretty darn easy, and I agree.

Perhaps, but it seems to me too many are saying 5E is too easy, and never mentioning tat their are dials available. My point is more along the lines of every edition has had dials. And I'm much happier for the game and community tat the 5E dials default to where they are.

I don't think people trained on OD&D and older editions are bad DMs or they were trained wrong on how to DM. It was a different game and part of the challenge was surviving. You weren't a hero, you were an adventurer and there was a death toll. Some of the modules noted for their antagonism were designed for tournament play where it was about who could live the longest and win the most treasure by the end of the tournament so "smart play" with a different emphasis from telling a heroic story. D&D evolved and it's a different style now and yeah "save or die" in modern D&D is a suck outcome, but in the older editions, particularly 0e and 1e, it was a part of the game, survival and tactics and running was a valid tactic.

I'm saying that I was trained by the OD&D and AD&D modules and as such, I WAS A BAD DM. I know all about the tournament modules etc. I started back in 1977 (+/- 1year). I was then not the DM I am now, and I still have bad habits the old way of DM'ing taught and ingrained in me that I do not like.

I think the success of 5E, in part, can be attributed to the new way of teaching DMs and players. That D&D does not have to be about adversarial relationship between the DM and the players, I like the new way. And am glad most people don't have to learn the old way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

View attachment 152206

Yeah, knowing who the OP is, and knowing their feelings about 5e over the past few years, and seeing how they haven't replied back once, I have my suspicions about the goal of this thread.

 

[teitan]

Perhaps, but it seems to me too many are saying 5E is too easy, and never mentioning tat their are dials available. My point is more along the lines of every edition has had dials. And I'm much happier for the game and community tat the 5E dials default to where they are.

I'm saying that I was trained by the OD&D and AD&D modules and as such, I WAS A BAD DM. I know all about the tournament modules etc. I started back in 1977 (+/- 1year). I was then not the DM I am now, and I still have bad habits the old way of DM'ing taught and ingrained in me that I do not like.

I think the success of 5E, in part, can be attributed to the new way of teaching DMs and players. That D&D does not have to be about adversarial relationship between the DM and the players, I like the new way. And am glad most people don't have to learn the old way.

Are they being taught if they’re being told to not read the DMG?

 

[ECMO3]

The last new version I learned to run was 4e. I wasn't bad, thought I still prefer earlier editions. Why does 5e make so many people upset?

I've been playing since 1981 and 5E is the best edition in my opinion.

I don't think most players are upset with it, quite the opposite. I think 5E is overwhelmingly liked by players. I don't think this board is representative of most players. On this board you get a lot of naysayers, but even here I think the version is popular.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps, but it seems to me too many are saying 5E is too easy, and never mentioning tat their are dials available. My point is more along the lines of every edition has had dials.

This I completely agree with. Dials have existed in D&D since it began.

And I'm much happier for the game and community tat the 5E dials default to where they are.

It's way too easy in my opinion, but as you noted dials exist and I have used them to up the challenge level.

I'm saying that I was trained by the OD&D and AD&D modules and as such, I WAS A BAD DM. I know all about the tournament modules etc. I started back in 1977 (+/- 1year). I was then not the DM I am now, and I still have bad habits the old way of DM'ing taught and ingrained in me that I do not like.

I think the success of 5E, in part, can be attributed to the new way of teaching DMs and players. That D&D does not have to be about adversarial relationship between the DM and the players, I like the new way. And am glad most people don't have to learn the old way.

Only you can really judge you. That said, I don't think there are methods that OD&D and AD&D trained that are inherently bad. They work for some and not for others. I am continually tweaking things in an effort to make the game better and more fun for all involved. There are methods that I still use that date back to when I started in 1983, and others that I have ditched along the way.

I doubt you are what I would term a bad DM. That term is reserved by me for those who railroad players without permission, are adversarial DMs, or abuse authority in some manner. Those kinds of DMs are pretty darned rare.

 

[haakon1]

I’m ”meh” about 5e. I will play it, but I haven’t learned it enough to DM it or learned beyond the basics.

I think it’s immensely better than 4e (my least favorite).

 

[ECMO3]

It seems that the WOTC 5e fanboys took over this thread. WOTC is not pro league, its noob friendly entry to roleplaying games.

I played every single published adventure in AD&D as well as a number of the Basic and Expert set adventures and I disagree with this. 5E is accessable but it is every bit as much "pro league" as any edition previously and has many more options than AD&D.

The best part is the 5E rules make sense and there are not rules for rules sake. In AD&D the rules contradicted each other all over the place, and many made no sense at all, particularly those involving movement both in and out of combat. The better rule set in 5E makes the system better for advanced play, not worse IMO.

AD&D was full of complicated non-sensical rules and while there may be a corner case that the rule is useful, many of the rules were not useful for the vast majority of situations they were supposed to apply in. If AD&D was so great, explain why it takes a naked Human 10 minutes to walk 120 feet. Explain how to resolve unarmed combat between a Monk, a Fighter and a Thief-Acrobat. How can Half-Elf become a Bard when he can't dual class into Thief as required to become a Bard? Finally, why is it that a cleric worshipping the god of Murder can beat someone with a flail but has taken a holy vow so he can't stab them with a dagger?