D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[overgeeked]

For me, the problem I have with 5E is that it killed a style of play I really enjoy. The risk and reward of resource management. Sure, I can house rule back in the dozens of rules necessary for resource management to be an actual thing again...and believe me, I’ve tried. But it’s easier to just play a game with that built in. Especially earlier editions of D&D.

What I mean is: in 5E, one fight, in isolation, is a meaningless waste of time that only determines how many consumable items the party uses to recover, possible exhaustion, or the death of characters. Further, a full fight is a waste of time unless there will be another one before a long rest. And then, that second fight is also only about expended consumable items, possible exhaustion, and character death...it just increases the chances of consumable item use, possible exhaustion, and death. Because there are literally zero day two mechanical consequences of those fights...except consumable item use, possible exhaustion, and death. But, wildly, character death is practically a non-issue. 5E is dirty with healing, RAW CR fights are cakewalks, and monsters are laughably undertuned compared to PCs.

I get that other 5E DMs disagree about character death. That’s your experience, not mine. I can’t speak to your experiences; you can’t speak to mine. That you might have had plenty of character deaths doesn’t change that I haven’t.

Every edition has the possibility of narrative consequences. That’s not unique to 5E. But, importantly, that’s entirely dependent on the table. If your players will risk anything to X, then X is a great motivator. If your players won’t risk anything for anything…then you got nothing...except day two mechanical consequences. Which there are exactly three of in 5E. Consumable item use, exhaustion, and death.

To be clear, when I say “day two consequences,” I’m talking about mechanical consequences that last through a long rest.

5E is designed so the PCs just win. There’s practically zero risk. Rewards are automatic. To me, the risk and reward aspect is the fun part. Without that, there’s no point in playing. It’s no longer a game at that point.

 

[overgeeked]

So, enough of that. What do I like about 5E?

The production values are generally good. The art is mostly good. Dis/advantage is a great mechanic, if a bit overused. There’s lots of cool race options. At-will powers…I mean cantrips…are great, if a bit overpowered. WotC is making a clear point of pushing multiculturalism and inclusivity which is amazing. The 3PP ecosystems is fantastic. And 5E is quite popular, so there’s no shortage of players.

 

[Kannik]

For me, the problem I have with 5E is that it killed a style of play I really enjoy.
.....
5E is designed so the PCs just win. There’s practically zero risk. Rewards are automatic. To me, the risk and reward aspect is the fun part. Without that, there’s no point in playing. It’s no longer a game at that point.

Ah, here's the crux of the thing. This starts of quite honest... "I find that 5e has, as its default, moved away from a style of play that I enjoy." Cool. As you note you can bring back in those elements, or just play the older editions. Right on.

But then comes the last paragraph. Look, I'm someone who has a flair for the dramatic and can whip out some good hyperbole. But to go from "this doesn't support a game I enjoy" to "D&D has totally become a game of push button, receive bacon" (with a side order of "and the players are now crybabies" as insinuated several times in this thread) is where hackles are going to get raised. Just because you cannot see how the game, even using the standard ruleset, can still be challenging and with risk does not mean other people cannot. And that they work their games to be such.

I would invite (us all!) to not conflate our preferences with both a) figuring that is/was the norm (and proper) and b) turning into an exaggerated screed on how bad and wrong and lame everyone else is these days.

(And, to put my money where my mouth is, I am in a group right now that I'm inviting and enticing and introducing to a more 1e style adventure, running them through modules I3-I5 converted to 5e. I'm not making their usual playstyle wrong; I'm introducing them to additional fun ways of engaging with the world and the puzzles and the lore and etc.)

 

[Kannik]

For me, what sets 4e apart is that more than any other edition it leans into pure small-g gamism and isn't shy about saying so. End result is that those of us who want a bit more realism/simulation in our RPGs are going to - and did - bounce off it hard.

For the record, 1e (and thus to an extent 2e) was not shy about it either:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

 

[Fifth Element]

5E is designed so the PCs just win. There’s practically zero risk. Rewards are automatic.

How in the world did you get from "resource management is no longer a big part of the game" to this? It does not follow. And on the face of it, the statement above seems to be blatantly false.

 

[overgeeked]

Just because you cannot see how the game, even using the standard ruleset, can still be challenging and with risk does not mean other people cannot. And that they work their games to be such.

Okay. I'll bite. Without referencing the narrative, what mechanical challenges do you use in your games? What mechanical risks are involved?

For the record, 1e (and thus to an extent 2e) was not shy about it either:

No. Dave Arneson had nothing to do with writing AD&D. Dave was cut out of writing or contributing to AD&D. Arneson had nothing to do with it...you know, other than inventing the thing in the first place...only for Gary to stiff him on the royalties. Dave sued Gary over it, and won.

I always found that to be a laughably insincere quote from Gygax. For Gary to claim that, whilst also filling the AD&D PHB and DMG with all those charts and rules...that almost to a letter point toward simulation-realism is...a bit much. "It's a game, don't worry about simulation-realism...now here's 350 pages of simulation-realism stuff." Nah, Gary.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I always found that to be a laughably insincere quote from Gygax. For Gary to claim that, whilst also filling the AD&D PHB and DMG with all those charts and rules...that almost to a letter point toward simulation-realism is...a bit much. "It's a game, don't worry about simulation-realism...now here's 350 pages of simulation-realism stuff." Nah, Gary.

He was never self-consistent when it came to that.

 

[Jer]

5E is designed so the PCs just win. There’s practically zero risk. Rewards are automatic. To me, the risk and reward aspect is the fun part. Without that, there’s no point in playing. It’s no longer a game at that point.

I don't think this is true at all - it's just that the risk of death isn't the main thing to worry about.

As I said earlier, 5e is a much more narrative game than previous editions of the game were. And that means that if you are going into it with that old school idea that all that matters is whether your character lives or dies then it really is going to be a disappointing game for you. That's part of why I assert that milestone leveling and non-combat encounter XP are both necessary for the game to work as the developers intended it to work - your character has to care about things in the game world that are at risk much more in this version of the game than in previous versions.

This makes it much more like most other modern RPGs on the market - in most RPGs the threat of death is there but it's not really likely to happen. The risks you face for failure are far more likely to be consequences that aren't death - loss of a loved one, loss of status, loss of power, loss of opportunity. (They also made gold less valuable overall too, so even "loss of money" isn't the hit that it would have been in previous editions.)

It's kind of interesting - whether by accident or by design they really have managed to kind of wring the last vestiges of the wargame out of D&D. (And tbf I think it's by accident - in an attempt to pull back from 4e's heavy wargaming model they overcorrected and ended up with something that is far more narrative in approach than I think they originally intended...)

 

[loverdrive]

For the record, 1e (and thus to an extent 2e) was not shy about it either:

While I'm not Lanefan, I think that it's not the point. Out of all editions, 4E is the most reliant on the players knowing, well, the game. Exploiting the game mechanics and not their other knowledge in order to achieve success.

Like, chess and idk, pop quiz are both games with rules that are played for the sake of entertainment (I'm not talking high speed low drag competition stuff here), but being good at chess means exploiting the rules of chess.

Being good at pop quiz, on the other hand, means knowing stuff and making logical inferences from stuff you know. You're bound by the rules, but the best move isn't in the rules.

 

[loverdrive]

As I said earlier, 5e is a much more narrative game than previous editions of the game were.

How, exactly? The rules still operate strictly with in-universe variables, the players still have exactly zero control over things outside of their characters, drama and genre tropes still don't bear any influence over the outcomes prescribed by the rules.

Yeah, the PCs are slightly more durable than they were in 1E (and in 1E, they're still superhumanly durable, to be frank), there are no more save-or-die effects, but that doesn't suddenly turn D&D 5E into a narrativist game.