D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Malmuria]

Right, and why would I want to do that, when I have nothing but 'adulting' in the real world?

Just as, why would I want to solve problems with understanding, compromise, compassion, non-violence, and patience, when I have to do that every single day.

Just give me some daggers, or a big sword, and let me kick in the door please.

And the real world is very grim, with wars and human trafficking, so some people (adults) want to have a setting that is more lighthearted and safe; that's also escapist, and also not-childish

 

[Maxperson]

"Fangs" are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Is this the sort of thing that people are talking about when they say Disneyfication? I thought it was more about tone, theme, and artwork. Removal of gore, controversial material, etc.

There's little that's more controversial than instakill things. We've gone from insta death poison at level 1, to much weaker poisons in 3e, to poison that's pretty worthless as a threat in 5e. It's basically just damage now.

We've gone from energy drain with no saves and guaranteed exp loss even if you got your level back, to 3e where between two easy saves to get the level back and easy to get restoration spells, I never once saw a level lost permanently, to whatever the hell 5e has done. 5e's "energy" drain is so ineffectual that I've never even seen it have a temporary impact. You don't lose many off your max hit points before the creature dies and you get it all back when you rest, and you get a save to resist the weak sauce.

You now don't die from negative hit points unless a single attack takes you negative your entire hit point total, something which is pretty unlikely at level 2 and is pretty much non-existent at level 3 and up.

You may or may not have cared about those fangs, but there really isn't an argument that the fangs of 1e and 2e have diminished and grown weaker with each WotC edition.

Those things are also a part of what people mean when they say that the game has become Disneyfied.

 

[Zardnaar]

There's little that's more controversial than instakill things. We've gone from insta death poison at level 1, to much weaker poisons in 3e, to poison that's pretty worthless as a threat in 5e. It's basically just damage now.

We've gone from energy drain with no saves and guaranteed exp loss even if you got your level back, to 3e where between two easy saves to get the level back and easy to get restoration spells, I never once saw a level lost permanently, to whatever the hell 5e has done. 5e's "energy" drain is so ineffectual that I've never even seen it have a temporary impact. You don't lose many off your max hit points before the creature dies and you get it all back when you rest, and you get a save to resist the weak sauce.

You now don't die from negative hit points unless a single attack takes you negative your entire hit point total, something which is pretty unlikely at level 2 and is pretty much non-existent at level 3 and up.

You may or may not have cared about those fangs, but there really isn't an argument that the fangs of 1e and 2e have diminished and grown weaker with each WotC edition.

Those things are also a part of what people mean when they say that the game has become Disneyfied.

May not be a bad thing but I understand the context people use Disneyfied. Even if they're bad faith and using it as an insult.

Sure it may not be important to you and its not a bad thing by itself (ymmv of course) but it's funny when people claim it hasn't been done or there's lots of variety. There's some variety years after release.

The rules supplements have been hit and miss and the adventures outside production values are mostly middling quality wise.

 

[MichaelSomething]

There's always the Dark Souls TTRPG?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's more the vibe you pick up on it straight away.

Okay but like...you do realize how squishy and vague that whole statement is, right?

It's an ineffable "vibe" that you just "pick up on...straight away." I'm not sure it is possible to more concisely say, "This is so subjective, personal, and emotional, it cannot be communicated with words." And yet you seem to see it as not only intuitively obvious, but axiomatic. THAT is the problem a lot of us are having. We DON'T "pick up on it straight away." In some cases, we "pick up on" its outright opposite (see: my response to The Wild Beyond the Witchlight).

Perhaps, to you, this is so plain, so inescapable, that it is difficult to conceive of how someone would not see it. But I don't, and it seems a fair number of others don't either. Presuming that your perceptions are self-evident truths leads many an argument to run aground. Perhaps consider not doing that.

 

[Malmuria]

I guess I'm not seeing it. Unless every book has to be specifically aimed at middle-aged men who played D&D in the 1970s, I'm just not seeing this alleged Disneyfication of D&D. I'm seeing a range of products, some of which are aimed at younger audiences, others which are not.

Those things are also a part of what people mean when they say that the game has become Disneyfied.

I don't think it's a question that older editions were more lethal, sometimes in extreme and arbitrary ways (traps with no save, or even save-or-die situations). OSR games specifically try to recapture that sense of danger. But the question is, is 5e specifically trending in any particular direction with regards to danger/lethality, and I don't think it is. As you point out, base 5e is much more survivable than older editions.

Also, I think there was a gap, especially in 2e, between the mechanics and how people actually played. In fact, any criticisms people make of Witchlight (non-combat challenges, whimsy) could and were applied to 2e Planescape modules. (I mean, there's a PS adventure where the characters go to the Beastlands where you literally start to become an animal after a certain amount of time)

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay but like...you do realize how squishy and vague that whole statement is, right?

It's an ineffable "vibe" that you just "pick up on...straight away." I'm not sure it is possible to more concisely say, "This is so subjective, personal, and emotional, it cannot be communicated with words." And yet you seem to see it as not only intuitively obvious, but axiomatic. THAT is the problem a lot of us are having. We DON'T "pick up on it straight away." In some cases, we "pick up on" its outright opposite (see: my response to The Wild Beyond the Witchlight).

Perhaps, to you, this is so plain, so inescapable, that it is difficult to conceive of how someone would not see it. But I don't, and it seems a fair number of others don't either. Presuming that your perceptions are self-evident truths leads many an argument to run aground. Perhaps consider not doing that.

Context I actually pulled out some 3E books last week and the week before. Specially Book of Vile Darkness, Draconomicon etc.

There's a tendency online to reject people's opinion with another opinion. It's not opinion to say there's more variety in older material and the tone is different.

That's not subjective. If you like it or not is subjective. Still waiting in Psionics for example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not opinion to say there's more variety in older material and the tone is different.

Sure it is. I see way more variety in the new art. More and varied colors (some muted, some vibrant), more and varied humanoids (far more POCs, for example), a wider spectrum of styles from impressionistic to realistic to stylized.

And, as others have said, many of the things people are complaining about are literally old school things just getting printed finally, like the giant space hamsters.

So... yeah. Those things are both opinions. Unless you mean to say you're about to publish your analysis of D&D art over the past three decades? If so I'd love to see that, it would be great to see an actual documentation of art and what was it has both changed and stayed the same!

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure it is. I see way more variety in the new art. More and varied colors (some muted, some vibrant), more and varied humanoids (far more POCs, for example), a wider spectrum of styles from impressionistic to realistic to stylized.

And, as others have said, many of the things people are complaining about are literally old school things just getting printed finally, like the giant space hamsters.

So... yeah. Those things are both opinions. Unless you mean to say you're about to publish your analysis of D&D art over the past three decades? If so I'd love to see that, it would be great to see an actual documentation of art and what was it has both changed and stayed the same!

It was more of a casual observation. Comparing 5E to 3E is like 1E and 2E.

If you can't tell the differences or want to nitpick I can't help you. I thought it's fairly self evident. Just for the record I like 2E over 1E and 5E over 3E.

I prefer a darker tone myself but not at the expense of quality. 1E and 3E I like the time mechanically they're a hot mess

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Since people have brought up both the Book of Vile Darkness and Critical Role in this thread I thought I'd mention that the campaign Matt Mercer was running that eventually became the first series of Critical Role included elements from the Book of Vile Darkness.

For example:

The Despoiler of Flesh is a short staff made of human tongues that can permanently reshape the bodies of target creatures. A Clasp mage used it to turn a former member of the Clasp into a copy of Vex'ahlia, allowing that person to be handed over to Vex's stalker.

That's some dark stuff right there.

One of the pre-Critical Role Campaign arcs also apparently featured the guy from BoVD that chains kids to his belt so that if he's attacked the children will be hurt or killed instead.