D&D 5E Is 5E Special

5E is old enough to be aging out as shocking as that may seem. Cycles usually start out neutral to positive (sry 4E) and build towards neutral negative. It takes time to grok a system, to experience it, and find out what you like. Systems are hugely complex, but folks tend to hyper focus on a few things. It's like a paper cut or a sliver at first its sharp, and then you deal. Though, eventually it starts to ache. Then, you get folks jumping ship and saying the whole game is garbage and well y'all know the drill. While this sentiment might have its fans, I don't think its an existential threat to 5E.
Neither do I, I'll be honest, I think other factors are more important to 5e's success than whether it holds up under the kind of pressure that I'm discussing.

In terms of what makes 5e special, I would say that it came out at the perfect time, it sanded away a lot of the tactical complexity of the previous two editions of the game, which gave it a reputation for simplicity and streamlined play that I think made players a lot more patient with its fairly dense and often ambiguous rules.

The culture of play it cultivated for itself also prizes roleplaying, sometimes to the deliberate exclusion of mechanical play, so from what I've observed you see some people taking on the point of view that "you're having problems because that's the wrong way to play the game" and almost prefer that the system breaks down because it validates them. Others seem to have a sense that "its always been this way" about those problems and shunt it off into GM responsibility, which I've seen lead to GM burnout-- which is something some GMs who switched discussed not realizing was the system until they did. In some ways I think the 'rule of cool' culture we've seen develop is a movement that strives to deal with 5e's problems by limiting the system's influence over the game, its goal is essentially to Make System Matter Less.

One thing that makes the game special, in my eyes, is that since so much of its player base is new a lot of the people who play it don't have a point of comparison for it. In fact for some of them, if it started annoying them they'd probably decide they must not like tabletop games after all, I've met a few people like that. Because everyone is playing it, and its much easier to find players for it than anything else (if the person being frustrated is even open to the idea themselves), the idea of hacking it into shape becomes more appealing, which creates a cycle where everyone is still playing it, even after experiencing problems with it.

This functions to make it a common language between what is unquestionably most TTRPG players-- more or less everyone can talk about Eldritch Blast, or spells to summon a bunch of dinosaurs, because they're all playing with those common rule components to a deeper extent than another edition of the same game even could. This creates another source of investment in the dominant 5e TTRPG culture-- if you exit it, even to something like Pathfinder, you lose a lot of that common ground and culture. This is created by 5e being able to introduce a bunch of players into its sort of walled garden environment, where the walls are made of 5e as a common culture and framework.

I felt that loss when I left the 5e space, as I love the Pathfinder community we have, but its much smaller, and I have less in common with most TTRPG players I come across.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean that the same group of players will produce parties of wildly different combat prowess between campaigns. I have been playing with (largely) the same group for 5 years or so now and every time we do a new campaign -- Avernus, Rime, Storm King -- the party composition is different (because people want to play something new) and as a result I have to completely relearn how to balance encounters for them. I can't give you any numbers because I did not track it that closely; I just know what my experiences were.
yeah I can say that this one thing that bugs me... as a DM with a table of mostly other DMs we joke all the time about the 4-5 session 'feeling it out' period before we know for sure what threats are too much... and with some casters there are BOOM moments that change it.

I played a wizard from 1st (god I hate 1st level) through 9th level and I was a halfling who at level 2 became a diviner. So I took almost all divination spells (I did have mage armor) but at 2nd level I got the potent ability and at level 4 I got the lucky feat, and I can't remember if it was a 2nd or 3rd level offensive divination mind blast like spell... I went from weak to a big time controller real quick... and most casters with 3rd level spells on up every other level is a game changer.

The CR system is a joke, at best it is a good starting point... but a dungeon that one 4th level party of 4 PCs walks through like it is nothing could TPK another group of 5 if the party is built different enough
 

But hasn't that pretty much always been the case in every edition? At least that's been my experience. D&D is not a board game, no edition has been. I've needed to adjust for every group, it's just part of being a DM.
3rd and 5th seem to have exacerbated it... at least in my experience. 2e basic both had more flat and like the party was more limited in roles that need to be filled, 4e tried to balance so any class combo would work. Now all three of them still have ranges of power... but 3e was the worst with huge spreads, and 5e is in between 2e and 3e but closer to 3e
 

I mean that the same group of players will produce parties of wildly different combat prowess between campaigns. I have been playing with (largely) the same group for 5 years or so now and every time we do a new campaign -- Avernus, Rime, Storm King -- the party composition is different (because people want to play something new) and as a result I have to completely relearn how to balance encounters for them. I can't give you any numbers because I did not track it that closely; I just know what my experiences were.
I though people would consider that a feature instead of a bug? Since lots of people disliked 4E for its "sameness" and want classes to be wildly diffence to each other??
 

3rd and 5th seem to have exacerbated it... at least in my experience. 2e basic both had more flat and like the party was more limited in roles that need to be filled, 4e tried to balance so any class combo would work. Now all three of them still have ranges of power... but 3e was the worst with huge spreads, and 5e is in between 2e and 3e but closer to 3e
PF2e is also a good comparison point in this respect, because if you read it as a close permutation of DND more or less in line with differences between editions (which in a design context, as opposed to a branding context, is appropriate) it sort of confirms that the problem of encounter balance is solvable to a significant extent, that particular weight on the GMs shoulders can be incredibly lessened-- without actually taking away their ability to deviate into messier situations where encounter balance is a lower priority, the kind of situation where Matthew Collville discusses not knowing HOW the players are going to solve the situation, because its not balanced, but being ready to facilitate their shenanigans and expecting that they probably can anyway. I still do that sometimes in PF, but I have greater control over whether or not I have to at any given moment.
 

I though people would consider that a feature instead of a bug? Since lots of people disliked 4E for its "sameness" and want classes to be wildly diffence to each other??
I personally liked 4e's class design, but I imagine lots of people would tell you its a spectrum where 4e just wasn't in the sweet spot of balanced asymmetry due to its starting point of symetrical feature and power structure and that similar balance could have still been achieved while creating larger texture differences in their mechanical structure.
 


I though people would consider that a feature instead of a bug? Since lots of people disliked 4E for its "sameness" and want classes to be wildly diffence to each other??
One of the best things about 4E was that it had very clearly defined roles such as controller, defender and so on. When you picked a class you pretty much knew what you were getting into. In addition, every class (until essentials) had the same power structure of at-will (weak powers), encounter (better), daily (best). Then there were utility powers that primarily helped outside of combat. In addition, there was a very clear progression of magic items you should have for any given level range.

One of the worst things about 4E was that it had very clearly defined roles ... basically repeat the paragraph above.

For some that consistency was a good thing. I get it. Along with things like skill challenges (once they figured out the math), there was a fairly static, predictable progression. It just didn't add enough value for me, but I'm sure for others it did.
 

But hasn't that pretty much always been the case in every edition? At least that's been my experience. D&D is not a board game, no edition has been. I've needed to adjust for every group, it's just part of being a DM.
Sure. I was just pointing out that the design balance of 5E is NOT 4E or PF2 tight and you can't trust the math to save you.
 


Remove ads

Top