D&D 5E Is 5E Special
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
For its original, intended purpose--narrowly, just reducing modifier amounts and sizes, nothing else--Advantage/Disadvantage is great. It performs that specific function beautifully. If that were the only metric which mattered, it would be as brilliant as some of the best bits of 13th Age design, possibly a smidge better (and I love most of 13A's design--bits and pieces I don't care for but so many parts are just terrific.)
Its actual application in the game leaves a lot to be desired. We can discuss that more elsewhere, as it's kind of off-topic for the thread. Simply put, I have known more than a few 5e fans who have soured, not on the fundamental concept, but on its execution in 5e.
The difference is twofold:
1. 5e Advantage is (mostly, sort of) the end of the line. So you do it. A lot. Saves, skills, attacks, everything. Combat Advantage may or may not apply, as there are many other things which can matter in combat, and it's irrelevant outside of, well, Combat; CA is certainly meant to sweep up all the "basic" effects, but not be totally comprehensive. 5e Advantage is supposed to represent...well, everything. (For simplicity, I will shorten Combat Advantage to CA from here on out, and "5e Advantage" to 5A or 5A/D for both.)
2. Adding two to your attack roll is, if we're being honest, actually simpler in a procedural sense than 5A/D. 5e somewhat undercuts its own goal (of simplified execution) by requiring the rolling of extra dice and comparing--it's only simpler if it's clearing away many modifiers. Similar issues are what eventually forced the game away from Mearls' intended Proficiency dice, which used to run from d4 to d12 (average 2.5 to 6.5--sound familiar?), because rolling and adding dice is slower than just adding a flat value. (13A suffers similar problems at high level with its fistful-of-dice issues.)
So because CA is both more narrow and faster, it isn't as much of an impact as 5A/D is.
This gets partially into some of the application issues I mentioned above, but only tangentially.
teitan
Legend
I think it is like 1e/BD&D, not BECMI per se, but that period in the early years as BECMI seems to have kind of slumped based on the sales data, but the system was simple and therefore easy to grasp so they caught on, especially going from Holmes into AD&D, which is what I mean in my example there but could easily include BX. The height of D&D back then was that early period when those two ruled the roost and they were simple, easy to understand games where making a character was as simple as throwing some dice, picking a race/class and letting the imagination run wild. 5e has that element to it. It really doesn't take long to make a character, roll some dice, pick a race, a class, a background and some proficiencies and start playing. That simple play style that allows you to get more complex if you want and at the same time let's you stay as simple as that first couple levels. I think it is very important to 5e's longevity for so long. Unlike previous editions it has gotten more popular as the years go on while others have cratered out after about 4-5, if that with 3.x and 4e.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Well, again, this seems like a circular argument: you are justifying that it was special by pointing to this unique behavior, but that doesn't distinguish special circumstances from special nature.
Did it stay afloat because it was special, something totally unheard-of or nigh-unique in the gaming space, or did it stay afloat because its circumstances were special?
Part of the reason I just can't see it as being particularly special is that...it's not like there haven't been quick-run, "light" versions of games, nor of D&D specifically. 4e had GW7e, which even sold in stores as a boxed set thing. Shadowrun 5th Edition had Shadowrun: Anarchy. D&D had Basic. Etc., etc. There have been attempts in that direction, and none of them took off even remotely like this has.
Conversely, 5e isn't that simple by tabletop standards. It's absolutely not the simplest version of D&D ever made (which, again, would either be some early-edition thing or GW7e.) It has a whole bunch of weird legacy holdovers, like the claimed but generally invisible difference between "divine" magic and "arcane" magic, or saving throws as opposed to static defenses, or ability scores that are never used except at character creation (or for half-feats, I guess?) It's guilty of quite a lot of semantic overloading, particularly the terms "level," "action," and "check." It's absolutely nothing like the simplicity of ultralight games, particularly with à la carte multiclassing and the tracking of how levels in various (sub)classes stack together for that purpose.
So...it's not that having a particularly simple system option makes that big a difference. 3.0 was quite a bit simpler than 2.0, but it didn't have the staying power that 5e has, and other, even-simpler systems (like various extensions of Basic) did not capture that lightning in a bottle the way 5e has. What gives?
My only conclusion is that the special circumstances--which I don't think anyone here denies that those circumstances were special--played an enormous role in permitting this to happen. The rules were not irrelevant. But whatever 5e was, it couldn't have succeeded as much as it has without those special circumstances--because previous efforts in that direction, which didn't have those circumstances, weren't any different from other examples.
Hence why I said 60% (or a little higher) was circumstance, 40% (or a little lower) was innate character. The special circumstances made all the difference, and in their absence, it doesn't matter what kind of game 5e was, it wouldn't have succeeded the way it has. With their presence, even a game that differed moderately to significantly from 5e (such as 4e*) would still have done well, though I freely grant that it might not have done as well. But, as I said, I could be argued down to a 50/50--that it was equal parts being the game for the time, and being the time for a game, whatever that game happened to be. I absolutely would not go any further than 50/50 though.
*Though honestly it's really funny. People--some of them the very people who are participating in this thread--have previously tried to convince me that no, there's actually plenty of 4e in 5e, that there's such strong similarities that it's difficult to understand how someone couldn't see them. Yet now, when it's important that 5e be different from 4e? The two couldn't be more dissimilar. Funny that similarity is only present when it's useful and absolutely denied when it isn't...
Edit: Hey, magic post 1234! Just something funny I noticed
Last edited:
clearstream
(He, Him)
Tsk - you really can't call out circular arguments and then drop this in...
Restated: because it is intrinsically like those others, something extrinsic must account for it's success. The argument over-simplifies. It groups objects by qualities they putatively all possess ("quick-run" and "light") and claims that those vague qualities make the objects intrinsically similar in every way that could possibly matter to their success (and thus it must be down to extrinsic qualities).
Where it to my mind begs the question is that if I make the similar argument with in mind that it is some differentiating intrinsic qualities of 5e that account for its success, then that works equally well. We both say exactly the same thing: quick-runness and lightness alone are insufficient. Then in order to make the argument you put, I just have to already have in mind that no other intrinsic quality of 5e could account for its success (either 5e has no other intrinsic qualities - tenuous - or it does, but they don't matter.) So your implied conclusion is the one you have already in mind.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Yeah, I don't think that 5E is absolutely unique in the intrinsic qualities which are helping it, but that doesn't take away from the intrinsic qualities that it possess. Look at which other games are experiencing success in streaming: Call of Cthulu, Powered by the Apocalypse, World of Darkness. Looking at those and 5E, I think it becomes fairly clear what sort of intrinsic features work for the positive feedback loop in the current environment, but also what comes across is that 5E is the crunchy, wargamey option. That is, the moderate in the middle option in the market. If that isn't a an intrinsic feature, I don't know what is
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
1) A bonus was not the only trick they had.
2) If people can call wildly different classes -- different to the point that WotC's refusal to update some of them to the new edition is still keenly felt -- 'samey' because they share a resource structure, then I can call something samey when it is basically the only mechanic used for anything.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
It's the basic resolution mechanic, yes. Most importantly, being a game and all, it is fun and intuitive.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Fun being relative. I'd much rather get a chance to succeed on a check I normally wouldn't instead of trying again.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I mean, does it?! Can you tell us what those are, if so?
You listed four games with superficially completely different profiles in virtually every regard that I can think of.
CoC is a mechanically extremely old-fashioned TT RPG with a horror/investigation vibe, which often plays out a lot like one of those investigation board games/experiences rather than an RPG. The players can't really influence the narrative at all, and it's very adventure/story-driven. Low-ish crunch, low rules complexity.
PtbA/FitD is an extremely mechanically modern game that almost works better for people unfamiliar with TT RPGs because it challenges a lot of typical approaches. The players have a huge influence on the narrative, and in many PtbA/FitD games the narrative is driven largely by them too (to the point where they may be making up locations, characters, and so on). Low crunch, low-to-moderate rules complexity.
World of Darkness has various iterations, but is generally a fairly modern design (I mean, it was ahead of its time in the '90s), yet has a fairly classical approach to the player/Storyteller roles. The players may have more influence on the narrative that is typical in D&D, but essentially this is only because of the type of stories being told, rather than because of the mechanical characteristics of the game. Moderate to the low end of high crunch, easily moderate rules complexity, again trending towards the higher end of moderate.
D&D 5E has a retro-modern mechanical design, like it's like the revival of Midcentury furniture and beards, it resembles the past, but in a modern way. The mechanical approach to player/DM narrative control is positively antediluvian, literally nearly identical to the earliest RPGs, just with more positive suggestions ("be a fan of the PCs" etc.). Low end of high crunch, probably the most confused/inconsistent rules-design of any of the games (which is still vastly more together than say, 2E, but perhaps less than 3E or 4E), and the most complex rules, though not by a huge margin over WoD.
To me these are very different games and I don't see any real consistent similarities. Accessibility varies widely, and 5E is arguably the least-accessible of them, yet the most successful.
But am I missing something?
Similar Threads
