D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[FrogReaver]

But a pizza could be toast or soup depending on where it was made.

But what about WHEN it was made! Why does everyone always forget the time parameter?

 

[Baron Opal II]

But what about WHEN it was made! Why does everyone always forget the time parameter?

Well, too long ago and it's not edible. Too early as well. As long as we are within the Goldilocks parameter the time axis is irrelevant.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks, so you know, Oofta here has a point.

If you want people to listen to you, it makes a lot of sense not to directly insult something they happen to like. If you want to have a reasoned discussion, you should not use insulting or emotionally loaded terms that engage the emotions, rather than the reasoned mind.

This is less about controlling what you say, and more informing you that what you say should be thoughtfully constructed for the kind of conversation you want to have. This should be obvious, but it unfortunately bears repeating.

Don't be surprised that, if you use insulting language, you have a conversation that's about the insult.

So, what kind of discussion do you actually want to have? Pick it, and speak like a thoughtful adult accordingly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Before I put forth a large reply that doesn't land, let me see if I've sussed out the meat of the position that you're working under here. Are these your three core tenets of your claim?

Short answer is no, but I will elaborate.

* A game with significant structure will not be able to yield divergent play experiences, particularly when contrasted with a freeform platform.

The first and maybe biggest difference between this and my position is the bolded. “Significant structure” is also overly broad to fit my position. A strong amount of specific types of structure make it harder to change the core gameplay experience. Those specific types of structure tend to live in the “procedures of play” section of the design of the game. Things like when the GM can/should/must take a hard move or equivalent. In other words, the biggest structural difference between “trad” games and the current zeitgeist of indie games.

* A game designed around a married fictional premise + engine will not be to yield divergent play experiences, particularly when contrasted with a freeform platform.

This one…is interesting. I think it can go either way. I think your perception of my position comes from the exchange wherein I felt I was being drawn into a different discussion than I was trying to have, yesterday. When someone says they played a D&D game wherein every mechanical element was recontextualised to do soemthing completely different, I don’t see that as the same game. It certainly doesn’t speak to the game’s flexibility, IMO.

* A game that is a freeform platform cannot "be a different game" even if you go wholly outside of the core books (or even developer's expansions) while the same threshold for a game with structure + fictional/engine premise has a very low bar to meet before "its a different game."

This is honestly confusing. I’d love to know where you got this idea. strongly no.

So, for instance, you might contend something like the following:

A Ravenloft game (complete setting and premise change, conflict milieu change, and location change from default D&D) which uses Fear/Stress mechanics and a 3rd party module for x and y is still "a 5e D&D game" while a Blades in the Dark game still set in Duskvol, whch may use (or not - Cult games do not) some Changing the Game stuff from Chapter 9 of the core book (which references things like Harper's Flame and Shadow for the game), and still using the premise of a corrupt and powerful hierarchy that you must interact with and ascend to overcome in order to do x or y (summon your goddess/expand your Cult or avenge the brutalized and downtrodden and carve out a semblance of hope and justice for them or perform your duties as Inspectors to find out which corrupt institutions and power brokers are committing a terrible conspiracy - perhaps against the Emperor...or against the Church of Ecstasy...or the Ministry of Preservation...or to reignite The Unity War...or to bring all the gangs of the city together under one banner to strongarm the other 5 City Council members...or be a band of Bluecoats from the Charterhall Precinct that actually tries to keep the peace and honorably serve in a precinct and within a law enforcement apparatus that is fundamentally a cabal of crooks) is "not a Blades in the Dark game."

Those seem like just to the left of standard BiTD games. What would make it seem more like a fitd game purpose built for that campaign (a thing I know people do), to me, is if it doesn’t use key mechanics from BiTD that make BiTD stand out, or pace the game differently, or recontextualize everything in the mechanics to do an entirely different thing. Again, things like changing attacks against AC to deplete HP to arguments against Legal Standing to deplete Standing With Jury in D&D. You’re using D&D mechanics as a shortcut to build your own game at that point, IMO.

 

[gorice]

I won't stop mixing metaphors, and no-one can make me! I will try and avoid inflammatory language.

To me nothing happens/changes is a perfectly acceptable description of a PC's attempted action. There's pros and cons to having this be a possible outcome as opposed to failure always being something bad happens, but it's still a viable and fun way to play IMO. Both are IMO.

For me, the issue is: what happens after nothing happens? As DM, what do I do next? Personally, a rigid 'something bad must happen now' rule can feel contrived, but it does have the virtue of moving the story forward. What do you, as a DM, do in a situation where the players keep banging their heads against a brick wall, or trying every possible approach to get an increasingly nonplussed NPC to do what they want?

You call the game watered down and insipid. It's insulting the preferences of everyone that likes the game.

I genuinely do not understand this statement. As in, I cannot empathise. I play a weekly 5e game that's been going for a year and a half, and I've been playing this edition on and off since about 2015. I do not, personally, feel remotely attacked then people criticise it. 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is not me, it's a product I bought.

I've heard campfire stories of the Edition Wars (3e and 4e completely passed me by, as I stopped roleplaying for a long time after 2e). Are people still sensitive about that? I want to be clear that I don't judge anyone based on which game they play, and I'll try and be a bit more careful to avoid any implication to the contrary.

So is 5E like Candy, vanilla ice cream or Chocolate? Because there’s already a thread dedicated to food metaphors. I’m just kidding, I really have no idea what watered down insipid chocolate is even supposed to mean, other than to be an insult. And now as someone that enjoys 5E I’m not sure if I should feel insulted or hungry.

Traditional dungeon crawling can be pretty vanilla too, or it can be great. Procedures and rules, at least for me have little to do with whether a game is one or the other. The section on creating dungeons in the DMG on the other hand can make a huge difference.

The section on creating dungeons in the DMG is pretty good, I agree. But I don't think the actual experience of delving into them works that well without some kind of ersatz exploration procedure, time pressure, cost for failure, or what-have-you. There are a lot of ways to do it, but without a system, it's just a pretty map.

Candy that's sold as chocolate in the US couldn't be sold as chocolate in Europe since it's mostly sugar. Chocolate in the UK is in my opinion far tastier, but chocolate in Peru was amazing. So for me watered down insipid chocolate would be a Hershey's kiss which kind of tastes like waxy sugar with a hint of something that kind-of-sort-of tastes like chocolate.

Anything can be improved and I think the DMG in particular could use improvement. But calling 5E "watered down insipid chocolate" is an insult as far as I'm concerned.

OK: to me, 5e is over-sugary, bland American chocolate. It's chocolately enough that you can't combine it with just anything, but not chocolately enough that you want to eat it on its own. It's no good without some crunchy procedural nuts or peanut butter or something.

 

[hawkeyefan]

More structure does not make a game better or worse, it just adds more structure.

No, it doesn't just “add more structure”. There are reasons for it. Now, you may or may not like those reasons, and so the structures may or may not appeal to you. But that foesn’t mean they don’t have an impact on play.

So again, better or worse is always subjective. I’ll clarify my previous statement about this… no one is claiming one method or the other is better or worse objectively. It mag be a better or worse match for their preference.

There will always be a balancing act, I think 5E did a decent job at it and a better job than the previous 2.5 editions.

Okay… so what do you mean here? Balancibg act in what way? And in what ways do you think 5E has successfully managed that balancing act?

On 'Why Editions Don't Matter'?

I think editions do matter but not usually as much as they are claimed to.

Why not?

I think whether seeing something as a clarifying point or telling people to not use harsh words is very much so in the eyes of the beholder. I'm willing to bet anyone asking others to not use harsh words views their response as a clarifying point.

Right. But at this point, it’s clear. Sone folks didn't like the words chosen. Okay duly noted.

But what about the criticism of 5E? What makes it complete? Why is it better (subjectively, of course!) for having less structure than some other editions?

Like let’s get past the theme sentences and into the body of the essay with you guys.

And again, I like 5E just fine. I play it weekly. That doesn’t put it above criticism. I don’t consider it insulting when someone else criticizes the game.

 

[Oofta]

I won't stop mixing metaphors, and no-one can make me! I will try and avoid inflammatory language.


For me, the issue is: what happens after nothing happens? As DM, what do I do next? Personally, a rigid 'something bad must happen now' rule can feel contrived, but it does have the virtue of moving the story forward. What do you, as a DM, do in a situation where the players keep banging their heads against a brick wall, or trying every possible approach to get an increasingly nonplussed NPC to do what they want?


I genuinely do not understand this statement. As in, I cannot empathise. I play a weekly 5e game that's been going for a year and a half, and I've been playing this edition on and off since about 2015. I do not, personally, feel remotely attacked then people criticise it. 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is not me, it's a product I bought.

I've heard campfire stories of the Edition Wars (3e and 4e completely passed me by, as I stopped roleplaying for a long time after 2e). Are people still sensitive about that? I want to be clear that I don't judge anyone based on which game they play, and I'll try and be a bit more careful to avoid any implication to the contrary.


The section on creating dungeons in the DMG is pretty good, I agree. But I don't think the actual experience of delving into them works that well without some kind of ersatz exploration procedure, time pressure, cost for failure, or what-have-you. There are a lot of ways to do it, but without a system, it's just a pretty map.


OK: to me, 5e is over-sugary, bland American chocolate. It's chocolately enough that you can't combine it with just anything, but not chocolately enough that you want to eat it on its own. It's no good without some crunchy procedural nuts or peanut butter or something.

It's perfectly fine that you have different preferences and opinions. I have no problem with that, if everybody agreed life would be boring. But whether you accept or understand it, using derogative language, putting down something that people enjoy is going to annoy them. If I meet you in person and told you that your shirt is ugly, you really don't see how that could lead to negative feelings?

Especially when you state that in order to have an enjoyable game you have to use rules from previous editions to make the game work. When people have been telling you for the entire thread that they don't do that and you insist that your way is the only way to have fun for anyone it's implying, whether you realize it or not, that other people either run boring games or they're lying.

Different people have different styles and preferences. You can state your ideas and why you have your preferences without telling everyone that what they doing is mediocre because they don't do it like you.

 

[Oofta]

No, it doesn't just “add more structure”. There are reasons for it. Now, you may or may not like those reasons, and so the structures may or may not appeal to you. But that foesn’t mean they don’t have an impact on play.

I'm trying to parse that sentence. Adding something typically has impact. Check. I'm saying that the impact may or may not make the end result more enjoyable. Sometimes the result will be a subjectively better game, sometimes worse, sometimes it's a wash.

So again, better or worse is always subjective. I’ll clarify my previous statement about this… no one is claiming one method or the other is better or worse objectively. It mag be a better or worse match for their preference.

Some people on this thread disagree. You may not.

Okay… so what do you mean here? Balancibg act in what way? And in what ways do you think 5E has successfully managed that balancing act?

You can add more structure. You could have less structure. I think they did a decent job of having enough rules to make the role of DMing clear while not having extra, unnecessary cruft that adds little or nothing to the game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's perfectly fine that you have different preferences and opinions. I have no problem with that, if everybody agreed life would be boring. But whether you accept or understand it, using derogative language, putting down something that people enjoy is going to annoy them. If I meet you in person and told you that your shirt is ugly, you really don't see how that could lead to negative feelings?

Especially when you state that in order to have an enjoyable game you have to use rules from previous editions to make the game work. When people have been telling you for the entire thread that they don't do that and you insist that your way is the only way to have fun for anyone it's implying, whether you realize it or not, that other people either run boring games or they're lying.

Different people have different styles and preferences. You can state your ideas and why you have your preferences without telling everyone that what they doing is mediocre because they don't do it like you.

I’ll diverge from you a bit here. I don’t mind other people telling me that for them the game is mediocre or feels incomplete. It’s a subtle but important difference IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

I won't stop mixing metaphors, and no-one can make me! I will try and avoid inflammatory language.

Thank you!

For me, the issue is: what happens after nothing happens? As DM, what do I do next?

Generally, it's a: "he failed, what do you do now?" If there is a time sensitive matter at hand i'll possibly add that as a reminder or possibly bring a complication to them after sufficient time has passed. If the players seem to feel they have no direction on what to do next, i'll offer some high level suggestions.

Personally, a rigid 'something bad must happen now' rule can feel contrived, but it does have the virtue of moving the story forward.

Agreed.

What do you, as a DM, do in a situation where the players keep banging their heads against a brick wall, or trying every possible approach to get an increasingly nonplussed NPC to do what they want?

I described that above.

I genuinely do not understand this statement. As in, I cannot empathise. I play a weekly 5e game that's been going for a year and a half, and I've been playing this edition on and off since about 2015. I do not, personally, feel remotely attacked then people criticise it. 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is not me, it's a product I bought.

For the most part no one here does either. But as they say, the devil's in the details.

I've heard campfire stories of the Edition Wars (3e and 4e completely passed me by, as I stopped roleplaying for a long time after 2e). Are people still sensitive about that? I want to be clear that I don't judge anyone based on which game they play, and I'll try and be a bit more careful to avoid any implication to the contrary.

YES! Edition Wars are still a sensitive topic.

OK: to me, 5e is over-sugary, bland American chocolate. It's chocolately enough that you can't combine it with just anything, but not chocolately enough that you want to eat it on its own. It's no good without some crunchy procedural nuts or peanut butter or something.

I have no problem with this comment, the 'to me' really sets it apart.