D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[AnotherGuy]

Just easy to use concise direction into how to start a game, build characters together, design adventures, etc.

I do not wish to misunderstand you, but is it your opinion that 5e is not clear on how to start a game, build characters or design adventures?

EDIT: I have my own issues with 5e, most notably short/long rests and the 6-8 encounters/day (put it on my tab @el-remmen ), but certainly not the ones you've listed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

People, what happens when things get personal?

1st, the “mind-reading” provocation:

No, it's an empty signifier ... for you. Because you want all people to play games the same way.

2nd, the annoyed response, eventually casting aspersions:

That's exactly what I don't want. Where do you get off, telling me what I do and don't want?


I'm sorry I wasted time trying to talk with someone who lacks either the ability or the inclination to engage with the substance of my posts.

Please don’t post like this. Try not to provoke; don’t rise to the bait when it’s offered.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

1st, the “mind-reading” provocation:

Just give me the warning point. It satisfies.

 

[Campbell]

I do not wish to misunderstand you, but is it your opinion that 5e is not clear on how to start a game, build characters or design adventures?

EDIT: I have my own issues with 5e, most notably short/long rests and the 6-8 encounters/day (put it on my tab @el-remmen ), but certainly not the ones you've listed.

I don't think it or most modern versions (read Wizards of the Coast editions) provide very clear instructions. It's better than the 3e days which were absolutely terrible. Trying to learn to run the game from the 3e DMG almost chased me out of the hobby entirely.

 

[Imaro]

The designers of the game with the aid of community feedback and playtesting.

I feel like this was done in the past and didn't pan out all that well...

We obviously look at this very differently. I think any game can be changed or adjusted. I do it all the time. I don't think books have super powers. They just provide us with a starting point. I'm also not advocating for a change to the core loop of play, authority structure or any of that. Just easy to use concise direction into how to start a game, build characters together, design adventures, etc.

I think 5e does all of this already... I'm still trying to suss out what it is you're asking for...

Granted part of the reason I think this would be good is unwed D&D specifically from our sense of what a roleplaying game is. To let each game define itself by itself. Part of my personal frustrations as a GM come from encultured standards of play that get applied across games as if every roleplaying game were fundamentally the same sort of game.

1. D&D is too big and the starting point of too many people to be totally unwed from the group consciousness of what an rpg is... unless it flops of course. Companies would kill for this type of brand awareness/association why would WotC ever want to do something that might diminish it?

2. If those other games lay out their assumptions, processes and procedures of play...clearly and concisely then why would that be a problem?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't think it or most modern versions (read Wizards of the Coast editions) provide very clear instructions. It's better than the 3e days which were absolutely terrible. Trying to learn to run the game from the 3e DMG almost chased me out of the hobby entirely.

Out of interest was that your first foray into the game? I can imagine how some might find those books pretty daunting. I learnt through others going from Basic to Expert and Companion, then settled on 2e, looked at the 1e core and then tried my hand at 3.5e when it came out (and later 4e and 5e).

I've always marvelled (and have been thankful) how the people that first got into the hobby persevered through those tomes to teach then younger generations like myself the game, making it easier for me to page through those books.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

looked at the 1e Core

Trifle not with 1e, lest ye play 1e, and if you gaze at the purplish High Gygaxian Verbiage, the purplish High Gygaxian Verbiage gazes also into you.

 

[Campbell]

Out of interest was that your first foray into the game? I can imagine how some might find those books pretty daunting. I learnt through others going from Basic to Expert and Companion, then settled on 2e, looked at the 1e Core and then tried my hand at 3.5e when it came out (and later 4e and 5e).

I've always marvelled (and have been thankful) how the people that first got into the hobby persevered through those tomes to teach then younger generations like me the game, making it easier for me to page through those books.

I started play AD&D 2e in 1997 when I was like 12. We never really had a good handle on it. Started running games in 2000 when 3e came out. Lots of starts and stops. Never could really find my groove until I started running 4e and Sorcerer in 2008.

Part and parcel of this experience was confusion over play priorities and dealing with rampant bullying over playstyles on both sides of the screen. It took me a long time of fighting against systems and play expectations before I was able to find a space where I felt I belonged. A few years back I returned to doing some trad gaming, but sort of embraced it for what it is rather than what I want to be. Enjoyed it for basically the first time.

That's why this flexibility discussion is so important to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A problem with this whole discussion of whether the books actually teach you the game are missing a major element - contact with reality.

As in - folks, under the 5e books, the player base has apparently grown significantly. Like, to levels not even seen in the 80s. This is reality.

Either the books (or starter products) do the job way better than some people think, or there is no practical need for them to. One way or another, folks are learning to play.

In the case of 5e, there's two things favoring it to work out okay: 1. There's an enormous network out there for people to learn via word of mouth; 2. There's likely to be at least some ability for most people to find online sources that can teach them, at least after a fashion.

But there's also a problem with the logic: None of that means people aren't struggling with the game. It just says that enough of them stick with it to grow the player base. But that was true with OD&D too, and it was anything but the poster child for making it clear how to run the game.

Basically, the fact people tough it out is not an argument in favor of a lack of need for better explanation of intended playcycle in a game. People can forge through and still be doing mistakes that harm everyone's experience in an absolutely unnecessary way.

 

[Umbran]

Just give me the warning point. It satisfies.

Mod Note:
You know publicly commenting on moderation isn't appropriate on these forums. So now, you're done in this discussion.