D&D 5E Do we need a Fifth Edition Revival (5ER)?

[Malmuria]

5e can be "a good game" and still not be best at anything in particular (except putting money in WotC's pockets).

Agree. One could even argue that 5e has mass appeal because it is not laser focused on being the best in any one particular area

 

[Oofta]

5e can be "a good game" and still not be best at anything in particular (except putting money in WotC's pockets).

It's a subjective judgement. While nothing is perfect I think 5E is better in almost every aspect than previous editions. Feel free to differ.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's a subjective judgement. While nothing is perfect I think 5E is better in almost every aspect than previous editions. Feel free to differ.

I saw an article the other day that argued that the different editions are trying to do different things, especially the TSR versions versus the WotC ones. So I'm not sure "better" is the right word here, except for specific use cases.

5E is definitely better at zero-to-hero than 1E was, for instance. But I think 1E is probably better at scrabbling around in the dark, scared of what else is down there with you. (For one thing, other than the dopey humans and halflings, everyone in 5E can see in the dark.)

Assuming I wanted to use D&D and not The One Ring, 5E would be vastly better for a Lord of the Rings game than 1E. But 1E would be vastly better for something like Darkest Dungeon, where high character mortality and overall fragility is a key aspect of the campaign.

I do think 5E definitely has the most refined rules, which makes sense, since they had the benefit of 40 years of development time, as opposed to figuring it out by trial and error along the way.

 

[overgeeked]

I saw an article the other day that argued that the different editions are trying to do different things, especially the TSR versions versus the WotC ones. So I'm not sure "better" is the right word here, except for specific use cases.

That I'd absolutely agree with.

5E is definitely better at zero-to-hero than 1E was, for instance.

I'd absolutely disagree with that. 5E doesn't start the PCs as zeros. AD&D does. 5E does hero-to-superhero or hero-to-demigod. AD&D does zero-to-hero. BECMI, however, did zero-to-god...if you could make it that far.

But I think 1E is probably better at scrabbling around in the dark, scared of what else is down there with you. (For one thing, other than the dopey humans and halflings, everyone in 5E can see in the dark.)

Assuming I wanted to use D&D and not The One Ring, 5E would be vastly better for a Lord of the Rings game than 1E. But 1E would be vastly better for something like Darkest Dungeon, where high character mortality and overall fragility is a key aspect of the campaign.

I do think 5E definitely has the most refined rules, which makes sense, since they had the benefit of 40 years of development time, as opposed to figuring it out by trial and error along the way.

Exactly. One of AD&D's strengths is that hard-scrabble life of adventurers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a subjective judgement. While nothing is perfect I think 5E is better in almost every aspect than previous editions. Feel free to differ.

I certainly will.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd absolutely disagree with that. 5E doesn't start the PCs as zeros. AD&D does. 5E does hero-to-superhero or hero-to-demigod. AD&D does zero-to-hero. BECMI, however, did zero-to-god...if you could make it that far.

I have serious doubts about how many characters made it from zero to hero in 1E or BECMI without the DM having their thumb on the scale. There's just too much XP required, player characters start off too weak and the chance of death is too high.

In contrast, in 5E, if you just keep playing, you'll make it, since death starts off as unlikely and eventually becomes something players can essentially ignore.

 

[TwoSix]

By and large, an environment for 5E that mimics the OSR environment has long since been my dream as a game designer. However, what made the early OSR have staying power was that the many designers participating in it were coming together and working together, and that there was an open door policy on new creatives entering "the fold" so to speak.

I find that in the 5E ecosystem, there's a lot of different cliques, but none of these cliques are in communication with one another. There is no Blogspace unifying a 5ER. There are no strong personalities seeking to make a mega-community dedicated to exploring and experimenting with 5E. And there are no publishers paying people to break into the fold like there was for the OSR.

I mean, yea? Despite some of WotC's foibles, their flavor of 5e is still the heavyweight within the TTRPG space, and that shows only small signs of breaking down. (Maybe that will change in the wake of the 2024 book releases.)

It's difficult to start some sort of counter-movement designed to mostly maintain the hegemony of the current market leader, but in a slightly different variation. The OSR existed in opposition to the current design trends of the mid '00s, rather than trying to shift current trends in a slightly different but overall similar direction.

I'm just not seeing that sort of community being possible to be unified, at least not at this point in time. If the 2024 books actually precipitate a schism in the community, then maybe a "5.0 + 5.0 variants only" community might start to coalesce. The relative lack of potency of blogs in the '20s compared to the '00s, and the lack of unifying communities like G+ also hinder such attempts. The only logical place where such a community might possibly gather is Reddit, I think.

 

[Quickleaf]

I remember listening to actual plays run by Chris Perkins. Similar in a lot of way to early critical role, his games involved a lot of free form character-focused scenes, punctuated by big encounters that were run theater of the mind. If rules situations came up, Perkins seemed to make a ruling, usually one favorable to the players. I think 5e works best when run in that kind of breezy way. The game seems to be slowly moving to focus on fans who want more options, optimization, and tactics.

I’ve been wondering if these are actually distinct player groups (narrative group & tactics group), or if that Venn diagram has more overlap than I presume.

 

[bedir than]

In contrast, in 5E, if you just keep playing, you'll make it, since death starts off as unlikely and eventually becomes something players can essentially ignore.

The objection to 5e for zero to hero is that you are heroes after three sessions.

 

[mamba]

If you bring the level cap down to 10, "more flexible/versatile over B/X," grittier action and less superheroic gets you to Shadowdark.

yes, for me it overshot a tad, it esp. loses out on the compatibility bit and I personally find 10 a too early a cutoff (also for compatibility reasons, this time with existing adventures), I'd rather have at least 12 and probably will use 14 myself, but other than that you are probably correct