D&D 5E Advanced D&D or "what to minimally fix in 5E?"

[Micah Sweet]

In the happy case they achieve some modicum of success, it still means that they have split off a fraction of the user base that no longer plays 5E.

Is this a problem?

 

[Micah Sweet]

When someone, smarter than I am, comes up with an objective and measurable criterion using expert and academic rigor, let me know. Until then, I support using the only objective metric we have.

I find the continued fight to explain why 5e is both bad and overwhelmingly popular to be mind numbing. The premise that 90% of the community plays a bad game is ripe with issues. But people keep trying excuses, such as 5e players being ignorant of other systems. All in an attempt to explain why it remains to so popular while being so bad.

The newest thing is that popularity means nothing. 5e is popular due to voodoo witchcraft, because it's an awful system. Let's dismiss this popularity, tainted by evil magics, and come up with a new metric - one that shows how bad this system really is.

This all feels like an round-about way to tell 5e players that they are wrong for liking the system. A ham-fisted attempt to "teach those 5e noobs" how a "good" system plays. After all, there is no chance that they actually like a bad system like 5e. It can't be that 5e is actually good. We know it's bad, why can't 5e players see this.

People are free to like, and dislike, what they wish, but this continued disdain towards 5e has led to a mind-numbing barrage of reality twisting theories. All of which wish to explain why a good game is bad, and why that game's popularity means nothing.

It's tiring.

So you really think there's no validity to the idea that a lot of 5e fans just aren't familiar with other systems, and might prefer them if they did? Seems pretty possible to me.

 

[Corinnguard]

Is this a problem?

Only if you are dealing with brand loyalty.

 

[Mephista]

What things are weak?

Exploration rules, crafting, skills in general, social encounters to start with. Better CR for monsters.

I think BG3 had the right of it to cap the game at 12. So I kinda want to expand the game based on that.

 

[Corinnguard]

That is if they started out with aims similar to mine - to "fix 5E".

You'll have to ask EN Publishing what their intent was when they decided to come out with Level Up. I like to think that @Morrus et al weren't making Level Up just to fix 5e, but to make it more enjoyable for those who wanted something more from 5e. And I think they succeeded with regards to the latter as far as I and several others are concerned.

 

[ECMO3]

For me, I don't mind more subclasses, spells and feats but one thing I do not want is more core rules or a more complicated rules system.

 

[ECMO3]

Exploration rules, crafting, skills in general, social encounters to start with.

See I think we need fewer rules for these things, not more rules. I think these sorts of things are the things that DMs should incorporate into their campaign however it makes sense. This is where we need to give DMs more creative license.

This is particularly true of crafting I think. No crafting at all, some crafting between adventures or most of the game is spent building things and shopping for supplies to build things - all three of these can work and I have seen all three work, but it is unlikely that more than one of them will work in a given campaign and whatever system the DM implements needs to be compatible with the campaign they are running.

This is where more rules cause problems. The crafting system we have right now for example, as minimalist as it is, can't be used effectively in many published adventures. For example, you are not going to be able to craft in Out of the Abyss, Descent into Avernus or Tomb of Annihilation unless the DM makes big changes to the story arc.

 

[ECMO3]

So you really think there's no validity to the idea that a lot of 5e fans just aren't familiar with other systems, and might prefer them if they did? Seems pretty possible to me.

When you say "no validity" and "possible" that is misleading I think.

Those are not the terms I would use. I would reframe this and what I would say is I believe 5E is as popular as it is because fans in general like the rules and prefer the rules to other systems.

In that respect it is "possible" that this is not true and most/many fans have just never played other systems and might prefer them. But I do not think that is the case and I do not think 5E is popular only or primarily because fans have not used other systems.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So you really think there's no validity to the idea that a lot of 5e fans just aren't familiar with other systems, and might prefer them if they did? Seems pretty possible to me.

We really do not know, in that we have no data one way or another. It is possible but I find implausible that majority of D&D players have no knowledge that other systems exist.
I think that if one knocks around YouTube then other systems will come to one's attention.

beyond that i really have no idea.

 

[Shardstone]

When someone, smarter than I am, comes up with an objective and measurable criterion using expert and academic rigor, let me know. Until then, I support using the only objective metric we have.

I find the continued fight to explain why 5e is both bad and overwhelmingly popular to be mind numbing. The premise that 90% of the community plays a bad game is ripe with issues. But people keep trying excuses, such as 5e players being ignorant of other systems. All in an attempt to explain why it remains to so popular while being so bad.

The newest thing is that popularity means nothing. 5e is popular due to voodoo witchcraft, because it's an awful system. Let's dismiss this popularity, tainted by evil magics, and come up with a new metric - one that shows how bad this system really is.

This all feels like an round-about way to tell 5e players that they are wrong for liking the system. A ham-fisted attempt to "teach those 5e noobs" how a "good" system plays. After all, there is no chance that they actually like a bad system like 5e. It can't be that 5e is actually good. We know it's bad, why can't 5e players see this.

People are free to like, and dislike, what they wish, but this continued disdain towards 5e has led to a mind-numbing barrage of reality twisting theories. All of which wish to explain why a good game is bad, and why that game's popularity means nothing.

It's tiring.

I'm a huge 5E fan and write professionally for 5E in many different ways. Miss me with all that "Oh why am I so prosecuted for my choices?" No one is prosecuting you.

Using popularity as a measurement of quality is ignoring the other factors that influence popularity. For sure, if 5E was a bad game, it wouldn't be as popular as it is. That does not mean it wouldn't be popular, and it cannot recursively to say that it is popular. Instead, you have to do your best as a human being to go over the rules and the game and come up with your own opinions based off actual logical processes.

You are clearly very intelligent. I do not mean this sarcastically. You, I'm sure, can come up with better reasons for something being good as opposed to "It's popular." In America, anti-LGBT opinions were POPULAR for a long time. Doesn't mean they were good. Likewise, thac0 was popular for a long time. Not good either. No matter how you cut it, there are countless PRODUCTS and GAMES out there that are POPULAR, and that popularity can never be used as a defining metric of quality.

It indeed is tiring having to argue with people that because 5E is popular doesn't mean it's the best thing of all time. I love 5E, but I sure don't like how people online have to get so dramatic over other people not liking 5E.