D&D 5E (2014) So 5E is the Successor to AD&D 2nd Edition? How and How Not?

[tetrasodium]

Could it perhaps be that EVERY edition and version of D&D feels like every other edition and version of D&D... because they all have the same tropes, foci, jargon and essence that makes D&D D&D?

So while each person may try and draw lines between them to suggest this one is closer to that one, and that one is further away from this one... in truth they are all more alike than we want to give credit for?

I mean, I have not once ever played any version of the game and thought "Wow, this is more like Shadowrun than it is D&D!" Or that a Call of C'thulu edition felt closer to D&D than any of the various editions that have been produced. That's why I've always felt the argument kind of silly. "This isn't D&D!" someone shouts. Oh really? Then what is it? Hero System? Star Wars WEG? GURPS? Fudge?

Nope. They are all still within spitting distance of each other. They are all D&D in some form and fashion. So why get bent out of shape about it?

No idea what "foci"refers to, as to the broader question though... Yes but I think that is an oversimplification. When making specific comparisons between editions there needs to be enough overlap in their respective venn diagrams for those tropes jargon foci(?) and themes for the comparison to stand up. A claim like "5e [is] the descendent of 2nd edition" would require quite a bit of overlap in an awful lot of critical areas that are no longer even close enough to be considered adjacent.

 

[Retreater]

Could it perhaps be that EVERY edition and version of D&D feels like every other edition and version of D&D... because they all have the same tropes, foci, jargon and essence that makes D&D D&D?

Not for me. For me there are clear divisions between 2nd from 3rd, 3rd from 4th, and 4th from 5th. You can't convert the material easily. The expectations of play are completely different.
I can use B/X and BECMI. I can use 1E and 2E AD&D. I can use B/X, BECMI, 1E, and 2E with a little work.
Across the other divisions, I can't work like that.

 

[Desdichado]

Could it perhaps be that EVERY edition and version of D&D feels like every other edition and version of D&D... because they all have the same tropes, foci, jargon and essence that makes D&D D&D?

So while each person may try and draw lines between them to suggest this one is closer to that one, and that one is further away from this one... in truth they are all more alike than we want to give credit for?

Sure, D&D is D&D and they're all similar in many ways. It's not hard to convert any material from any edition to any other edition on the fly, more or less successfully. If I wanted to run "Dead Gods" in 5e, I could do it without sweating it too much, for instance.

But I don't know about how much credit you want me to give to how alike they are. That's completely beside the point of claiming that one edition is clearly more similar to 5e than some other version. Claiming that all versions of D&D are more like each other than any of them is to Traveller or Runequest or whatever; yeah, sure, of course. That doesn't mean that we can't have a discussion about how 5e is clearly mechanically streamlined 3e with a few 4e elements, and a general rejection of the retro aesthetic.

That last, as vague and handwavey as it is, is the only way that I can really see 5e as being overtly similar to 2e. Compared to other editions of D&D of course.

 

[Remathilis]

1st edition was a toolkit. It was designed to be heavily modded to suit individual tables. Hence the word "advanced" in the title.

Incorrect.

Gary himself said that the AD&D rules were supposed to be the definitive official rules for D&D rather than the loosey-goosey everyone-does-it-their-own-way rules Basic/OD&D ran under. Gary repeatedly talks about how you should be using every rule in the PHB, DMG, and MM (except for the ones explictly marked optional, like bards or psionics) and that anyone not using them isn't really playing D&D. That was evident in his DMG and in subsequent writing in Dragon.

Now, nobody ACTUALLY PLAYED like that. Mostly due to the fact that AD&D 1e is an absolute nightmare to play RAW. Even Gary rarely played according to the rules he himself wrote. Hence why most "AD&D" games were really a mixture or Basic, 1e, and later 2e based primarily on what the DM liked or remembered. The only people who tended to play BECMI or AD&D 2e exclusively are those (like me) who found the game in the 90s and those were the books that were for sale in an era before the internet made finding the old books easy.

And unlike 1e, AD&D 2e WAS a toolkit. There is a lot more explicit opt-in rules (such as proficiencies and individualized initiative). Even the class selection was a toolkit, hence why specialty priests are literally a set of (bad) DM guidelines and the only specialist wizard listed in the illusionist. It was often assumed you would use everything, but unlike Gary's "use everything or your not really playing AD&D" decree, Zeb Cook actually tried to make 2e modular. How much he succeeded is highly debated, considering how much of a redheaded stepchild 2e is still considered 30 years later.

Honestly, if I ever had the inclination to play AD&D 2e, I would probably try to build a Definitive edition using a mixture of the 2e PHB and elements from the PO line and other supplements to make a real "2.5" that fixes some of the issues with the 2e PHB. However, I'm pretty sure I'd have to play such a project straight as the minute I would want to start fixing my own issues, I'd probably just invent 3rd edition again.

 

[Remathilis]

Not for me. For me there are clear divisions between 2nd from 3rd, 3rd from 4th, and 4th from 5th. You can't convert the material easily. The expectations of play are completely different.
I can use B/X and BECMI. I can use 1E and 2E AD&D. I can use B/X, BECMI, 1E, and 2E with a little work.
Across the other divisions, I can't work like that.

Straight conversion (as in running with no changes) I would agree, but I've had no problem running 2e and 3e material under 5e with suitable conversion and swapping. 4e is a little rougher (mostly because I don't like the delve structure) but its pretty easy again to swap out 4e foes for 5e ones. But if you're goal is to pick up Keep of the Borderlands (B/X) and running it as written, you would be correct.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I am in the same boat, depending on where you fall on that, maybe Vagabond or Bugbears & Borderlands works for you, on the other end of the 'simpler than 5e but more complex than BX' are probably Nimble and Shadow of the Weird Wizard.

I'm a huge fan of Shadow of the Weird Wizard/Demon Lord. Probably my favorite not-D&D game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

How would/do you make 5e feel like 2e?

I don't think you can. Classes in 5e have way too many features and powers. You'd have to strip so much out of 5e that you might as well just play 2e.

 

[mamba]

I'm a huge fan of Shadow of the Weird Wizard/Demon Lord. Probably my favorite not-D&D game.

I actually prefer it over D&D. My ‘what would your 6e look like’ post definitely was influenced by it. From all the games out there it is my spiritual 6e

 

[DEFCON 1]

That last, as vague and handwavey as it is, is the only way that I can really see 5e as being overtly similar to 2e. Compared to other editions of D&D of course.

I guess my query is more about why any of (general) you are actually arguing about it? All this 'Nuh uh!' 'Yeah uh!' '2 is like 5!' 'No, 3 is like 5!' 'You're wrong!' 'No, YOU'RE wrong!' silliness. It's all D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

I guess my query is more about why any of (general) you are actually arguing about it? All this 'Nuh uh!' 'Yeah uh!' '2 is like 5!' 'No, 3 is like 5!' 'You're wrong!' 'No, YOU'RE wrong!' silliness. It's all D&D.

I guess my query to you is if you think this discussion is silly, why are you here reading and responding to it? "It's all D&D" obviously isn't sufficient for some people. Why do you care what they say if you don't even care about the topic? The vast majority of topics here are ones that I think are silly, banal, or even cringe-worthy. I just don't click on them if I think that, because it's none of my business to go around telling people that I think something is stupid that they think is interesting.