D&D 5E 2024 D&D is 2014 D&D with 4E sprinkled on top

[TiQuinn]

I dunno, I just wish somehow there was more about what united us as "D&D players" less about why my version is superior to yours. Whatever happened to "it's all D&D"?

We didn’t start the fire. It was always burning, since the world’s been turning. I remember it with 1e vs 2e. I remember it with D&D vs LARPers. It’s never been a kumbyaa when a message board is involved. Like, ever.

 

[Lord Twig]

Nobody told the 4e critics that it wasn't possible to not enjoy 4e.

Nobody acts like 5e doesn't even deserve to be called "D&D." They'd be laughed out of the room, even by me.

Nobody makes up fictional rule after fictional rule to lambast 5e and show how god-awful it must be, despite such rules being oftentimes literally the antithesis of the written text.

I, personally, try to be respectful to others preferences--so long as those preferences are not predicated on "two for me, none for you" type things, since I have taken issue with preferences that appeared so in this thread--while critiquing design. And I've taken plenty of shots at 5e's design. I've never, ever, hidden my criticisms of 5e. I am well known on this forum as a critic thereof, and for being someone who thinks 4e got an utterly and objectively unfair "review" from a lot of people. (Note the quotes. Plenty of people who criticized 4e never even read it.)

So...no. I'm not "doing what those who liked 3.x and dumped on 4e did." As for why I do it? Because this is the only way I get to talk about D&D at all. Because I enjoy engaging with others and learning from their perspectives, even if I ultimately disagree with those perspectives. Because, in sifting through the dross, I occasionally find a nugget of gold. Because I believe that, in contributing to the criticism of those parts of 5e I dislike, I can contribute to possible change; further, because I believe that it is better to try to pursue possible change even if I might fail, than it is to throw up my hands and say "nothing can be done!", whether that be in TTRPGs or in politics or in religion (because believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of things people of my overall religious group have done!) or in anything really.

Thank you for the thoughful response. Up to here I was just going to give a thumbs up to your post and leave it there, but I feel I should address your points below.

Now. What is the point of your argument, here? Because it seems to me that it is doing up to three things:

1. "Look at how awful this person is. Clearly their arguments aren't worth listening to." That's ad hominem, and I should think that if you were going to moralize at me, you'd avoid using such a tactic in the very same breath.

I didn't say this at all. No where did I suggest you are an awful person or that your arguments aren't worth listening to. I did feel that you were more focused on tearing down the current version of D&D instead of just comparing it to 4e, but you say that is not your intention and I will take you at your word.

2. "Aha, I caught you! Trying to sneak your way past the defenses? Well it isn't gonna work!" Which, as noted, is ridiculous because I've never made even the slightest effort to conceal my criticism of 5e--not only do I see no point, I see plenty of point in NOT concealing that. Plus...it's not "a" thread. It's a bazillion.

Maybe I just haven't been able to read enough to get where you were coming from. I could easily deduce that you were a big 4e fan, and that is fine. However I was not aware of your position as a "well known critic of 5e" until your post that I replied to. So I guess that is on me for implying you were trying to hide it. So I apologize for that.

3. "Nobody who doesn't like something should be allowed to talk about it." Which...would be rather a spicy argument, if you are in fact making it. But that does seem to be the logical consequence of your position: folks who don't like something shouldn't participate in discussion about it. If you don't like something more than you dislike it, it's inappropriate for you to speak up.

Oh, and with the lovely extra spicy bit that this also means I wouldn't be allowed to participate in a thread that draws direct and explicit comparisons to something I do quite love (despite being aware of various, sometimes serious, flaws therein!), because that thread is also about something I don't like. So now, it wouldn't just be that I'm not allowed to talk about things I don't like, but specifically folks who don't like 4e and do like 5e are allowed to talk about 4e. Which, again if you're making the argument that I shouldn't talk about things I don't like, but the OP and several posters even on the very first page are well within their rights to talk about things they don't like, then it begs the question why this is acceptable for 5e fans to do, but not acceptable for 4e fans to do.

Of course a thread that mentioned 4e specifically would draw your attention, and of course you are free to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the forum rules of course). I did not say that you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, I just wondered why you bothered. You answered quite elegantly above. I was genuinely curious, as I said in my post, and you answered. So thank you for that.

I don't really have enough time to follow all of the threads I am interested and read all of the posts. But, apparently like you, this is one of the few places I can talk about my favorite hobby, so I sometimes I have to skip posts to catch up to the lastest discussion. So I will also apologize if I have missed something that was already covered.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is not a defense of Lord Twig, but a commentary on this particular point.

This board is way too balkanized. And everyone (even myself) is guilty of it.

We don't act like D&D players. We act like 2014 players, 2024 players, Level Up players, Shadowdark players, 4e players, Pathfinder players, OSR players, etc etc. And we fight like we are going to convert everyone else to our preferred version and thus our team wins. If I can just show you how wrong your beliefs are, you'll see the wisdom and join my side. Thus, we fight for every inch of land in this evangelical war. And most of the time, the fights are exactly to highlight why MY interpretation is correct, and YOURS is inaccurate.

Half the D&D 2024 threads are full of people who don't play 24, won't buy 24, haven't kept up with the 24 changes, but sure as hell have opinions on 24. The same is and was true of 4e. Of OSR games. You get the idea. Nothing generates content like controversy and the quickest way to do that is criticism.

So yeah, I can see why people people opt for a "if you don't like it, don't talk about it" take. Because defending what you like day after day is tiring. And it's not like we're having overly new arguments. We're still arguing about martials vs casters, evil humanoids, sport vs war, and the nature of HP. And now we all have a game or edition that supports our vision, so we're all right and all wrong at the same time.

I dunno, I just wish somehow there was more about what united us as "D&D players" less about why my version is superior to yours. Whatever happened to "it's all D&D"?

Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled thread.

Just do what I do. Have 3 favorite editions and 1 least favorite.

Doesn't bother me to much if you don't like 2E,5E or B/X. Most editions do sonthing better than another edition. If that thing is your favorite it's the best edition for you.

B/X easiest to DM, simple, domains.
2E. DM tool box and settings.
5E. Easiest modern D&D to run. Nice trade off between say 2E and 3E/4E complexity.

More complex the system bigger problem to run for me as DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just do what I do. Have 3 favorite editions and 1 least favorite.

Doesn't bother me to much if you don't like 2E,5E or B/X. Most editions do sonthing better than another edition. If that thing is your favorite it's the best edition for you.

B/X easiest to DM, simple, domains.
2E. DM tool box and settings.
5E. Easiest modern D&D to run. Nice trade off between say 2E and 3E/4E complexity.

More complex the system bigger problem to run for me as DM.

Those are also my three.

 

[Scribe]

A young man at the NFL Combine.

6’3”, 220 lbs
43" vertical
4.38 40 Dash
11'6" broad jump
Top Speed - 23.53 MPH (38 KM/H)

The man would get a speeding ticket in a School Zone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A young man at the NFL Combine.

6’3”, 220 lbs
43" vertical
4.38 40 Dash
11'6" broad jump
Top Speed - 23.53 MPH (38 KM/H)

The man would get a speeding ticket in a School Zone.

Note the implications, if this young man at the NFL Combine were a 5e character:

• His strength score must be at least 23, because he can standing long jump (="broad jump") 11.5 feet
• His speed in feet per second is 34.5, meaning in six seconds he should be able to achieve 207 feet "at top speed". I'd presume that would be taking the Dash action, so cut it in half, for a speed of 100--dramatically faster than even a Monk with all the bells and whistles
• His standing vertical jump (presuming that's what '43" vertical' means) implies a slightly lower Strength, but not much lower.

Even if we factor in that Fighters and such are wearing armor and carrying gear, this football player is quite literally superhuman by 5e standards.

So. Are people really surprised when I say the "guy at the gym" issue is a thing? A powerful fantastical warrior in a setting where grit and thews can get you through a fight with a ten-ton flying fire-breathing bus-sized lizard with razor-sharp talons and fangs....is being outdone by someone in training for a professional sport career.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Note the implications, if this young man at the NFL Combine were a 5e character:

• His strength score must be at least 23, because he can standing long jump (="broad jump") 11.5 feet
• His speed in feet per second is 34.5, meaning in six seconds he should be able to achieve 207 feet "at top speed". I'd presume that would be taking the Dash action, so cut it in half, for a speed of 100--dramatically faster than even a Monk with all the bells and whistles
• His standing vertical jump (presuming that's what '43" vertical' means) implies a slightly lower Strength, but not much lower.

Even if we factor in that Fighters and such are wearing armor and carrying gear, this football player is quite literally superhuman by 5e standards.

So. Are people really surprised when I say the "guy at the gym" issue is a thing? A powerful fantastical warrior in a setting where grit and thews can get you through a fight with a ten-ton flying fire-breathing bus-sized lizard with razor-sharp talons and fangs....is being outdone by someone in training for a professional sport career.

Then what counts as mundane human limits obviously needs to be adjusted. That's the take-away here for me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then what counts as mundane human limits obviously needs to be adjusted. That's the take-away here for me.

Isn't that what I've been saying the entire time?!

 

[Hussar]

Isn't that what I've been saying the entire time?!

Ah, but, you have to remember, the goalposts must constantly shift. Suddenly, now that you can definitively prove that the baseline in the game is wrong, then we should change the baseline. Absolutely no admission of any mistakes being made. And, of course, even if you manage to get the baseline in line with what an actual human can do in the real world, THEN you have the
sisyphean task of adjusting that baseline into allowing a mundane character to actually do anything that isn't mundane.

At which point, people will conveniently "forget" what was established as real world mundane, argue that you want to turn everyone into wizards, and the whole thing starts over again.

 

[Gradine]

Maybe simulationism was a mistake