D&D 5E 5th edition driving people back to 1st/2nd edition.

[Guest 6801328]

I moved to a new state about a year ago, but at my old FLGS here's what happened:

There is one very active DM there who had been hosting a semi-regular table of 4e.

In the fall of 2014 he started a weekly 5e AL game, which I joined. For the first month or two we had about 3-5 players, but by February we were overflowing and the DM started asking for volunteers to start new tables.

I moved away (unfortunately) in March of 2015, but I'm still on the mailing list and have been watching it grow. Now they've got 3-4 tables every week, running adventures in both the 1-4 and 5-10 range. The gaming shop expanded into the adjacent space because there wasn't room for both D&D and Magic.

Now I'm playing at a new FLGS in their Wed night AL, and that too is growing (and competing for space with Magic...).

So, no, I'm not seeing 5e chase anybody away to anything.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Something I've noticed in my area is that people are dropping their 5th edition games and going back to playing 1st/2nd edition games. I've noticed on the Dungeon Master's Guild site that the top 7 most popular books are the 1st and 2nd editions of the game. People in my own game are wanting to drop 5th and go back to 2nd edition.

Is this becoming a trend? It's like playing 5th edition is sparking an interest to go back and playing those older editions.

Late to the thread, but my observations are:

In my circle, 4th never caught on. Though I had issues with it as a GM, I still liked playing it and bought most of the player-centric books. But the guy running a campaign and I were the only ones who made any financial investment in 4th at all. So it fizzled.

5th, though? It hasn't even generated a whiff of interest. Even moreso than 4Ed, 5th's negatives outweigh its positives. For the first time since 1977, I won't be buying new D&D stuff, and the more conservative gamers seem less interested than I am. But even the other more adventurous types in our group are giving it a pass.

So, it isn't that 5th is driving us away, it actually isn't even drawing us in.

Clearly, milage varies.

 

[S'mon]

The only thing that can force a mutually exclusive decision is the people you have at your table, and in my experience I find that when a player or DM says "either it's X or nothing," the superior choice for the collective enjoyment of everyone involve is "Okay, bye." and finding players/DMs more open in what they are willing to play.

IME the superior choice is that (1) GM pitches what he'd like to run, (2) players who would like
that agree to play, (3) players who don't like it don't play. If the GM can't get any players he'd need to run something else if he wants to GM. But it's important the GM not be pushed into GMing something he doesn't really want to run by player demands.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IME the superior choice is that (1) GM pitches what he'd like to run, (2) players who would like
that agree to play, (3) players who don't like it don't play. If the GM can't get any players he'd need to run something else if he wants to GM. But it's important the GM not be pushed into GMing something he doesn't really want to run by player demands.

Agreed on all counts. I've been that GM- the one forced to run something against his will- and the results were quite poor. And no, I didn't try to sabotage the campaign. Instead, the campaign was ruined by an inattention to detail, brought on by my lack of interest. I didn't notice a certain mechanical issue, and as a result, the campaign's climax utterly fizzled.

When I recognized the root mechanical cause, I apologized to my players at the next session.

When I recognized why I missed it, I vowed never to make that mistake again. So since that time, I have hardly GMed a game, and haven't sat on the other side of a screen in 4+years. If players don't want to play what I feel like running, I'm OK with that. But I won't run a game I don't want to ever again, just to make others happy.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

IME the superior choice is that (1) GM pitches what he'd like to run, (2) players who would like
that agree to play, (3) players who don't like it don't play. If the GM can't get any players he'd need to run something else if he wants to GM. But it's important the GM not be pushed into GMing something he doesn't really want to run by player demands.

Glad to see you agree with me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Glad to see you agree with me.

I know I don't, at least not with your "Okay, Bye"/hit the road formulation- in no case has a refusal to play or run a game gotten anyone ejected from the group.

And I suspect S'mon would point that out as a significant difference as well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've been that GM- the one forced to run something against his will- and the results were quite poor.

I was that GM for the life-span of an entire edition of D&D (or two, if you count 3.5 as separate from 3rd).

It was very hard work for very little enjoyment for me, but I managed to at least keep the players having fun.

I'd constantly bring up non-D&D games that I was interested in, and we'd take breaks from playing D&D to play those because the players were interested too - but whenever it came down to the group, myself included, wanting to play some D&D we disagreed on which version to use (me wanting to use 2nd edition, them all wanting 3rd/3.5) and I didn't have the wisdom at the time to simply say "I'm not into that." and let the players play without me while finding other players interested in playing 2nd edition with me, so that all involve parties would have at least the chance at having a great time (or potentially have the players reveal that they'd actually rather play some non-D&D game with me than play 3.5 with them having to find or be a different DM).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I know I don't, at least not with your "Okay, Bye"/hit the road formulation- in no case has a refusal to play or run a game gotten anyone ejected from the group.

And I suspect S'mon would point that out as a significant difference as well.

You are confusing "Okay, bye" as being "Okay, bye forever" which is not what I actually said.

It might not have been originally clear, but I thought that my example I added for clarity in post #38 of this thread would actually clear that up.

 

[S'mon]

Glad to see you agree with me.

Yeah, I read your later post and I see we're on the same page. A GM certainly shouldn't
run a non-preferred game to suit one close-minded player. And players are best off not playing a game they don't like the look of just because it's the only one on offer. The only thing I want to emphasise is that the GM needs to be enthusiastic about a game system, while players can be relatively
neutral, and GM preference should count for more than player preference if it's an issue -
if the group is determined to play something together and is debating what; then the
lead decision maker should be the person who's going to GM.

Personally as a player I find I care more about setting than system, though if I don't know the system and would be expected to learn a complex one that would be a factor. I generally don't enjoy
non-European settings (eg Arabian or Japanese) as much, but sometimes it's worth playing them to be part of a cool group with a great GM. But it would be a bad idea for me to GM such a game
just because that's what the players asked for.

 

[Maxperson]

IME the superior choice is that (1) GM pitches what he'd like to run, (2) players who would like
that agree to play, (3) players who don't like it don't play. If the GM can't get any players he'd need to run something else if he wants to GM. But it's important the GM not be pushed into GMing something he doesn't really want to run by player demands.

I much prefer option (4) DM pitches ideas for multiple things to run, and players pitch ideas for multiple things to run. All ideas that aren't agreeable to everyone are eliminated. What's left is the pool that gets chosen from.