Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9438602" data-attributes="member: 7635">The story Mearls told (and forgive me, I don't remember where) was that in the wake of 4e, they went back and played EVERY edition of D&amp;D to see what people liked and disliked about each. Apparently, they took detailed notes on those games and attempted to integrate what they felt worked in each edition into 5e. And I can see elements of that: Rulings not Rules feels very at home in as Basic/OS style of play. The leaning in on their own IP/nostalgia of the original APs pulls heavily from the classic AD&amp;D modules. The Multiverse style of world-building is straight from 2e. The 3e style of multiclassing and feats (the latter being optional for those who preferred the simplicity in builds). Some elements of 4e (like short rests) coming over in an altered form. But all of that was made to capture a feel similar to that, not emulate that exactly (which is why the infamous modular concept never worked; 5e was never going to emulate 4e style powers or AD&amp;D style multiclassing). It also very heavily leaned in on nostalgia elements (a trend actually started in Essentials, where the starter set was literally a recreation of the Basic Red Box) to try to tie it all together. Why it worked is because it felt enough like a generic mixture of all the D&amp;D editions that came before it without emulating any one of them in specific. That was its blessing and its curse. It was much more streamlined than 3e or 4e and tried to capture some of the quirky elements of AD&amp;D under the assumption that a good DM would know how to adjudicate it. And it 10 years, they felt they needed to provide a little more structure to the rules than they had prior while removing rules that nobody used (apparently).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9438602, member: 7635"] The story Mearls told (and forgive me, I don't remember where) was that in the wake of 4e, they went back and played EVERY edition of D&D to see what people liked and disliked about each. Apparently, they took detailed notes on those games and attempted to integrate what they felt worked in each edition into 5e. And I can see elements of that: Rulings not Rules feels very at home in as Basic/OS style of play. The leaning in on their own IP/nostalgia of the original APs pulls heavily from the classic AD&D modules. The Multiverse style of world-building is straight from 2e. The 3e style of multiclassing and feats (the latter being optional for those who preferred the simplicity in builds). Some elements of 4e (like short rests) coming over in an altered form. But all of that was made to capture a feel similar to that, not emulate that exactly (which is why the infamous modular concept never worked; 5e was never going to emulate 4e style powers or AD&D style multiclassing). It also very heavily leaned in on nostalgia elements (a trend actually started in Essentials, where the starter set was literally a recreation of the Basic Red Box) to try to tie it all together. Why it worked is because it felt enough like a generic mixture of all the D&D editions that came before it without emulating any one of them in specific. That was its blessing and its curse. It was much more streamlined than 3e or 4e and tried to capture some of the quirky elements of AD&D under the assumption that a good DM would know how to adjudicate it. And it 10 years, they felt they needed to provide a little more structure to the rules than they had prior while removing rules that nobody used (apparently). [/QUOTE]

Verification