D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[EzekielRaiden]

No, but it does make them the person who, on changing the line's direction of travel, everyone else is likely to follow.

And that's....bad?

 

[LordBP]

There is currently a German "Sauercrowd" Event, where Streamers are playing WoW Classic (that means basically an original version of WoW before many expansions and QoL changes) in Hardcore Mode (that means characters die are basically deleted, and WoW is not really designed for you to never die). The Goal is to run a final 40 player RAID. I've never played WoW outside a brief (and to me, boring) demo session, but I am learning a lot by watching some long-term players that were addicted to the game when it was released - including that Blizzard apparently didn't really plan for a lot of the emergent gameplay, and so didn't really know how all these mechanics would work possible. (Not sure if that is still true for the current iteration of WoW, but that game definitely has a very different gameplay from WoW Classic.)

Hardcore WoW is fun to play if you don't mind restarting after dying. It's the only version of the game that I play anymore.

 

[Scott Christian]

So what changes to core D&Disms (classes, mechanics, settings, meta-game, etc) that have occurred over time do you like? Which ones could you do without?

Classes: I have a like/dislike relationship with addition of core classes, especially when they work so hard to balance them. When playing D&D, there is a side of me that likes classes to fill a role. But, there is also a side as a player that says, "It's awesome that I am the cleric and not the only one that can heal."
Species: In a D&D game that is set in the FR, bring on the cantina. It's fun and enjoyable. It's Star Wars mixed with a touch of Lord of the Rings. A fantasy encyclopedia inside the New England Journal of Medicine. And I am here for it. In a D&D game in other settings, it feels terrible and wrong and sacrilegious.
Settings: I like what they have done to the settings. I even liked the lore dump for 4e. I don't think it conveyed it very well, but it worked for me and my players.
Mechanics: I appreciate 5e - a lot. I like the feel of its play. I like its ruleset. I like its balance. I dislike combat after 8th level because of its length. I liked 4e. I liked the whole powers being encounter, daily, utility, etc. I liked its ruleset. I thought the balance was a little too good, and that made the feel a little too structured. I disliked combat after 5th level because of its length. During my limited exposure to 3e, I liked it. I like the options. The ruleset. The feel was fun. I disliked combat at all levels because of its length. I liked 2e - a lot. I liked that classes had roles. I liked the ruleset. I thought the feel was a little lopsided at times. I liked combat, but we were also able to play 12-hour sessions until 4AM. So... rose-colored glasses. I liked AD&D - a lot. I doubt I knew enough of any ruleset to judge. But middle school wouldn't have been the same without it!
Meta-Game: I like the addition of session zero. I like the continual shift to inclusivity. I like the extra space given to player-focused campaigns. And like most things, the pendulum always has a way of swinging too far one way making the other side look lopsided.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First I'll say that 5e can do 90% 2e or 3.X can do for 30% of the effort. And (especially 2024) it's much better balanced with vastly superior rogues, monks, paladins, barbarians, and sorcerers (and warlock is the best class). Doesn't make me love it but it is a big improvement partly due to how much of 4e they slapped a coat of paint over and left in.

I agree. 4e deserves its reputation for being the best edition D&D to DM. By making the rules clear and the players largely responsible for them, the DM focused on story.

4e is, by far, the most flavorful and narratively versatile edition of D&D.

That said. The 4e rules mostly required minis on a grid, and stopped short of embracing theater of the mind (tho there were workarounds). The 4e stories tended toward combat, albeit in a flavorful way.

4e's biggest problem was that it was released when the suits said rather than when it was ready; it should have launched in the state it was in in mid 2009 not mid 2008. But it really decided that if it was written for battlemaps (as literally every D&D has been) rather than going lukewarm it would use it. And had three things every battlemap system should have.

• Complete stat blocks where you don't need to look up e.g. feats or spells. (Every system should have this)
• Monster roles to make more variety and to make creating situations easy
• Easy access to forced movement to make what is actually on the battlemap matter

These three lead to an excellent structure from the DM's side.

4e could have been evergreen, but like 5e, would have 4e 2007, 4e 2010 (Essentials), 4e 2014, 4e 2024, ... if it had OGL to keep it alive. The engine would have evolved over time. Its main needs were to make the advancement schedule more flexible, understand what D&D players wanted, and most of all have an OGL to allow indies to experiment and fill in niches. All of this was doable.

The thing is 4e Essentials utterly flopped (and if we treat it as a separate edition 4e actively outlasted it). 4e fans didn't like it and 4e haters weren't going to look at it. I'd also argue that the advancement schedule was more flexible than 2e's or 5e's as you get to make choices at every level.

 

[Parmandur]

But it really decided that if it was written for battlemaps (as literally every D&D has been) rather than going lukewarm it would use it.

But that's the thing: D&D was always playable with Theagre if the Mind. In College, when I started with 3E, we played for years without maps or minis. What you describe as being "lukewarm" was part of the sauce that makes D&D work.