D&D 5E Did The Finished 5th Edition Change Anyone's Mind?

[Reynard]

I still don't like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. That feeling hasn't changed since the initial playtests and one of the reasons why I'm still not a fan of the edition. There are other reasons as well, but that one was the main reason I disengaged from the playtests. The feeling of advancing sideways also doesn't interest me much, but it wasn't an issue I had from the beginning, only from playing the game after its release. There are some nice bits though, so I like to keep up with the edition.

Interesting. I think Advantage/Disadvantage is one of the best things about the edition, especially from a DM's point of view. It makes for a great tool in helping mechanically describe situations without screwing up the math with too many adjustments to the die roll. Plus, it maintains the inherent "swingyness" of the d20, of which I am a huge fan.

 

[Colin_Fredericks]

I wasn't negative during the playtest, but I was on the fence. I've really been won over by the finished product and how it performs in play. I consider 5e to be a "best of" product for D&D, capturing pieces of all the different editions, and I'm very impressed with how they've done it overall.

 

[Wormwood]

I'll echo much of the sentiment in this thread: disliked the playtest, burned out on D&D in general, played the Starter Set and found myself pleasantly surprised.

I've been playing for months and while I'm enjoying the game very much, there are a few mechanical aspects of 5e I still don;t care for. But---and even I admit this is awesome---every one of my complaints is addressed in the DMG, alongside a solution or alternate rule. So now I can't wait to run my next campaign with a rules set perfectly tailored for my ideal D&D.

Not bad.

 

[Iosue]

I'll echo much of the sentiment in this thread: disliked the playtest, burned out on D&D in general, played the Starter Set and found myself pleasantly surprised.

I've been playing for months and while I'm enjoying the game very much, there are a few mechanical aspects of 5e I still don;t care for. But---and even I admit this is awesome---every one of my complaints is addressed in the DMG, alongside a solution or alternate rule. So now I can't wait to run my next campaign with a rules set perfectly tailored for my ideal D&D.

Not bad.

Not bad, indeed! What were your complaints and how where they addressed in the DMG, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I still don't like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. That feeling hasn't changed since the initial playtests and one of the reasons why I'm still not a fan of the edition. There are other reasons as well, but that one was the main reason I disengaged from the playtests.

I've seen the mechanic or it's equivalent (like re-rolls) in use quite a lot long before 5e and it never seemed a bad thing. Indeed, Advantage is one of those happy mechanical rewards for 'good play' that players seem to appreciate /more/ than the raw numbers (which are still quite good, as long as the roll is fairly close to 50/50 to begin with) would seem to indicate. (Disadvantage, by the same token, is extra-dismal.)

Is it just the binary, non-stacking nature of the mechanic that you don't care for?

The feeling of advancing sideways also doesn't interest me much, but it wasn't an issue I had from the beginning, only from playing the game after its release.

I can see how bounded accuracy might feel like advancing slowly, or simply having less room for advancement (I think gaining 20 HD and 9 spell levels leaves plenty of other sorts of advancement to feel, though). Is that what you mean by 'sideways?' That you get more stuff rather than doing stuff better? Because that doesn't sound so bad.

I am genuinely curious... what pre-established fantasy genre does D&D try to model... everything I've read about it's creation seems to suggest the creators were in fact not trying to emulate any one genre...

Not any one sub-genre, certainly, and any speculation about what they were 'trying' to do is fruitless. If you want to think of the game as defining it's own genre, then you neatly absolve it from any failure to model the broader fantasy genre, even though its presented as an FRPG. That's convenient if you feel the need to 'defend' it. But, it's not terribly informative or useful in understanding or evaluating it.

 

[Imaro]

Not any one sub-genre, certainly, and any speculation about what they were 'trying' to do is fruitless. If you want to think of the game as defining it's own genre, then you neatly absolve it from any failure to model the broader fantasy genre, even though its presented as an FRPG. That's convenient if you feel the need to 'defend' it. But, it's not terribly informative or useful in understanding or evaluating it.

But if it wasn't actually designed to emulate a genre... then choosing to evaluate it based on that criteria is incorrect and not terribly informative or useful in understanding it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But if it wasn't actually designed to emulate a genre... then choosing to evaluate it based on that criteria is incorrect and not terribly informative or useful in understanding it.

It's an FRPG. Fantasy is a genre. That D&D draws from all over the genre (and from myth/legend/folklore) doesn't mean it isn't emulating a genre, just that it's the broader genre.

Maybe it's just too obvious? Perhaps an extreme hypothetical would help: if D&D were to have no magic - no magic items, no fantastic monsters, no casters - would it still seem like it was 'fantasy?' Would it then define a magic-less fantasy sub-genre that was completely mundane?

Or perhaps we could lay its failure to emulate genre on casting too wide a net rather than excuse it with a facile tautology? Few specific example from genre cover everything that's in the broader genre, so, of course, a game emulating the broader genre won't necessarily successfully emulate any one sub-genre or specific work, not without, at minimum, pairing away quite a lot of the options it presents.

 

[Imaro]

It's an FRPG. Fantasy is a genre. That D&D draws from all over the genre (and from myth/legend/folklore) doesn't mean it isn't emulating a genre, just that it's the broader genre.

So what are the requirements of the broader genre and how do you evaluate them?

Maybe it's just too obvious? Perhaps an extreme hypothetical would help: if D&D were to have no magic - no magic items, no fantastic monsters, no casters - would it still seem like it was 'fantasy?' Would it then define a magic-less fantasy sub-genre that was completely mundane?

Sure... since it isn't based on the real world, and characters would still be capable of amazing things... again, fantasy is so broad as to be useless as some kinda metric.

Or perhaps we could lay its failure to emulate genre on casting too wide a net rather than excuse it with a facile tautology? Few specific example from genre cover everything that's in the broader genre, so, of course, a game emulating the broader genre won't necessarily successfully emulate any one sub-genre or specific work, not without, at minimum, pairing away quite a lot of the options it presents.

What failure to emulate genre? You've yet to define what "fantasy" as a singular genre is or what criteria exist for emulating fantasy well... In other words trying to evaluate it in a category that is as broad as "fantasy" is not terribly informative or useful in understanding or evaluating it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So what are the requirements of the broader genre and how do you evaluate them?

Fairly obvious, really. Read tv tropes if you're stuck for ideas.

Does the game deliver the same sorts performances from the various archetypes/memes/tropes you find in genre? When it doesn't, is it justified by playability issues? Things like that.

What failure to emulate genre?

Just one example that's been an issue since the game first appeared was the way it put all its eggs in the 'Vancian' basket when modeling caster archetypes.

 

[sheadunne]

Interesting. I think Advantage/Disadvantage is one of the best things about the edition, especially from a DM's point of view. It makes for a great tool in helping mechanically describe situations without screwing up the math with too many adjustments to the die roll. Plus, it maintains the inherent "swingyness" of the d20, of which I am a huge fan.

The issue I had was the prevalence, not its effect on the dice roll. In the games I've played, it's rare that someone isn't rolling 2 d20. It makes me feel like I'm not playing D&D and instead playing one of the many success based systems (WOD, Shadowrun, etc). Breaks my immersion that I'm playing D&D.