D&D General Explain 5(.5)e to me

[touc]

I've been playing some version of D&D since the 80s, and I've always adhered to Moldvay's "no rule is inviolate" tagline to get through each edition change and keep certain parts of the game the way I like it.

"No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure." —Tom Moldvay, foreword D&D Fantasy Adventure Game, Basic Rulebook

Characters were too powerful too quickly,

It's all relative to what the DM throws at them. I can generate a lethal encounter (and did last game session, killed 2/4 5th level characters), so no character is ever too powerful too quickly. By comparison, in AD&D, by 5th level wizards could fly, priests could make the dead talk, and odds folks were already toting around magical weapons and armor. D&D 5E merely toned down the "Christmas tree" effect of prior editions (where characters were pretty much required to have loads of particular magic items or they'd fail) and imbued that presumed power into the character class, giving more options to act than ever before. Compare AD&D fighter options with D&D fighter options in combat.

the action economy is... let's say busy (readied action, action, bonus action, reaction),

It's one of the simpler systems out there imo, and it's all relative to the gamer. Once you've been playing for a bit, it doesn't feel busy at all. D&D is approachable to the novice gamer, very user friendly, whereas I had folks that after a decade still never quite got the hang of THAC0.

and the character options just an endless parade of race, subrace, class, subclass, with an inexhaustible list of mechanical stuff PCs could do just by rolling a die (vs. role playing, or having to think about what they wanted to do). It all felt like a video game to us.

That's dependent on play style. Personally, my group avoids "roll playing" unless the outcome is uncertain, and I don't like using splat books (with those endless parades). Each campaign I run is thematic, with only certain races (species) and classes allowed. It's all to "enjoy the adventure." Other tables might enjoy "furries" or a Planescape mix of everything. To each their own, and D&D is solid about that. If you don't want turtle and dog and cat people at your table, don't.

But, people love it. Just love it. So my question is...why? What is it about this particular rule set and edition that makes it so fun?

It's been debated on these forums for many years. My take is (1) 5E basic rules are user friendly, (2) it's been promoted thanks to streaming and Stranger Things in a way that wasn't available years prior, (3) you can play online, not available in the days of old, and (4) you've got supportive communities accessible at the click of a mouse button. But, the rules do matter (4E vs. Pathfinder), so it's not all simply current events.

Is it because this is the only edition many people have played, and don't know any of the old ways? Or is it because so many people play video games, and 5e is sort of analogous?

No and no.

I love Dungeons&Dragons as a concept, and I have since I was 11 years old (a very long time ago!) I feel like I am missing out on something because I am either too set in my ways, or missing some critical concept(s) in 5e. Help a brother out, friends.

That's the age I got my first boxed set in the late 80s. I played the Red Box, Blue Box, AD&D, 3E, Pathfinder, D&D 5E, A5E, 5.5, and I've skipped off to Dragon Age. I've gamed with "grognards" and currently DM for folks around my age whose first RPG has been D&D. They're intrigued a bit about AD&D days, but not a one likes the idea of 1 hp characters who survive largely due to luck or DM fiat to reach epic levels, or complete imbalance of wizards who would become near-gawds in those days. I think nowadays many gamers are more drawn to story arcs and less about rerolling characters constantly.

That said, I roll above table (in person) and let the dice fall where they may. My 2/4 death encounter last session was largely DM dice. I rolled high saves on spells, critted a lot, and that happens. But, the game isn't over, and we'll be making some decisions next session. From experience, if a player is invested in their character, we'll have an adventure to resolve bringing that character back. If they weren't, I'll probably see a new one join us. That's a shift in philosophy from when I first started DMing: death is just as much the player's part of the game as the DM's.

Because I want to love it, too.

If you're with the right people, you will.

 

[GothmogIV]

I am leaning toward giving 5e another whirl (2014 edition...I'm not ready for 2024). This has all been helpful to me in re-framing what this game now is, and why people enjoy it so much. It is an issue of mindset vs. quality of game, I think. I have felt like I have been 'fighting the long defeat' (Galadriel) instead of just thinking about things differently.

I very much appreciate all of the insights and friendly observations. This is a good community of people. Thank you.

Except for @Morrus . Jesus that guy! (Kidding, kidding)

 

[roguish]

the designers embracing the tendency many groups have towards treating the PCs as protagonists in an evolving narrative rather than as ordinary people in a fantastical world.

I'm honestly not sure if I'm an outlier here, but I very much like both, and at the same time.

I like PCs to be protagonists, I find it a lot more satisfying than treating them as expendable and replaceable character sheets. (Not that I don't enjoy a good old mindless hack-and-slash dungeoncrawl from time to time, but usually as an one-shot. A long campaign needs a story, and a story needs protagonists, not necessarily in the sense of "their actions shape their world", but always in the sense of Points of View. And they can't be thoughtlessly expendable, when they die it's a Big Deal.)

But I'm also very drawn to the idea that the protagonists, the story's PoV characters, ARE ordinary people in a fantastical world, at least at starting point. That's the whole narrative purpose of D&D's level progression. You begin running away from lowly goblins, and if you survive, you end facing down a big bad dragon. That's incredibly satisfying, isn't it? But to make it satisfying, you gotta start low, down to earth, not this super powerful extra special group of Heroes™, already destined to do great deeds.

That said, I agree that the designers seem to see it that way. If you'll allow me to quote myself:

"The art of the 2024 PHB is gorgeous, but I think something very important is missing: everyone appears to be Level 20, brimming with power, happy, hale, strong, pretty, and rich. There's no humble beginnings, no adversity to overcome. No society experiences scarcity, no city has an underbelly, no tavern is seedy, no village temple is humble.

And I think this tone is extremely off for a game where you level up. You don't start like that. You start at level 1, with next to nothing in terms of resources and skill and power (at least in comparison with what you'll get later), fighting for scraps. I think it'd be nice to see the scraps. And to witness the progression that's such an integral part of the game, from ragtag band to world-saving heroes."

There was only ONE picture showing humble beginnings, a Protagonist with enough patches on his clothes to count as "ragtag", and of course it was a Rogue. You're welcome.

Spoiler: "Cunning Rogue" by Bryan Sola, PHB 2024, WotC

 

[GrimCo]

My group is bunch of younglings by enworld standard (we range from late 30s to mid 40s). Also, this is about 2014 version only.

We grew up on late 2ed ad&d and 3.x. 5e mixes simplicity and rulings over rules from 2ed with codified powers for all classes from 3ed. That's why we love it. In 5e, feats and multiclassing are optional rule. Remove those, and making level 5-8 starting characters is pretty simple and fast (compared to 3.5). Also, streamlined and simplified mechanics ( saves, to hit bonus, skill bonus etc). Unlike 2ed, where casters were ones with cool powers, NWP were optional and there were very limited options that didn't include "DM i wanna try this, can i?". Sure, 5e isn't as codified as 3.x, and has some of that flexibility (via rulings over rules mindset), it is more codified and all classes have some "i do this" buttons.

Also, since milestone leveling is more of a thing now, there is less incentive to jump at every encounter possible, just to get some extra xp or loot (since there is no inherent magic market or gold for xp, gold becomes rather useless pretty fast).

There is also shift in mindset. Earlier editions were more zero to maybe hero if you are lucky. In 5e, low level characters are pretty competent and harder to kill. You start out as a hero, your local village hero, but hero, not just random joe shmoe.

 

[Eric V]

It seems like--and perhaps I am reading into what people have written--character longevity and development is much more of a focus now, vs. the fungibility of characters in the original/older game, i.e. "if I die, I'll just roll up a new guy". So that's a new way to look at things for me. I can see how that leads to a deeper, more narrative experience vs. a kick-down-door-kill-orcs-steal-stuff ethos.

That's actually kind of cool.

I think this is definitely part of it, yes. Kicking in doors to take stuff can still be a very fun game, but I find that board games now give me that experience in a great way (dungeon crawler board games have come a long way, IMO...my current fav being Journeys in Middle Earth, though I am going to give Kings of Ruin a go over the winter holiday).

 

[Clint_L]

I want to push back on the supposedly lethality of old school games. I've played since early 1e, and we had characters who lasted for years. In fact, even if a main character did occasionally die, raise dead-type spells were quite obtainable. And it wasn't just my group; campaigns running for ages with the same characters was routine, and characters often played in different campaigns. Many of the spells in D&D to this day are named after characters who were played for years in Gygax's original campaign.

Tournament-style play was its own thing, but a typical game of 1e did not involve high lethality. I would say the lethality wasn't much different from 5e, or really any edition of D&D. Obviously there are groups that are the exception, but generally speaking, no edition of D&D has been a high lethality RPG.

Hirelings were way more of a thing back then, and they did die, but that wasn't remotely the same as character death, as the whole point of hirelings was that they were disposable.

 

[GrimCo]

@Clint_L

How? Seriously, how? We played 2e a bit and with rolling for hp, my wizard was down in first fight. Thief did better, lasted 2 rounds.

 

[Stormonu]

It seems like--and perhaps I am reading into what people have written--character longevity and development is much more of a focus now, vs. the fungibility of characters in the original/older game, i.e. "if I die, I'll just roll up a new guy". So that's a new way to look at things for me. I can see how that leads to a deeper, more narrative experience vs. a kick-down-door-kill-orcs-steal-stuff ethos.

That's actually kind of cool.

To be honest, this is one reason why I've never pulled the trigger on DCC - I'm not into character funnels and like having some attachment to my character from the get-go. Although in 5E alone I've yet to finish a campaign with the character I started with.

 

[Older Beholder]

Just a thought about a couple of things mentioned:
Pushing a button rather than roleplaying, and feeling more like a video game.

Both of these feel like an issue with virtual table tops, more than 5E rules.
My group doesn’t use VTT, we just zoom in and play like we would at a table. It means we have to trust each other with dice rolls, but it works for us as I play with friends.

 

[TiQuinn]

Whenever I’ve heard talk about “push button” solutions to problems in D&D, it typically comes down to the whole “The answer isn’t on your character sheet” style of gaming - which is a design decision. It’s a form of puzzle solving. When you design an adventure where the solution can be whatever the PCs come up with that passes the DM’s logic, then any use of a character’s actual abilities can become a “push button” solution.

But the issue is some players really don’t like the idea that they have to meet the DM’s standard for what constitutes a solution. They want to use abilities that have a concrete outcome. They want spells that work, attacks that do damage, and abilities that do what they say they do. This isn’t to say that the DM of a 5e game couldn’t pose a challenge that still requires puzzle solving. It’s still a choice and I think creative DMs and players are willing to use their “push button” abilities creatively. It still doesn’t change the fact that some players don’t like the style. It’s often referred to derogatorily as Mother May I DMing.