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

[TiQuinn]

Another big difference between 1e and 5e, that might be a feature or flaw depending on taste, is that in 1e power-ups came from magic items to a much greater extent than in 5e, both in terms of how many items you got and in terms of their relative power.

This is why I still love the earlier editions. This exact reason. It’s why I think they fit side-by-side with 5e beautifully. Different additions with different design, goals, and different advantages. If I ever played second edition again, there would be a lot more magic items for PCs.

 

[GothmogIV]

I wonder too if breaking out of WotC's orbit isn't a way to approach thinking about 5e. As I said...somewhere in this long (and very helpful!) conversation, I love Dungeons&Dragons as an concept, but the current stewards are not to my liking; nor are the materials they are publishing. But Kobold Press has lots of cool stuff, as do others (Level Up, for example). So that might be a way to re-enter, should I go in that direction at some point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's all very well said, thank you. I am realizing it's a mindset issue, not a quality issue. If I do run 5e again, I have to think about what its ethos is vs. the ethos of older editions: high fantasy, high powered gaming vs. hack and slash survival. I realize I'm generalizing there, but hopefully you take my meaning.

Certainly.

I would say that the ethos (good word!) of early-edition D&D tended toward:

• Logistics-focused play -- your items and equipment kind of are your "features" (in modern terms), use 'em wisely
• Characters are more like your game piece, they let you access play, direct character RP is often optional
• "Metagame" usually isn't as much of an issue (e.g. player knowledge carries over between characters)
• All/almost all story is retroactive: you reflect on the events you've lived through, no expectation of satisfying conclusions
• Personal player ability (clever, persuasive, etc.) trumps all, even if that may leave shy, unsure, or unobservant folks behind
• Easy-come, easy-go, death is everpresent, you'll lose LOTS of characters before you get one that survives to durable level
• Most players will have several characters, both to make death sting less and to make pick-up groups easier to do

Contemporary D&D play tends toward the following:

• Challenge-focused play -- you're building toward something, or working to overcome something, etc.
• Characters are a persona you take on, or a story you're exploring, direct character RP is almost always essential
• "Metagame" is often an issue, though different people see different things as acceptable vs unacceptable levels of metagaming
• Story is rarely (if ever) retroactive; mostly, it's either pre-plotted by GM, or a mix of improv and planning from GM and/or player(s)
• Personal player ability matters, but game stats also matter, in part to level the playing field between different players
• Death varies, but is often a distant threat, or it is impermanent (you'll get better), revocable (someone will raise you), or "earned"
• Most players will play exactly one character, and losing that one character permanently is a very big cost

Obviously, there's LOTS more you can say about both, but these are major salient ways the two differ.

So, it can help to ask, what kind of experience is being offered? Is it an experience I can enjoy, even if it's not the experience I prefer? I've had to ask more or less the same questions, and have decided that, with a good group (like my current one!), I can enjoy 5e, even if it is not my favorite system.

Logistics-focused play is difficult in 5e, not impossible but you'll definitely be fighting the system, especially if you want "logistics" specifically in the form of survival. Having a gritty, survival-focused game is extremely difficult because of how pervasive magic is, and how easily magic solves most such concerns. Similarly, combats tend to be somewhat longer in 5e than in old-school games, meaning that "nickel and dime"-type combats that slowly drain your resources can be rather a slog, and not particularly enjoyable in and of themselves. As a result, bigger, more in-depth, combats tend to be more common, simply because they're more enjoyable to do in this kind of system, whereas old-school D&D often bogged down or got at least a little bit repetitive if you had combats at that scale (not to mention the whole "really really likely to die" thing).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Characters were too powerful too quickly, the action economy is... let's say busy (readied action, action, bonus action, reaction), 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.

I get this. The thing with skills n such is, when you get used to them they stop being 'buttons' and become roleplaying aides.

But if youre used to not having such things, it can be stifling.