D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[mamba]

Balance is not important at all. I don't think it improves the play experience one bit.

and I disagree

I realize that may be unpopular, but it is based on extensive play and there is no compelling evidence or proof to the contrary.

how extensive, your group? That is called anecdotal. Also, have you tried that with truly / intentionally unbalanced games?

You be you. You have the same choices and options as everyone else at the table, with the same balance implications. Pick the options for how you want to play.

at which point whoever needs to feel superior to enjoy the game might not be in a position to, but yeah, I am certainly not going to play X so someone who needs to feel superior can enjoy playing a superior Y

 

[Nebulous]

Try Dragonbane or Shadowdark. People in those communities actually like the games they play, instead of whining all the time.

Maybe because both of those games adhere to a design philosophy, instead of to a marketing philosophy?

Dragonbane is awesome if you want a more old school feel to your fantasy. Nimble 2.0 is great if you want that high fantasy D&D tone but with streamlined rules.

 

[Nebulous]

I have been playing 5.5 for 6 months now. My opinion is that it is good that Crawford left.

Personally, I will not run 5.5. If I continue with D&D, then it will be 5.0.

And, noticing how they are building more 5.0 elements into DDB makes me think that a large portion of people are sticking with the original.

Can you specify the parts of 5.5 that most drive you away?

 

[ECMO3]

how extensive, your group? That is called anecdotal.

Sure, it is anecdotal, that is the only evidence I have though. The repeated claims that balance is good are often made without even that, as if it is an assumption or foregone conclusion.

I am currently playing in 6 campaigns; 3 weekly campaigns, 1 biweekly, 2 that don't have a schedule and occasional one-shots on top of that. Over the last year or so I am playing anywhere from 11 hours minimum to 40 hours maximum of D&D a week, probably averaging around 15 (median). This has varied more or less over the time since 2016 when I started 5e. This does not include prep time for the two games I DM.

I've seen lots of things cause problems at the table, I've never seen imbalance do this though. On the other hand rules that are implemented to better balance things are frequently klunky, non-sensical or just flat ignored.

Also, have you tried that with truly / intentionally unbalanced games?

2104 5E is unbalanced, and the 2024 version is even more unbalanced day-to-day in play. The unbalance in the 2014 was consistent and predictable, 2024 is less so with very wide swings based on build choices and leveling. Both of those versions of 5E are "truly unbalanced" in terms of mechanics.

When it comes to "intentionally unbalanced" - trying to unbalance something with mechanics is as bad IMO as trying to balance it, as I noted in earlier discussions.

at which point whoever needs to feel superior to enjoy the game might not be in a position to,

Ok a few things. First it is a minority that want this in play, so it is not likely.

Second they will be in position to because of how luck plays into it. Picking the strongest options at the table does not mean you will actually be the strongest in play, because luck is a factor in that. But you will have the strongest available player (within whatever constraints you choose or the scenario places on you).

It is easy - you see the options. Pick what suits you and the character you want to play. Let others pick what they want to play.

I'm not saying there will never be disappointment. There will be, and IME it is people picking the strongest options that are most often faced disappointed when they do not pan out as overpowering in play as they want them to be.