D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[LordEntrails]

Are they being taught if they’re being told to not read the DMG?

? Too few words. You've lost me.
Who are these "they"s? The 1980's GMs or the 2020 GMs? Who are telling any of "them" not to read the DMG?

It's way too easy in my opinion, but as you noted dials exist and I have used them to up the challenge level.

It's way to easy for my groups too. Most of our casual encounters are in the Extreme challenge range and going way past deadly is a common occurrence.

But I still think this less deadly D&D is a better place to start for people new to RPGs than the "bring 3 characters to the session, and be prepared to roll up more." :O

 

[teitan]

? Too few words. You've lost me.
Who are these "they"s? The 1980's GMs or the 2020 GMs? Who are telling any of "them" not to read the DMG?

It's way to easy for my groups too. Most of our casual encounters are in the Extreme challenge range and going way past deadly is a common occurrence.

But I still think this less deadly D&D is a better place to start for people new to RPGs than the "bring 3 characters to the session, and be prepared to roll up more." :O

YouTube reviewers are often, pretty universally, and I don’t mean the little couple hundred hits people, but the popular reviewers, saying that the DMG is not essential and you don’t need to read it or have it to play D&D or be a DM in spite of the fact that the majority of the optional rules everyone uses are in it. A lot of arguments on the web would be non starters if people read it because then they would have a frame of reference that some of us use and we wouldn’t look like smarmy smart alecks when we have to post about how optional rules work and what an optional rule is and lists of what are optional rules in the core rule books including non-human races.

 

[LordEntrails]

YouTube reviewers are often, pretty universally, and I don’t mean the little couple hundred hits people, but the popular reviewers, saying that the DMG is not essential and you don’t need to read it or have it to play D&D or be a DM in spite of the fact that the majority of the optional rules everyone uses are in it. A lot of arguments on the web would be non starters if people read it because then they would have a frame of reference that some of us use and we wouldn’t look like smarmy smart alecks when we have to post about how optional rules work and what an optional rule is and lists of what are optional rules in the core rule books including non-human races.

Guess that confirms it them, YT reviewers' opinions are just as useless as those from random folks on an internet forum

 

[teitan]

Guess that confirms it them, YT reviewers' opinions are just as useless as those from random folks on an internet forum

Well yeah, but people listen to it, see certain events that were a direct result of posts on internet image boards leading to thousands of people believing in a false story that was more Twin Peaks than reality. We all fall for what seems to us authoritative so a slick production will sway our opinion. Another example: Clownfish TV causing review bombs on Masters of the Universe: Revelation over what turned out to be false leads in what the story was going to be.

 

[Umbran]

It's way too easy in my opinion, but as you noted dials exist and I have used them to up the challenge level.

There's a great bit here that's not explicitly said that we can bring up. Any time someone says something is "too X", there is actually an implied qualifier - a purpose.

Take, for example a simple statement, "This blender is too underpowered." What the speaker may really mean is, "This blender is to underpowered to crush all the ice I need for my parties." If you do lots of drinks at parties, this is an entirely valid point - but we can also then admit that there ought to be blenders for people who are using them for making smoothies or soups, but not crushing lots of ice.

So, the game is too easy... to achieve what purpose? The game is too easy to challenge you, personally? That is totally a reasonable opinion to have. But then we get to ask the question - should the default of the game be to challenge you, or players like you? Or should the default be something else? It sounds like you've found the basic bit - the default probably has to be somewhere comfortable for people who don't know much about the dials yet.

I raise this more because this can be a useful tool for any opinion that sounds like a generalization of what a game should be or should have. Who, exactly, is the audience for the suggested change?

 

[TarionzCousin]

If AD&D was so great, explain why it takes a naked Human 10 minutes to walk 120 feet.

Because... nudity? I don't know; it's been many years since I ran 1E.

On a slightly more serious note, I would say it's because 1E wasn't really playtested.

 

[Greggy C]

If AD&D was so great, explain why it takes a naked Human 10 minutes to walk 120 feet.

Lets see how many feet you can walk in 10 minutes while being punched in the face by Israel Adesanya

 

[Greg Benage]

It's way too easy in my opinion, but as you noted dials exist and I have used them to up the challenge level.

Classic D&D was way too hard, so much so that everyone I ever played it with over 40+ years house-ruled the stuffing out of it to make it a little (or a lot) more forgiving.

@LordEntrails may be right that if you have to err to one side or the other, it's better for the popularity of the game if it errs on the "too easy" side.

For my preferences, it's part of a much broader nest of changes that have shifted so much of "what the campaign is about" to the very beginning, before play has even begun. The campaign is going to be about these Big Damn Heroes (even if they're just 1st level right now), and they're big damn heroes so they're going to need heroic ability scores and lots of background options and special powers, but now character creation is slow af so we better make them hard to kill, and we're gonna need a story for them to be the big damn heroes of, can't just have them robbing tombs for treasure or exploring wildlands for funsies, and on and on. And since we have to work all this out ahead of time, we gotta have a Session 0 where we talk about what the game is going to be about before we play it, because otherwise we won't know what sort of Big Damn Heroes to optimize 1-20 before we start playing, and...

Am I ranting? I really like the 5e rules. I think the design itself is indeed 40 years better than Classic D&D. And I should say that I contributed to the evolution of the game over the years, because my friends and I were trying to play Big Damn Heroes with AD&D back in the early 80s. I think the publishers have largely been trying to give the people what they want over the years, with mixed success. But I still miss the kind of play experience you get when you roll up an adventurer with a one-sentence background in five minutes and go find out what's in the big hole in the ground at the base of the pyramid. Maybe what you discover will lead you to becoming a big damn hero, or maybe you'll be rolling a new adventurer in half an hour, but genuinely not knowing what's going to happen is freaking magic.

5e, as designed, kinda stinks for that.

 

[teitan]

If AD&D was so great, explain why it takes a naked Human 10 minutes to walk 120 feet. Explain how to resolve unarmed combat between a Monk, a Fighter and a Thief-Acrobat. How can Half-Elf become a Bard when he can't dual class into Thief as required to become a Bard? Finally, why is it that a cleric worshipping the god of Murder can beat someone with a flail but has taken a holy vow so he can't stab them with a dagger?

1. They're assuming that the party is moving slowly to try to avoid detection. In combat it is because the combat round represents a flurry of activity with the die roll being the one blow that has a chance of getting through and striking the opponent, so 120' in that instance is quite fast.

2. Multiclassing is a thing

3. By the time FR was released the idea that Clerics could use alternate weapons based on their deity was well established early on. Particularly for evil deities. It was further expanded in the World of Greyhawk book for 1e and was a part of the Dragonlance setting as well. Clerics using blunt weapons only was an artifact of Christian crusader oaths influencing the design of the class.

 

[LordEntrails]

There's a great bit here that's not explicitly said that we can bring up. Any time someone says something is "too X", there is actually an implied qualifier - a purpose.
...<snip>...
I raise this more because this can be a useful tool for any opinion that sounds like a generalization of what a game should be or should have. Who, exactly, is the audience for the suggested change?

This is superbly stated and very much what I was trying to get to. I hope to remember this quote when similar discussions come up.