D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Xetheral]

Sorry, but this isn't actually having that character DO anything, it's just play-acting. Which is one of my complaints about these systems -- they don't encourage actual changes in play, they encourage superficial changes at the play-acting level.

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

Sigh, 5e isn't that flexible (nor is D&D in general). Everyone here is playing pretty much the same way, with small differences that are imagined to be large so that 5e is flexible enough to accommodate them. But, everyone is expecting the GM to drive the game, everyone is expecting the GM to be in charge and have the say, and everyone is fine with play constraints that are very tight on players and very loose on the GM. This latter is usually what's confused for flexibility -- the game's core mechanic is "GM decides" and so different decisions is viewed as those big difference and flexibility -- but the choices are still in a pretty small bubble of play for RPGs as a whole.

Sure, D&D games play similarly to each other in comparison to the whole universe of RPGs as a whole. But is that really the most useful yardstick to use when evaluating the claim that 5e is flexible enough accomodate divergent styles of play?

From my standpoint that claim is justified so long as there are 5e tables with styles different enough from each other that each group would not enjoy the other table's style--the styles are divergent enough to be incompatible. I don't think it matters to the validity of the claim that there are other games with styles that are conceptually divergent, rather than merely incompatible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just don't tell me that rules that provide a carrot and stick to enforce what my PC thinks and does is universally "better".

Having played games that do that, I can also say that some of us dislike that approach from direct experience.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

I'm with you here, but I think what's being got at in the post you quoted is that - in the fiction as in life - actions speak louder than words.

So sure, you can have a "tough guy" who threatens to break necks all the time, but until he actually breaks a few and shows willingness to back up those threats with real action it's all blow and no go.

And once he does break said necks his alignment-ethics-whatever will be judged and determined by those actions among others, rather than by whatever words he might have spoken in the meantime.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm with you here, but I think what's being got at in the post you quoted is that - in the fiction as in life - actions speak louder than words.

So sure, you can have a "tough guy" who threatens to break necks all the time, but until he actually breaks a few and shows willingness to back up those threats with real action it's all blow and no go.

And once he does break said necks his alignment-ethics-whatever will be judged and determined by those actions among others, rather than by whatever words he might have spoken in the meantime.

As applied to your example, my point is only that the "play-acting" of threatening to break necks is itself a goal of play at some tables, rather than merely superficial.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Sure, D&D games play similarly to each other in comparison to the whole universe of RPGs as a whole. But is that really the most useful yardstick to use when evaluating the claim that 5e is flexible enough accomodate divergent styles of play?

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

From my standpoint that claim is justified so long as there are 5e tables with styles different enough from each other that each group would not enjoy the other table's style--the styles are divergent enough to be incompatible. I don't think it matters to the validity of the claim that there are other games with styles that are conceptually divergent, rather than merely incompatible.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As applied to your example, my point is only that the "play-acting" of threatening to break necks is itself a goal of play at some tables, rather than merely superficial.

I got turned around a bit there, and misunderstood your point. You're saying that you prefer the characters to play act, not just the players? That a goal of play is for the player to play-act their character play-acting at theats? I don't think I follow this line. My fault, because I did use play-act there, and meant it in the same sense we play-act at the table -- we're pretending. If the character has a flaw, but just pretends to it, is that actually a flaw?

 

[Xetheral]

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Thanks for clarifying your intent! (For reference, to me the term "play-acting" comes across with an inherently demeaning context, especially when things that affect the "play-acting" level of the game are also described as "superficial".) To further clarify, do you think the "play-acting" level of the game is important and something to be encouraged at your table? If so, that didn't come through--it sounded like you don't prioritize that part of the game, or value the characterization that takes place there, even though you take part in it.

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

I think 5e is often labeled as flexible in comparison to other editions of D&D that (arguably) catered to a more specific playstyle. I think that's a worthwhile comparison to make, even if it is limited in scope.

I can see how you feel that calling something flexible within such a narrow scope lacks broader relevance. However, I would point out that only using a universal scale to measure flexibility has the drawback of restricting one to high-level comparisons. That's great for high-level game design theory, but that's usually not the level I think most people are operating on when they say they like (or appreciate) 5e for its flexibility.

Maybe we just encounter people making the claim that 5e is flexible in different contexts?

I got turned around a bit there, and misunderstood your point. You're saying that you prefer the characters to play act, not just the players? That a goal of play is for the player to play-act their character play-acting at theats? I don't think I follow this line. My fault, because I did use play-act there, and meant it in the same sense we play-act at the table -- we're pretending. If the character has a flaw, but just pretends to it, is that actually a flaw?

To clarify, I prefer to emphasize (what you are calling) play-acting for the players as a goal of play at my table. I did not intend to imply that I also emphasize designing characters who play-act IC.

At the same time, I expect that many character traits will often be expressed primarily in the "play-acting" level of the game. That doesn't make those traits superficial, from my perspective, or imply that the play-acted characters are themselves merely play-acting.

 

[Oofta]

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

I don't know why you say that. 5E is flexible and can handle many different genres, styles and types of campaign. On the other hand, it's not Risk or Call of Cthulhu or any number of other RPGs. I mean, you can run a war game, you can do a bit of eldritch horror but it's not the focus of the game; on the other hand there are 3rd party supplements that add some of it in.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

I simply disagree. A lot of RPGs put you in specific roles, establish specific organizations, specific styles of play even broad overall goals.

The last couple of editions of D&D were less flexible IMHO for style of play. For that matter, flexibility isn't an inherent good, some games seem to be too flexible for their own good. I guess I view D&D 5E as more of a [insert family-style restaurant of your choice i.e. Denny's or Perkins]. You can get steak, but it's not going to be the best steak you've ever had. Sometimes good enough is, well, good enough.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't know why you say that. 5E is flexible and can handle many different genres, styles and types of campaign. On the other hand, it's not Risk or Call of Cthulhu or any number of other RPGs. I mean, you can run a war game, you can do a bit of eldritch horror but it's not the focus of the game; on the other hand there are 3rd party supplements that add some of it in.

The only genre 5e does well is D&D. You can do D&D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&D, and you can do D&D noir (which is very weird). But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&D. The different flavors of D&D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&D.

And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people. As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&D genre. It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&D.

I simply disagree. A lot of RPGs put you in specific roles, establish specific organizations, specific styles of play even broad overall goals.

The last couple of editions of D&D were less flexible IMHO for style of play. For that matter, flexibility isn't an inherent good, some games seem to be too flexible for their own good. I guess I view D&D 5E as more of a [insert family-style restaurant of your choice i.e. Denny's or Perkins]. You can get steak, but it's not going to be the best steak you've ever had. Sometimes good enough is, well, good enough.

The shift in D&D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM. 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules. 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first. 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides. This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions).

Look, I get it. You have a different approach to 5e than I do. But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always. That's... not a big difference. Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them. Again, not a big difference. It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does. But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play. When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where. Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&D. That indicates a pretty small range of difference.

 

[Oofta]

The only genre 5e does well is D&D. You can do D&D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&D, and you can do D&D noir (which is very weird). But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&D. The different flavors of D&D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&D.

And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people. As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&D genre. It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&D.

The shift in D&D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM. 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules. 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first. 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides. This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions).

Look, I get it. You have a different approach to 5e than I do. But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always. That's... not a big difference. Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them. Again, not a big difference. It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does. But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play. When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where. Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&D. That indicates a pretty small range of difference.

You obviously have different definitions than I do.

I don't see any reason to continue this tangent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for clarifying your intent! (For reference, to me the term "play-acting" comes across with an inherently demeaning context, especially when things that affect the "play-acting" level of the game are also described as "superficial".) To further clarify, do you think the "play-acting" level of the game is important and something to be encouraged at your table? If so, that didn't come through--it sounded like you don't prioritize that part of the game, or value the characterization that takes place there, even though you take part in it.

No, I don't feel it's something that needs to be encouraged. If you feel like it, go for it! If you don't, third person's fine. I don't feel that roleplaying is especially enhanced by play-acting -- it's one way to do things, but it's not superior or better, it's just different. You can roleplay very well in third person. Personally, I enjoy it, and most of my table enjoys it as well, but if someone's having an off night and doesn't want to do silly voices, that's entirely cool -- we all roll with it.

I think 5e is often labeled as flexible in comparison to other editions of D&D that (arguably) catered to a more specific playstyle. I think that's a worthwhile comparison to make, even if it is limited in scope.

This is the narrow version of the argument, though. The broader version, where 5e is upheld as able to do many types of play (see @Oofta) is also very common. I'm not sure I agree with the narrow argument, though. 5e isn't more capable of different approaches than 4e, for instance, which could actually break out of the traditional approaches and go into a near-Story-Now play mode, which is very different play! It's not more capable than 3.x, either. The only difference is that the advice for 5e isn't as rigid as that provided, and the zeitgeist is more open, but, again, it doesn't reach places the prior editions could not, it's just less constrained in it's presentation. It can't really do more than you could with 3.x, unless we're talking about ignoring the system when it's convenient, and then we're back to the same place because you could do the same thing with 3.x.

I can see how you feel that calling something flexible within such a narrow scope lacks broader relevance. However, I would point out that only using a universal scale to measure flexibility has the drawback of restricting one to high-level comparisons. That's great for high-level game design theory, but that's usually not the level I think most people are operating on when they say they like (or appreciate) 5e for its flexibility.

I'm still not sure what accounts for 5e's flexibility in your argument, though. How is 5e flexible? What can you do that's so different, in your opinion?

Maybe we just encounter people making the claim that 5e is flexible in different contexts?

My context is EN World.

To clarify, I prefer to emphasize (what you are calling) play-acting for the players as a goal of play at my table. I did not intend to imply that I also emphasize designing characters who play-act IC.

At the same time, I expect that many character traits will often be expressed primarily in the "play-acting" level of the game. That doesn't make those traits superficial, from my perspective, or imply that the play-acted characters are themselves merely play-acting.

I find that if an Ideal, Bond, or Flaw (Traits are pure fluff, and very much grist for the mill you suggest) is only present in play-acting, ie, the player giving lip service to it while acting out at that table what their character says, then they're not worth much at all. Funnily, this has been my point all along! If you're just using these as prompts for the improv acting you're doing at the table, that's cool, but there's no there there. This is superficial, because it doesn't drive the character in any way, it just prompts the player to say some words in a silly voice (or not, I don't know if you like silly voices -- I do). To me, if a character has an Ideal, that shouldn't just get lip-service in the improv theater, it should be something that actually defines the character through action and choices. And those aren't play-acting, even as they might provide prompts for play-acting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You obviously have different definitions than I do.

I don't see any reason to continue this tangent.

I've provided mine, but we're again at a point where you declare that there's a difference and then decline to provide your answers. It's not a trap, man, you can engage the topic and tell everyone else what you think even if you don't agree with me.

 

[Oofta]

I've provided mine, but we're again at a point where you declare that there's a difference and then decline to provide your answers. It's not a trap, man, you can engage the topic and tell everyone else what you think even if you don't agree with me.

I've given my answers and reasons. Not my problem if you, or anyone else, disagrees

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've given my answers and reasons. Not my problem if you, or anyone else, disagrees

I missed your reasons, just got your assertions. We haven't had this particular talk before, so I can't refer to prior things you've said on the topic.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm still not sure what accounts for 5e's flexibility in your argument, though. How is 5e flexible? What can you do that's so different, in your opinion?

It's really not. even doing d&d but so it fits some other d&d setting where crunch was twisted to play up & down x & y themes that were once supported by the rules is needlessly difficult. You can't play up/down x & y when x & y are lacking mechanics and in some cases coded against or made difficult to add by a wide array of mechanics that were built.

 

[Xetheral]

No, I don't feel it's something that needs to be encouraged. If you feel like it, go for it! If you don't, third person's fine. I don't feel that roleplaying is especially enhanced by play-acting -- it's one way to do things, but it's not superior or better, it's just different. You can roleplay very well in third person. Personally, I enjoy it, and most of my table enjoys it as well, but if someone's having an off night and doesn't want to do silly voices, that's entirely cool -- we all roll with it.

I'm also fine with third person, so apparently I don't understand the definition of play-acting as you're using it. You're not using it in the demeaning put-down context with which I am familiar, and evidently you're not using it as a synonym for roleplaying as I came to think you were. Could you please try to clarify what the term play-acting means to you, and how it you see it as differing from roleplaying?

To clarify my own language, the part of D&D that I've mentioned trying to emphasize (and that I thought you were dismissing) is interacting with the game world (including NPCs, other PCs, and the environment) from the perspective of one's character. From my perspective you seemed to only care about such interaction when it was tied to formal action declarations and dismiss such characterization when it occurs in other contexts (what I thought you meant by the "play-acting layer").

This is the narrow version of the argument, though. The broader version, where 5e is upheld as able to do many types of play (see @Oofta) is also very common. I'm not sure I agree with the narrow argument, though. 5e isn't more capable of different approaches than 4e, for instance, which could actually break out of the traditional approaches and go into a near-Story-Now play mode, which is very different play! It's not more capable than 3.x, either. The only difference is that the advice for 5e isn't as rigid as that provided, and the zeitgeist is more open, but, again, it doesn't reach places the prior editions could not, it's just less constrained in it's presentation. It can't really do more than you could with 3.x, unless we're talking about ignoring the system when it's convenient, and then we're back to the same place because you could do the same thing with 3.x.

I'm still not sure what accounts for 5e's flexibility in your argument, though. How is 5e flexible? What can you do that's so different, in your opinion?

Speaking only for myself and not for anyone else who has called 5e flexible, I appreciate that this edition can be used to easily run both games that focus on the tactical layer and games that focus on the strategic layer. Previous editions, especially 3rd and 4th, seemed to me to be more amenable to one style of play or the other. I also find heavily tactical games to look nothing like heavily strategic games, and therefore in the context of D&D I find 5e's ability to handle both styles better than previous editions could to demonstrate a welcome flexibility. I fully agree with you that 5e is not flexible enough to run something in (e.g.) a PbtA style (where notions of tactics and strategy are besides the point) if one were to only look at flexibility in the broadest context.

My context is EN World.

I find that if an Ideal, Bond, or Flaw (Traits are pure fluff, and very much grist for the mill you suggest) is only present in play-acting, ie, the player giving lip service to it while acting out at that table what their character says, then they're not worth much at all. Funnily, this has been my point all along! If you're just using these as prompts for the improv acting you're doing at the table, that's cool, but there's no there there. This is superficial, because it doesn't drive the character in any way, it just prompts the player to say some words in a silly voice (or not, I don't know if you like silly voices -- I do). To me, if a character has an Ideal, that shouldn't just get lip-service in the improv theater, it should be something that actually defines the character through action and choices. And those aren't play-acting, even as they might provide prompts for play-acting.

I'm not sure I see the same distinction you do between "the improv theater" and "defining the character through action and choices". Or, at least, I'm apparently not following your terminology well enough to understand the distinction you're trying to describe.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, that's fine. It's an arbitrary line in the sand that I don't think holds, because I doubt you're against houserules for you own games. To be fair, though, this line of argument reads like claiming that the pizza you eat is the best pizza, only to find out you've only ever had 1 kind of pizza from one outlet and not tried anything else. It's very possible that, even if you did, that would still be your favorite pizza (I mean, I still very much like 5e even after trying other games), but someone that has tried other pizzas my find how you argue that the only one you've tried is great pizza a bit flat. "It's got sauce!" Yeah, pizza does that, is it good sauce, though? "It's sauce!" Okay, but is the sauce doing what you want? "It does sauce things!" Okay....


Sure. I'd love a rules discussion that didn't invoke personal arguments like not wanting to discuss a rule because of where you work or some pithy malapropism. Let's do that!

I’m guessing you know you could have responded without goading the other poster, right? If not, you might want to read some Ms Manners columns.

 

[Oofta]

I missed your reasons, just got your assertions. We haven't had this particular talk before, so I can't refer to prior things you've said on the topic.

I gave my logic in this post. Not sure what else to say. It's not the most flexible game out there, but more flexible games aren't as popular. Then again, according to a buddy of mine some games like WOD are move to less baked-in assumptions and being more "build your own campaign" like D&D so in my opinion it's becoming more flexible.

Obviously at the end of the day the mechanics are D&D. Duh. But that doesn't mean I can't run everything from prehistoric cave-man D&D (with a few restrictions to what's available) to Sci-Fi D&D with 3rd party tools like Esper Genesis. Even just keeping with the core books, I can go from the minimal technology stone age to anti-matter rifles. The rules for adjudication of uncertain events stay the same but the type of campaign, the style of story can vary greatly.

In addition the rules allow for a great deal of stylistic change in how the game actually plays out. I use alternate rest rules and it's several days between long rests, someone else may do dungeon crawls. Or look at the Role of the Dice section in the DMG with discussions of out-of-combat options of using almost no dice to using dice for every uncertain scenario. Heck, look at some of the threads that show up on a regular basis on cinematic adventuring and so on.

You look at it and say "there is no flexibility because the core combat related aspects and the role of the DM are fundamentally the same". I look at it and say "I can create my own unique spin on a campaign world and make rulings or house rules to change what the game feels like in actual play". The game still holds together, and is still identifiable as D&D, whether your goal is to run dungeon crawls or be as RP heavy as Critical Role.

I think all of that adds up to a reasonably flexible game and the most flexible D&D so far*. We have different definitions of flexibility.

*First edition D&D may have been more flexible in some ways, but that was more because in my experience the rules were so vague people made up half the rules as they went.

 

[Asisreo]

I'm with you here, but I think what's being got at in the post you quoted is that - in the fiction as in life - actions speak louder than words.

So sure, you can have a "tough guy" who threatens to break necks all the time, but until he actually breaks a few and shows willingness to back up those threats with real action it's all blow and no go.

Of course, the implication of the scenario isn't that the character only ever threatens, but the still find a way to be violent without overtaking the spotlight.

While some people might think talk is cheap, what you say indicates who you are as well.

This isn't about the outside perspective of your character, its about their internal characterization. So long as the character fully intends to carry through with all their intents and does so when given the opportunity, its still their character. If an outside perspective contradicts internal nature, well, that makes them a bit more realistic.

Anyways, I do agree that if they back down as soon as they are given the opportunity, then they aren't actually engaging in roleplay, but threats are still the act of violence-leaning characters and all actions and words should at least change the flow of the game at least a bit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I gave my logic in this post. Not sure what else to say. It's not the most flexible game out there, but more flexible games aren't as popular. Then again, according to a buddy of mine some games like WOD are move to less baked-in assumptions and being more "build your own campaign" like D&D so in my opinion it's becoming more flexible.

There's no logic there, just assertion. You never say why it's flexible, or what flexible means, to you. That's the ask.

Obviously at the end of the day the mechanics are D&D. Duh. But that doesn't mean I can't run everything from prehistoric cave-man D&D (with a few restrictions to what's available) to Sci-Fi D&D with 3rd party tools like Esper Genesis. Even just keeping with the core books, I can go from the minimal technology stone age to anti-matter rifles. The rules for adjudication of uncertain events stay the same but the type of campaign, the style of story can vary greatly.

So, to you, flexibility is setting options? The difference between playing Eberron and Barovia? That's at least an answer, so thanks. However, if flexible is just setting, how is 5e more flexible than any other edition of D&D? The can ALL do this.

In addition the rules allow for a great deal of stylistic change in how the game actually plays out. I use alternate rest rules and it's several days between long rests, someone else may do dungeon crawls. Or look at the Role of the Dice section in the DMG with discussions of out-of-combat options of using almost no dice to using dice for every uncertain scenario. Heck, look at some of the threads that show up on a regular basis on cinematic adventuring and so on.

Here's where we're going to disagree. The stylistic change is very slight, given the range of actual possibility across all RPGs. Again, we've had some long arguments and intractable differences about how the game works, but your players would be just fine at my table and my players at yours. This is pretty much true of D&D in general. It's only if you're making extensive changes to the rules, or ignoring them, that differences occur, but that's not a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people.

You look at it and say "there is no flexibility because the core combat related aspects and the role of the DM are fundamentally the same". I look at it and say "I can create my own unique spin on a campaign world and make rulings or house rules to change what the game feels like in actual play". The game still holds together, and is still identifiable as D&D, whether your goal is to run dungeon crawls or be as RP heavy as Critical Role.

No, I don't say there's no flexibility, I'm saying it's not actually all that flexible.

I think all of that adds up to a reasonably flexible game and the most flexible D&D so far*. We have different definitions of flexibility.

Nothing you've provided wasn't possible in older editions, though. I'm not seeing the specialness. Critical Role started with Pathfinder, which is essentially 3.x.

*First edition D&D may have been more flexible in some ways, but that was more because in my experience the rules were so vague people made up half the rules as they went.

Yup, if you're making up the rules, there's not much system there to flex. This is, again, not a feature of the system, but a feature of people.