D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[GMMichael]

But it was clear from the moment the 5E24 Player’s Handbook dropped that D&D was going all in on wild high fantasy, to the exclusion of other styles, and also that it had chosen to fully indulge a decade’s worth of munchkin demands for MOAR POWER!

Uh, yeah. It's called capitalism. Well, more specifically, the big-corporate-ownership part. Besides, it was a way for them to stay away from rule changes while still making a new edition.

Overall I have to say that his points all hit home for me, and I'm curious what y'all think... and, as per the questions he poses later on in the post, what direction you think he should take?

Tough call. I can't seem to think of any other games based on 5e/6e, off the top of my head . . .

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Odd. My memory of TSR modules is they were full of Fighter2/thief1 barmaids (Tika in 1e Dragonlance iirc), fighter4 bartenders, and fighter7 blacksmiths. Its been a while since I looked through the (letter)-series adventures but I recall the vast majority of named NPCs had PC class levels rather than be 0-commoners.

A level 7 blacksmith ain't nothing, but it's no level 20 commoner, which was very much a thing in 3E.

 

[HatWearingFool]

A level 7 blacksmith ain't nothing, but it's no level 20 commoner, which was very much a thing in 3E.

Nothing like a level 20 commoner to put a damper on the murder hobos’ day.

3e was good times.

 

[mamba]

It's very clearly presented as a "these changes are bad and wrong". If you don't see that in the word choice and such, I'm not sure what I can tell you.

these changes are clearly changes they don’t like. That is someone stating their opinion, not a statement of fact.

At no point did they talk about game design outside of ‘leaning into high fantasy’ which is not really design in the first place.

I don’t see someone not liking something as the equivalent of them saying it therefore is bad design and should not exist. They are free to say that explicitly if they want to, I won’t just infer it from what was written.

I am no fan of 2024, but I do not consider its design to be noticeably worse than 2014. I expect that others can make that same distinction

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I would like to see a little more respect for people who share his point of view (I agree with all of his points and more). I'm not an easily offended person, and I'm not having an emotionally strong reaction, but it is disappointing to see fans of 2024 treat the reasons some 2014 fans are unhappy with the 2024 changes as shallow, over-reactive, mislead, and fundamentally an inferior preference.

I'm all for polite edition wars. If they weren't banned on all the forums and socially ostracized, I'd be perfectly capable of getting down in the trenches and having back and forth lively debates about the quality of edition design.

But what I'm getting so frequently from so many fans of 2024 who choose to weigh in on it is a palpable disdain bordering (if not crossing into) contempt for the very preference for 2014. I keep seeing what amounts to:

• Simulation should never be a priority, and you are a thougtless idiot (at least in this point) if you think it should
• Things don't have to make sense in an RPG, and you're thinking too hard if you think they should
• You just don't like it because it's different and you're a set in your ways grognard, rather than because of the actual effects it has on the play experience
• If you claim to understand the actual effects it has on the play experience and don't like them, you obviously are doing it wrong
• Etc

Fundamentally, if I can attempt to speak for those of us 2014 fans who are unhappy with 2024, in my opinion, which I think is educated and informed, 2024 makes foundational philosophical changes to the game which are typically more indicative of a full-edition change than a mid-edition adjust. In other words, while it is mechanically a less dramatic change, it is philosophically more akin to the change from 2e to 3e or 3e to 4e than the change from 3.0e to 3.5e. 2014 more intentionally aimed to provide a style-inclusive experience. I recognize it failed for some people, and it may not have been possible to do it perfectly. But it did attempt to, and I feel it succeeded at least as well as any other edition at providing support for a broad range of D&D play styles. By contrast, 2024 decided to forgo that intention in order to focus on better supporting a more narrow range of play styles, and did so by mechanical changes, presentational changes, and direct instructions to DMs and players.

Other than pure dismissiveness about others preferences, and perhaps some sense of vindication if ones own preferences were ones that were less supported by 2014 than by 2024, I cannot see any reason for the disdain, contempt, or dismissiveness about the objections to the mid-edition change in design philosophy in 2024. Something was changed that made plenty of intelligent, experienced fans of 2014 feel like they can no longer enjoy the D&D experience they prefer with 2024, and I'm not sure that ridicule is the best response when they express that.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ammann might not have said those exact words, but they seem to be implied in his original post with language like, "MOAR POWER," "ludicrous overuse," and "All three [books] are flawed." And plenty of people in this thread have been happy to chime in about 5e.2024's purported "design flaws," using Ammann's points as evidence.

To be fair, one of Keith's books is entitled "MOAR! Monsters Know What They're Doing." I don't think it is coincidence for him to use that language. It's a call out as much as anything, AFAICT.

All of these threads come down to the same basic points, again and again:

1. Person doesn't like 5e.2024 because of [x, y, z] (spawns some minor disagreement, usually suggestions to find a game that suits you better)
2. Because of that, 5e.2024 is poorly designed (20+ page thread)

But, yeah.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To be fair, one of Keith's books is entitled "MOAR! Monsters Know What They're Doing." I don't think it is coincidence for him to use that language. It's a call out as much as anything, AFAICT.

Yeah, people keep missing that his audience wasn't D&D fans on ENWorld, but the audience for his blog and his books, for whom "MOAR" would be a bit of an in-joke.

 

[HatWearingFool]

• Simulation should never be a priority, and you are a thougtless idiot (at least in this point) if you think it should
• Things don't have to make sense in an RPG, and you're thinking too hard if you think they should
• You just don't like it because it's different and you're a set in your ways grognard, rather than because of the actual effects it has on the play experience
• If you claim to understand the actual effects it has on the play experience and don't like them, you obviously are doing it wrong
• Etc

But it seems you (and other 2014 preferers) are doing the same thing just from the other side.

I like both and to me it seems to boils down to if you like 2024 you could have the same experiences in 2014 with a few changes. And if you prefer 2024 you can say well if you liked 2014 you can have a the same experiences with a few changes….

The only thing that has changed is who has to make changes to get what they want.

Overall I find both are just as big tent for play styles both are pretty bad in variety of styles they cover, in my opinion both just do D&D high fantasy.

The part I find weird is how anyone can claim any edition post 3e does “low fantasy” well without quite a few changes. I’d really like to know what low fantasy means in this context because as far as I can telly any character from 3e on would dominate up that I consider low fantasy.

But anyways I currently play in a 2024 game and 2014 game and I don’t think anyone in either game would notice if I swapped a character in from either edition.

 

[GobHag]

• Simulation should never be a priority, and you are a thougtless idiot (at least in this point) if you think it should
• Things don't have to make sense in an RPG, and you're thinking too hard if you think they should

I'm not a 2024 fan, just that I find it more agreeable. But these two parts are more or less true for me yes.

Your analysis that while it's mechanically similar but a fundamental philosophy has changed is very enlightening though, thank you. That is the reason that I'm actually having some hope for the future designs of 5e(and hopefully 6e's)

I think it is a 'wise' decision to be so aggro for certain section of 2024 fans; If they feel like the philosophical shift is better serving them while the previous philosophy is a compromise for those like you.... well, if 'you'(general you) don't play DnD then theres less of a chance of DnD 'backsliding' into that kind of philosophy.

 

[Bae'zel]

The part I find weird is how anyone can claim any edition post 3e does “low fantasy” well without quite a few changes. I’d really like to know what low fantasy means in this context because as far as I can telly any character from 3e on would dominate up that I consider low fantasy.

Not without substantial changes, agreed.

Two 3rd party takes on 5e: Adventures in Middle Earth and Brancalonia did "low" fantasy pretty well, but with big changes.

The former got rid of spellcasting in all classes. The latter capped character progression at level 6.

Both "felt' like very decent attempts.

The Dark Souls 5e RPG also did some interesting tweaks that could make the game a bit more "grounded", funny enough, into a more gritty yet still epic setting.

All that to say that unless you view D&D as a "toolkit" to customize, you're pretty much stuck with super heroic fantasy.