I have to second this. The assertion that all systems are the same or that system doesn't matter does not match my experience. Take me and this thread. This whole thread is about my approach to gaming not being as well supported by 5E compared to earlier editions.
Which'd be a failure of the 'big tent'/'support for more playstyles' goal of 5e. Especially considering that you consider two prior editions - 3e & 4e, themselves very much at odds during the edition war - to both be adequate to your needs.
5e is DM-empowering and classic-game evoking, certainly, but I don't believe it's as atavistic as you fear. With the right DM, using the right modules and the right approach, the kind of experience you're looking for can certainly be delivered by 5e.
I get that you're probably going to come back with 'but my approach requires DM-independent support' or something like that. All I can offer is that whether your options feel DM-independent depends very much on the attitudes at the table (which, yes, are influenced by the attitudes of the broader community). So, yes, it may be hard to find/foster more player-empowering attitudes/styles in 5e circles, but not because the system, itself, makes it impossible, just because there's been a pendulum swing away from player-empowerment and towards DM-empowerment. Perhaps ironically, but conveniently, a DM can use the latter to re-emphasize the former.
That in and of itself is at odds with the assertion that system doesn't matter.
Discussion of a system is at odds with the assertion that system doesn't matter. I don't think even AoB meant to take it that far. He was just saying that D&D wasn't particularly more combat-oriented than other 'big name' TTRPGs (and he included Storyteller in that). The only objective measure of combat-orientation is the relative amount of the system devoted to combat - page count, for instance. D&D devotes a large proportion of it's rules to combat - especially considering that you have to include combat spells in that count. Storyteller games treated combat as just another 'dramatic system,' (WWGS hated to admit they actually produced games with actual resolution systems, no matter how intentionally bad they made them) the relative amount of the system devoted to combat vs non-combat 'dramatic systems' in most storyteller games was noticeably less than D&D. Even so, combat probably received a longer more nearly complete treatment than any other single 'dramatic system' in Storyteller.
I've tended to gravitate towards combat proficiency in my PC in just about every system I've ever played, and the results have been very different system to system.
Combat's different in different genres and sub-genres, and the degree to which an RPG models genre vs modeling the setting where a genre story might take place (but probably won't happen to your PC), also varies. A combat scene in FATE or other 'narrativist' RPGs will look/feel and resolve a lot more like an action scene in a book or movie.
This thread is huge.
I dipped in and out and what I got is this:
Easy mistakes to make.
thecasualoblivion loved 4e because 4e's design was inherently combat-centric. 4e Encounters games were "enter these 5 rooms boxed together and murder everything for 3 hours" as a co-op/team effort.
He liked 3e & 4e because they were player-empowering. They had mechanics that clearly defined what a character was capable of - because of RaW-uber-alles zietgiest in the case of 3.x/PF, because of clear/above-board mechanics in the case of 4e. He liked using those to build combat-oriented characters. And, yes, sure, D&D has always been and remains combat-centric, but that's not part of the issue, since it's more or less a constant.
5's design is "let's get back to the role-playing side of gaming".
No, it's really not that narrow, it's DM-empowering. A DM can use that to emphasize RP to whatever extreme suits him, right up to and including never touching dice. He can also very easily use 5e to run an old-school dungeon crawl where there's no point naming, let alone RPing, your character until you're out of apprentice tier.
How exactly is 5E back to the story? When did the story ever leave?
.
It's not a tagline, like 'Back to the dungeon!' was for 3.0, but it's a thing that Mearls has come right out and said if not in those words. And the 'proof' is right there in the release schedule: Two Adventure-path books/year, rolling out almost as fast you can play them. Only one book so far with additional player options, and they were pretty sparse, with mostly setting background ('story' elements) padding it out.
Why is that? They are too easy, too hard, die to quickly? Or is it about the PCs and not the monsters?
Yes
I did an adventure in 4e with my regular group where we took away all the power cards. They only had basic attacks (casters too). The players had to make up every attack, action, spell and I just adjudicated as DM. For some of them it was completely liberating, others not so much. However, the freedom of do-whatever-you-want lead to some of the most exciting and heroic actions we ever had for those who like to play that way. But it that is not your thing, I've seen how it doesn't work as well.
You ran your whole 4e campaign by page 42? That's kinda awesome, actually.
Did you have anything defining what a given character might be capable of? (For instance, a very similar approach was taken by Mage: the Ascension, but it did have 'spheres' that categorized the kinds of effects that were possible, and characters could combine spheres to do basically anything).
At level 3 in 5E you start being less fragile... However, 5E PCs are very mundane compared to PCs in 4E, 3E, high powered 2E(high stats, many magic items), or non-D&D systems like Vampire. It bears saying that this goes beyond combat, as for example in 4E I could start level 1 with +11 or better in a skill, which in context puts you outside the realm of the mundane.
Obviously, and spell caster becomes less mundane very quickly, and every class can use spells in some way, with only a handful of sub-classes getting nothing at all in that regard.
Starting at 1st level does create a first impression of every character involved being both vulnerable and mundane, and, particularly, that sense of vulnerability can stick with the character from then on, even though, rationally, you know it's become nigh-unkillable.
I think--or at least I hope--that people here weren't really trying to say that 4E didn't have story or that it was impossible to roleplay in it.
People really were trying to say that. It was called the edition war. It sucked.
But, how should I say it ... in 5E, the assumed story is allowed to influence the combat rules in ways that it wasn't in 4E.
You'd have to say 'encouraged' instead of 'allowed.' In 5e, the DM is encouraged to dictate resolution notwithstanding the rules (possibly in service to the story, but ultimately in service to any agenda he values). In 4e, as in all RPGs, the DM is also allowed to do so.
For a start, 5E is explicitly designed with the goal of making combat simpler and faster than it was in 4E. So it is designed with the assumption that a smaller percentage of time spent at the table will be spent on combat.
Less time on a given combat - 5e also assumes twice as many combats per day as 4e tended to.
And then there are things like fireball being more powerful than other spells of its level, just because it's such a "signature" move for the spellcaster. Flavor over balance.
I'm not sure that's the case. Dictating flavor with mechanics isn't exactly the most flexible approach.
That's what I think was probably meant above by "back to the roleplaying." Others may feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Overpowered fireballs and random character death = 'roleplaying?' ;P