D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[Micah Sweet]

I'm probably going to regret asking this, and if the answer is obvious I apologize for not following all 22+ pages of this thread very closely, but:

Which styles are you referring to?

I'm sure @EzekielRaiden has other styles in mind, but modern WotC 5e doesn't work well with classic play, survival, resource management that matters beyond 24 hours, any state of injury between "fine" and "dying", etc. I could go on.

 

[Dire Bare]

Do we all need to refer to the new rules the same way?

I like "R5E" (Revised 5E) and "D&D 24" . . . I'll probably ignore posts using "D&D 6E" . . .

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm probably going to regret asking this, and if the answer is obvious I apologize for not following all 22+ pages of this thread very closely, but:

Which styles are you referring to?

Low-magic is a big one. It's rather difficult to play a low-magic game in 5e, much moreso than multiple prior editions. The 4e style is another. Serious survival, where merely getting one day to the next is a struggle with a dangerous environment, is quite hard unless you go through and rip out quite a bit of stuff (or ban many classes) and port in new rules.

There are also styles, or elements thereof, that have, shall we say, rather thin support. Heavy logistics play (the other main component of old-school style, after survivalism and low-magic) is pretty sparsely supported, and anything involving politics/domain management is likewise barebones to nonexistent. Exploration, as a recent thread noted, is pretty disappointing. But "little support or all too often no support" is rather better than having to fight the system to get what you want.

Note that I am of course not considering 3PP in this. Because if you allow 3PP, then every edition has equally supported everything, namely, perfectly, because someone can write up 3PP rules for anything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do we all need to refer to the new rules the same way?

I like "R5E" (Revised 5E) and "D&D 24" . . . I'll probably ignore posts using "D&D 6E" . . .

I ignore posts (on the rare occasions I do) on the content of the post, not on what name they use, even if I don't like it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sure @EzekielRaiden has other styles in mind, but modern WotC 5e doesn't work well with classic play, survival, resource management that matters beyond 24 hours, any state of injury between "fine" and "dying", etc. I could go on.

I was thinking of a spectrum, as noted above, but I am glad that I'm not the only one seeing some of these gaps.

 

[Dire Bare]

I ignore posts (on the rare occasions I do) on the content of the post, not on what name they use, even if I don't like it.

Okay.

 

[payn]

Are you TRYING to get the thread locked?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well. It works for some different playstyles.

Others are, these days, actively excluded. And this is hailed as a victory. Long live the big tent, but not so big that it lets those styles in.

How exactly are you being excluded?

 

[trappedslider]

I've always used 3E or 3.0 to refer to that edition when I'm talking about that edition, 3.5 when I'm talking specifically about that one, and 3.x when I'm speaking more generally about stuff common to them both.

how did i get quoted in this mess?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I foresee plenty of problems when the DM and players have different ideas about what the rules do depending on what book they've read. But I usually play with people who try to learn the rules. If everyone just goes with what the DM says, you don't need a rulebook at all, regardless of edition.

Eh, I’m sure we will hear complaints and such, but I really doubt it will be common or major.

My group expects rules consistency and playing fairly by the book, but they also know that the rules are necessarily incomplete.

And we don’t do whatever the DM says, we do what the group decides on.