rabindranath72
Adventurer
Interesting thread, and something I have been mulling over this same thing the last week. I DMed 2e the longest, from 1989 to 2002, and before that, it was BECMI. I had a brief stint with 3.0 (picked up again last year for a Dragonlance campaign) and then a very brief affair with 4e (ended sort of tragically when we discovered 13th Age two years ago; only recently picked up 13th Age again), and recently ran a 5e Birthright campaign (which went well, if not for the nerfing of most of the spells, which in 2e are much more powerful and can be used in mass battles).
And very occasionally I still run a BECMI game for my old Italian group (like, twice or thrice a year.)
Given the recent experiences with all these games, I started wondering what I really like in 5e, especially compared with 2e. As someone has pointed out, 5e may be simpler than 4e and 3.x, but it's still more complex than 2e. Now, I don't mind complexity on the players' side, but I also get to play with people who doesn't give the proverbial rat's arse about special abilities or "crafting" unique characters; they are happy with BECMI as with 2e.
On the DM's side 5e doesn't seem to bring a lot of interesting "stuff" to the table; monsters are marginally more interesting than 2e ones (only some of them are, really.) When I DM, I discovered that I enjoy 13th Age the most; reminds me of the nice 4e monster design, without the hassles of the rest of the game (most important: no grid! I don't like it, and I have currently a like-minded group of people who doesn't, either, so it's a win-win). But 13th Age doesn't seem to work for all campaign types, in my experience.
So, what good does 5e have, is that it's becoming sort of a "lingua franca", it's in print, it seems to be liked if not loved by pretty much everyone I have asked (an interesting emergent property of its design?) So I'll definitely continue playing 5e, but if I found interested people, I'd still play 2e.
And very occasionally I still run a BECMI game for my old Italian group (like, twice or thrice a year.)
Given the recent experiences with all these games, I started wondering what I really like in 5e, especially compared with 2e. As someone has pointed out, 5e may be simpler than 4e and 3.x, but it's still more complex than 2e. Now, I don't mind complexity on the players' side, but I also get to play with people who doesn't give the proverbial rat's arse about special abilities or "crafting" unique characters; they are happy with BECMI as with 2e.
On the DM's side 5e doesn't seem to bring a lot of interesting "stuff" to the table; monsters are marginally more interesting than 2e ones (only some of them are, really.) When I DM, I discovered that I enjoy 13th Age the most; reminds me of the nice 4e monster design, without the hassles of the rest of the game (most important: no grid! I don't like it, and I have currently a like-minded group of people who doesn't, either, so it's a win-win). But 13th Age doesn't seem to work for all campaign types, in my experience.
So, what good does 5e have, is that it's becoming sort of a "lingua franca", it's in print, it seems to be liked if not loved by pretty much everyone I have asked (an interesting emergent property of its design?) So I'll definitely continue playing 5e, but if I found interested people, I'd still play 2e.
Last edited: