D&D 5E What will 5E D&D be remembered for?

[Shasarak]

I definitely consider 2e to have kicked off the player entitlement/empowerment trend. Towards the end of its life cycle, with all the "player option"'books and stuff, it was getting overloaded with kits and doodads for savvy players to utilize.

Player empowerment? How about our friendly Dark Elf Ranger from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

Ah, the days where being a High Strength Dart thrower was the Ultimate cheese.

 

[Dausuul]

5E won't be "remembered", because this is the last edition. All that comes after will be "updates" to 5E.

Eh, I doubt that. 5E is my favorite edition by far, but it still has its rough spots, and not all of them can be fixed by incremental patches. I think we will have a 6E eventually.

However, it won't be for quite a long time. The slow release schedule and reduced staff size will allow them to keep 5E going a lot longer than 3E or 4E.

 

[delericho]

Yes, just like the last 'ever-green' edition that was supposed to never fade and yet here we are.

Ah. I see. So the words do in fact mean what I used them to mean, it's just that WotC thus far haven't managed to actually achieve that. Gotcha.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As someone who started with 1e, I agree. But, if 5e has a legacy, it's the return of the DM to primacy.

But this, too, is presuming a positive spin on what 5e has done. This need not remain positive over time. In language as non-judgmental (for good or for ill) as I can put it, given that I am very critical of this feature (or "feature" ): 5e hangs everything on the DM's shoulders--everything.

For those unwilling, uninterested, or unable to shoulder that, 5e will never work "right" for them. That is, they'll never get it to "sing," if that makes sense. It may be functional, but it won't be brilliant. That is the secret dark side of DM empowerment. Everyone knows what bad things DM entitlement will do--that's the "obvious" dark side that gets dismissive answers like "don't play with those people, duh!" Just like everyone could see from a mile away the problems of a game that gave players unrealistic or unfair expectations of what they'd receive, which is usually what I think people mean when they talk about "player entitlement." But I don't think anybody, including Monte Cook, saw the secret dark side of player empowerment, which was (as Tony noted in another post) the influence gap between players who exploited every avenue available and players who just wanted to relax and do an enjoyable thing with friends.

Nowadays, I think most people would agree that one of 3.x's greatest flaws was punishing that second group, the players who just wanted to relax, who didn't WANT to put in the deep thought and give up the things that interested them for the things that would make them powerful. But 5e absolutely does, sometimes, do the exact same thing on the other side of the screen: "punishing" those DMs who don't want to maintain constant vigilance, who don't want to have to kitbash the thing into shape every time they boot it up fresh, who just want a system they can use as-is with few to no modifications and get few to no unexpected (edit: that is, unpleasant) surprises.

If 5e remains a fond memory? People will remember its expectations of DMs in a positive light: "empowerment." If the general perception of it sours with time? People will remember its expectations of DMs in a negative light: "demanding."

And I'm just about 95% sure that there isn't a single quality of 5e that can be held up as a wonderful, positive legacy that doesn't have a "dark side" to it--in exactly the same way that you can say that of 4e. For me as a 4e fan, its balance was wonderful, liberating: I could do almost whatever I wanted and KNOW that I'd never get left behind, that I'd never be a burden, that I'd make a REAL and MEANINGFUL contribution to whatever the party wanted to do. For critics, that exact same balance was a painful constraint (though, I'll be honest, I've never really understood that position; people hold it, but I've never heard it explained in a way that didn't boil down to "I want to be able to suck at things and/or reduce my group's ability to succeed" which...boggles my mind.)

Ah. I see. So the words do in fact mean what I used them to mean, it's just that WotC thus far haven't managed to actually achieve that. Gotcha.

Alternatively, @Shasarak could be saying that there is a gap between what the words mean as an abstract statement, and what the words mean as marketing doublespeak. That is, the term is really a claim rather than a description, or more like a political buzzword, even a dogwhistle, something said to make customers think it means one thing (an edition that will never be replaced) when, internally, it means some other thing (an edition we want people to buy as though it will never be replaced). And if 5e succeeds in spooling out its existence for, say, 2-3 times longer than 3e, 3.5e, or 4e? People might take those claims completely seriously...right up until 6e is announced.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What a charming way of putting it. 4e made the game remarkably easy to run, true, and 3.5 and 4e both arguably 'empowered' players with more choices. As far as DMs being "controlled" by the editions, no. A game can't keep a DM from changing it's rules - it can have rules that don't need changing, it can give players so many goodies that they resist change... There was a RAW-uber-alles zietgiest that got rolling in 3.5, for instance, but it was very much of the community's making.

As someone who started with 1e, I agree. But, if 5e has a legacy, it's the return of the DM to primacy.

I like the return to Theater of the mind and the empoerment which comes with that.
In one of the last two editions I had to argue with a player about the fact that a skeleton was standing in the middle of a 10 ft wide hallway... and the argument was that I as a DM must play by the rules and the rules don't allow standing between two squares...

So it is the return to theater of the mind for me. Back to the path that 3.5 left. So it is the spirirual successor of 3.0 for me.

 

[delericho]

Alternatively, [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] could be saying that there is a gap between what the words mean as an abstract statement, and what the words mean as marketing doublespeak. That is, the term is really a claim rather than a description, or more like a political buzzword, even a dogwhistle, something said to make customers think it means one thing (an edition that will never be replaced) when, internally, it means some other thing (an edition we want people to buy as though it will never be replaced). And if 5e succeeds in spooling out its existence for, say, 2-3 times longer than 3e, 3.5e, or 4e? People might take those claims completely seriously...right up until 6e is announced.

Which would be fine, if he'd actually said that, rather than "those words do not mean what you think they mean".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which would be fine, if he'd actually said that, rather than "those words do not mean what you think they mean".

I guess I'm just comfortable accepting "that means something different to marketing than it does to customers who read it" as a more specific form of the given gloss. Admittedly, it wasn't stated as politely as it could be, if my proposed option is what was actually meant.

 

[Shasarak]

Ah. I see. So the words do in fact mean what I used them to mean, it's just that WotC thus far haven't managed to actually achieve that. Gotcha.

Just as long as WotC did not actually say it, and given their last 'ever green' product I doubt they would make that particular claim again.

 

[Raith5]

I think it will be widely remembered for its simplicity of play for new players and pre 3e players (whether it does continue to bring in new players, I am not sure).

While I enjoy 5e, I ultimately want more. So I think I will remember it for the lessons/good elements of 4e that were ignored. I do miss the ways 4e made tactically martial characters interesting, made clerics and healers non-essential via second winds, and made class defining thing like cleric healing separate from their other resources, and made monsters truly unpredictable (despite putting firm and fair restraints on DMs). I expect to be playing 5e for awhile, and I dont think 4e was perfect by any means, but 4e changed my expectations of gaming in fundamental ways.

 

[JeffB]

The Vanilla Edition
Return to (relatively) Simple Play
Bounded Accuracy
Adv/Dis