D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

I mean ... why are the edition fights in D&D so vicious?

Because the stakes are so low.

C'mon. You wanna like One Edition? One Direction? One Bard to RULE THEM ALL? SPLITTER!!!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Well, here is an example if you're curious:

Last night a PC in my game failed his save and is afflicted by Lycanthropy. Now, I know he has it due to the failed save, and I know a remove curse can get rid of it, but there is nothing in the rules about anything more. This is all there is:

View attachment 261891

How do they know they're afflicted? They need to know before they can choose to resist or embrace.
What about changing before the full moon? Can they resist it before then when the moon is full, or is it just the full moon? How many days is that?

Now, I can answer these questions easily myself, but for a newer DM I can see how they might feel a bit lost and wonder where are the rest of the rules on this? Is it in the DMG? Nope--nothing there I've ever seen.

So, while the rules for contracting and removing lycanthropy are there, the rest is missing and left up to the DM.

It when the hair on their back is as thick as on their chests!

Wait. I was afflicted? When I run around and howl with my chiweenie I am literally part of the pack?!

I need a minute.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is no group that plays it and does not join to dots with houserules.

Raises hand...

The trick is, this isn't obvious from a player's perspective. It's the DM-facing part of the game that is incomplete.

For example: under what circumstances do I, as DM, frame a new scene? How 'hard' can I frame it, and what do I take into account when doing so? This is really basic stuff you can't play the game without, and the rules don't, as far as I can tell, really say anything about it.

Then there's stuff like the entire exploration 'pillar', including travel, weather, wandering monsters, etc. These things 'exist' in the game text, but there are no clear procedures for actually bringing them into play.

I don't think you (general you) need such things spelled out for you. Obviously, miles may vary, but the rules presented are more than enough for me and everyone I've played with. Looking at the number of people who play 5e, I think it's obvious that it is playable RAW.

 

[Shiroiken]

LOL Hardly! 5E is the first edition IMO which has HUGE "gaps" in the rules and feels like the designers simply expect groups to fill in those gaps themselves.

This really was intentional, but probably not quite to the extent it became. The goal of 5E (D&D Next) was to create a game with the broadest appeal possible. To do this, it required a solid chassis that can be tweaked and modded by each DM/group to fit their preferred style, since there were serious edition wars over different styles of play. During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums. This meant that to appease all sides, they had to keep the base rules as generic as possible, believing that each side would adjust to play their preferred style (not realizing the deep desire of RAW had settled into most players). Unfortunately, this left a lot of gaps, since to clarify them would offend one group or another, potentially driving away customers.

 

[niklinna]

With an escape valve as huge as "rulings, not rules", 5e is definltely playable "RAW".

 

[gorice]

Raises hand...

I don't think you (general you) need such things spelled out for you. Obviously, miles may vary, but the rules presented are more than enough for me and everyone I've played with. Looking at the number of people who play 5e, I think it's obvious that it is playable RAW.

I'm not making any judgement about whether you need the game text to spell this stuff out in order to play. I'm just saying, this stuff doesn't exist in 5th ed. Generally, people substitute procedures from older editions, or stuff they've learned online.

You absolutely are joining the dots when you do that, though. The game literally cannot be played without it.

 

[gorice]

During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums.

This is really fascinating to me. Would you mind giving me some pointers as to where to look to learn more, or maybe expand on it a bit?

 

[Oofta]

This really was intentional, but probably not quite to the extent it became. The goal of 5E (D&D Next) was to create a game with the broadest appeal possible. To do this, it required a solid chassis that can be tweaked and modded by each DM/group to fit their preferred style, since there were serious edition wars over different styles of play. During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums. This meant that to appease all sides, they had to keep the base rules as generic as possible, believing that each side would adjust to play their preferred style (not realizing the deep desire of RAW had settled into most players). Unfortunately, this left a lot of gaps, since to clarify them would offend one group or another, potentially driving away customers.

One man's "generic as possible" is another's "I can run the game the way I, and my group, want". Previous editions had ever increasing "thou shalt run the game this way". It didn't work for me, it didn't work for a lot of people I know. D&D does not need to be run exactly the same at every table. I'm glad we have rulings over rules.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not making any judgement about whether you need the game text to spell this stuff out in order to play. I'm just saying, this stuff doesn't exist in 5th ed. Generally, people substitute procedures from older editions, or stuff they've learned online.

You absolutely are joining the dots when you do that, though. The game literally cannot be played without it.

The game cannot be played without what, now? Because seems like millions of people, many who have never touched an RPG before in their life, are playing just fine.

 

[Malmuria]

I would submit that 5e as written absolutely is incomplete, to the extent that it's actually unplayable. There is no group that plays it and does not join to dots with houserules. The trick is, this isn't obvious from a player's perspective. It's the DM-facing part of the game that is incomplete.

For example: under what circumstances do I, as DM, frame a new scene? How 'hard' can I frame it, and what do I take into account when doing so? This is really basic stuff you can't play the game without, and the rules don't, as far as I can tell, really say anything about it.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I know of no game that doesn't require "connecting the dots" in this manner. Not in the sense that every game needs houserules, but ttrpgs involve individuals interpreting both rules and fictional positioning. If I'm running 5e, I have to make a judgement call on setting a DC, and sometimes a table of suggested DCs would be nice. If I'm running Blades in the Dark, it's up to me to set position and effect and figure out what a "complication" might look like if a roll comes up as a 4 or 5. If anything, the latter is more difficult and requires more connecting-of-dots as a GM.

Then there's stuff like the entire exploration 'pillar', including travel, weather, wandering monsters, etc. These things 'exist' in the game text, but there are no clear procedures for actually bringing them into play.

DMG pp. 106-112. There are rules for structuring wilderness travel, rolling for weather, getting lost, and foraging. The writing and presentation certainly leaves something to be desired: if one wants a "checklist" as in previous editions, the DM would have to parse the text to make one, so that's not ideal, and there are some random tables presented in this section that probably would be better placed elsewhere in the book. But there's as much info here as in my rules cyclopedia and much much more than in my copy of old school essentials.