D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[thecasualoblivion]

Earlier editions of D&D were to a large degree vague, shapeless and formless masses open to interpretation. This came about by happenstance, and it seems like WotC is trying to deliberately recreate that happenstance. I don't think they can, pandora's box has been opened and I don't think it can be closed again now that people's eyes are open. Classic D&D was primarily a dungeon crawl system, but it was vague enough to be clumsily adapted to most anything and was used as such to a large degree because people didn't know any better, or at least because there weren't alternative systems that could deliver. In 2012, we do know better and do have alternatives, having seen an explosion of different takes on d20 thanks to the OGL, more robust non-d20 system choices than existed in the past, and also several more specific and idealized visions of D&D from the OSR and even Pathfinder and 4E.

They seem to be trying to go back to how things were, an "old school" dungeon crawling system left vague on purpose, but without the circumstances that led to the magic.

 

[CleverNickName]

They seem to be trying to go back to how things were, an "old school" dungeon crawling system left vague on purpose, but without the circumstances that led to the magic.

But they have done what they can, and have been successful for the most part. Take the Detect Magic spell, for example: By keeping the spell "vage, shapeless, and formless," they have made it more useful and fun than the 3.x/OGL version.

But I hear what you are saying. The newer editions of the game have created a lot of new preconceived (and often contradictory) notions about what should and should not be in the game. Consequently, we now have three different flavors of Wizard in the core rules. But that's the price of progress, I suppose.

If I end up playing 5E, I will most likely pick the flavor elements I like best and discard the rest. If the warlock is the easiest and most fun to play, for example, I will change its name to "wizard" and discard the other two. What's important is that the game gives us the option to do so...and so far, that seems to be the case.

 

[TerraDave]

I am not sure that it was any of those things. Even OD&D had rules and stuff, including for non-dungeon adventuring.

By AD&D, and especially by 2E, rules were pretty concrete, if interpreted flexibly sometimes (though when you bring magic item and spell descriptions...there was a fair amount of rules guidance there). You also had guidance through the adventures, Dragon, etc.

Its true that some rules can seem confusing or clunky in hindsight. (Though the funny thing is that also turns out to be the case for many games/editions that have come out much more recently). It is also true that in the 2E era there was a push for story that did not always match the rules. Finally, yes, 3E piled on the rules and both3E and 4E tried to make them more user friendly. Hopefully there would be some progress from decades of design.

But I guess my real problem is with the core premise: the genie can't go back in the bottle. We will never be 12 again...and so forth. But you can still learn from those editions. The success of which is not entirely accidental. You can also learn from the dissatisfaction with current editions.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem is D&D (like many things) needs to learn and respect its past, else its attempt to "reinvent" itself fails.

4e did too much, too quickly. Its killing off Vancian (the traditional magic of D&D, love it or not), changing advancement, hp and and saving throws, the reinventing of the World, the inclusion of new races, and the whole "martial power" system all came at once. A lot of it looking nothing like it did before. It created a jarring disconnect.

I applaud a D&D that respects it roots. It may not be the "well oiled machine" that 4e became (cuz it wasn't there when it came out; grindspace) but it looks like a natural extension of the D&D that came before, not a wholesale reinvent using only some of the IP names and concepts at rough templates.

 

[Lwaxy]

but it was vague enough to be clumsily adapted to most anything and was used as such to a large degree because people didn't know any better,

Know any better than doing what? Having fun? Are you implying those of us who had fun with the system shouldn't have had that fun? Because we should have known better? And who said it was "clumsily?"

And we may know different now, but that's not necessarily better to all of us.

The way you word it borders on insulting. Please be careful not to drift any further into edition war area.

 

[Umbran]

Classic D&D was primarily a dungeon crawl system, but it was vague enough to be clumsily adapted to most anything and was used as such to a large degree because people didn't know any better, or at least because there weren't alternative systems that could deliver. In 2012, we do know better and do have alternatives...

We have alternatives, sure. But are the alternatives objectively better? No. Better or worse is a matter of taste.

If you want to say that you expect that few people will like the vaguely defined rules, so that the game won't sell well enough to support itself, that's fine. But I suggest you word it in such a way that doesn't sound quite so "I know what's better for you".

They seem to be trying to go back to how things were, an "old school" dungeon crawling system left vague on purpose...

One player's "vague" is another's "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". Which is to say perhaps it is not so clearly better to rigidly define everything. And, with that experience you mention, today we can be a bit more careful about what we don't rigidly define.

 

[BobTheNob]

After years and years of playing 4e I realized I missed the vagueness. 4e was a fantastic triumph of perfected mechanics, yet it just wasnt as much fun (IMHO). There was something wonderful and whimsical about leaving the rules light enough that there werent specific mechanics to cover every last scenario, about letting the DM and player collaboratively tell a story instead of looking up a rule.

When a framework of rules is super-tight and well defined, you have to operate outside of it to improvise, and that is not a strength. This is tabletop where the great thing is that the group can improvise, and the best rule-sets for tabletop are loose enough to allow him to do that within the rules rather than outside of them.

You refer to vagueness as a weakness, I see it as a strength.

(p.s. its interesting, at one stage you said "now that peoples eyes are open", meaning now we we seen the more sophisticated mechanics of later incarnations. That is correct, my eyes are open more than ever before, and as a result I am loving the direction that 5e is taking, and far and away prefer it to the more recent approachs)

 

[S'mon]

IME the big problem with 4e is not that it is more polished than OD&D, but that it lacks OD&D's content generation tools, especially random tables - encounter tables, treasure tables, et al. Without these there is no 'default play mode' where PCs decide to do whatever and an unprepared GM can simply roll dice and generate content for a night's play. IMO it was the content generation tools that were OD&D's biggest innovation. This thought struck me recently as I have been using the Pathfinder Beginner Box in Gygax's Eastmark, and having all those tables to hand means I need never fear not knowing what to do next. Whereas with 4e I always worry about being unprepared, I have no way to easily generate new material at-table.

 

[Derren]

4e did too much, too quickly. Its killing off Vancian (the traditional magic of D&D, love it or not), changing advancement, hp and and saving throws, the reinventing of the World, the inclusion of new races, and the whole "martial power" system all came at once. A lot of it looking nothing like it did before. It created a jarring disconnect.

I don't think 4Es problems were because of the stuff being added, but because of the stuff they left out.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

To the OP:

Just go and play 4th edition because it's obvious by your many threads that D&D Next isn't for you. That's okay because there was a lot of us who sat out of 4th after trying it.

XP comments have to follow forum rules. Calling someone a troll is not doing that. - Lwaxy