D&D 5e rules - short but not easy

[DMJ1]

I spent now 4 weeks familiarising myself with the rules after taking a timeout from d&d for pretty much a long time. First of all, I think the rules are by far the best in all the versions I know (2e and 3e). 2e is very old, 3.x was too much modifiers and craziness with all the multiclassing and the unbalance. 5e is really pretty good. I do not know too much about 4e, but heard a lot of not so good stuff. 1e I was simply too young :smallwink:

But...there is a but. I said already a few things about some concepts that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in another thread (the uselessness of INT, the redundant concept of ability scores, etc.).

But besides that, I want to ask about a different thing that makes me wonder. I think the shortness of the rules does not make the rules easy. There are so many exceptions and things you would not expect in the rules. Also so many innuendos, which you do not realise until you read it for the 4th or 5th time, and still you have to google to confirm. I undertook hundreds of google searches in order to get clarification on certain rules spent countless hours on this forum and a few others and on sageadvice.eu, reading errata and sage advice compendium etc. I never in my life spend so much time for getting clarification on rules in a rpg. I played Shadowrun in during 2e and 3e, and those rules were really lengthy and complex, but at least I always knew exactly how the rules were meant. With d&d 5e I very often ask myself...well...how is this meant, then I start googling and then I realise that pretty much every question I have had already come up in the past.

What I really don't like is how from the official side they often talk about the rules in such a condescending way, as if everything is soooo easy and everybody with a high school degree must understand what is meant without much efford. They behave as if some uber-guru behind the scenes has a great masterplan and everything perfectly under control. I have a masters degree in mathematics, so I pretty much spend years learning how to express stuff precisely, but with this rules (or the way they are written) it's really really difficult. However, I think slowly but steadily I'm getting the hang of it and looking forward to my first session :smallsmile:

My question is: Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game? I think so, since all the questions I had were already asked in the past. Is it the shortness of the rules what actually makes them difficult to grasp in it's entirety, i.e. was complexity sacrificed at the cost of ambiguity?

Just to make it clear again: I like the new d&d 5e in general, all things considered. I'm just interested how others felt!

[hymer]

Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game?

Yes and no. I certainly felt that a lot was left to the interpretation of the DM, but so far I think there has been less than ten things I felt it required to look up to get a handle on. I certainly don't get the sense of condescension you got, but I have seen a few answers so badly worded they didn't actually answer the question. Which is surely more pathetic than condescending.
But overall I've found 5e to be highly intuitively straightforward. There have been very few cases where I've felt surprised at a rule (or even a clarification).

I've had more cause to gripe about the PHB index (which bears clear signs of being done too hastily) and the shoddy binding of my first PHB and MM.

[StoicLeaf]

I didn't find the rules that difficult, for some things I had to consult sage advice or the erratas.
I play alot of games though!

[Socratov]

I find that these rules are easy to learn, but hard to master. So with the vague and pretentious crap out of the way here is what I mean: it's stupidly easy to get into these rules. Really. I mean, these rules really work for the player in the regard that you can open the book and get cracking. However, once you go beyond that the rules become hard: the balance point is not as clear as you'd like them to, you will have to understand that some classfeatures are not class features at all, but called 'ribbons' where they have little to no impact on the game. Then comes the point where you notice that phrases like "...up to the DM..." or "...will be determined by the DM..." That's when you notice that this version is more like a set of guidelines when compared to 3.5's hard rules. This led me to believe that this version has awfully little to no real rules and an awful lot of suggestions, and mastering those is not only an effort in rules recall (and good memory), but in social sills as well.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I found them fairly intuitive, too. A lot of the questions/confusion people have do seem to stem from them not reading things closely enough, or being deliberately obtuse and munchkin-y; I often have to reel myself in to keep from being condescending when people ask me stuff, so I understand where the devs are coming from. Also the rules do sometimes assume a familiarity with historical editions, or lean on a sort of unwritten understanding of what is meant.

But overall, I like that there is some wriggle-room in the rules and an explicit encouragement for DMs to make stuff up on the fly. It's smoother and more flexible. Sometimes, the more rules you write, the less freedom you and your players actually have, you know?

[DMJ1]

I've had more cause to gripe about the PHB index (which bears clear signs of being done too hastily) and the shoddy binding of my first PHB and MM.

Oh no, the binding! Such great quality of the paper, the print, the artwork, the material...but the binding they had to screw up :smallfurious:

And I thought I am too stupid to handle books :smallwink:

Today I'm heading out to get me some crazy glue to fix what is to fix of my PHB

[JellyPooga]

Oh no, the binding! Such great quality of the paper, the print, the artwork, the material...but the binding they had to screw up :smallfurious:

And I thought I am too stupid to handle books :smallwink:

Today I'm heading out to get me some crazy glue to fix what is to fix of my PHB

There is something to said said in favour of the crap binding; if you let it fall apart and put the pages into plastic sleeves in a ring binder, there's a lot more utility you can get out of it. Remove pages you want to have handy at the gaming table (and put them back afterward), alphabetically tabbed spells (or just being able to put tabs in at all), put pages in an order you like (definitely something I'm tempted to do with the DMG; the arrangement of that book is just peculiar), add printed Errata in the appropriate places...I'm sure there's some other benefits too. I'm not saying the poor binding is a good thing, per se, but it does open up the possibility of making improvements.

On Topic; I found 5ed a pleasant diversion from the rules-heavy 3ed and 4ed and far more concise than earlier editions (which were just arcane in places). The reliance on GM interpretation I saw as a good thing, encouraging players to tailor the game to their own taste rather than strictly adhering to the rules; D&D is supposed to be and always has been about playing your own game, not anyone elses and 5ed is good for that. It's my favourite edition to date and I had no trouble reading or understanding it (then again, I'm a "rules guy"...give me rules, any rules and I'll have them licked and everyone at the table playing in short order).

[Larpus]

I'm still less than five games into 5e and sitting on it as a player, not as DM.

So far, it's actually pretty good, but the table I play at (and have been playing for almost a decade now) never really got into 3.X's hard rules, mostly because one player who used to play with us abused the hell out of Bluff/Diplomacy rules to the point that the table had to houserule it in a way that it closely resembles their 5e counterparts.

We also had many other houserules in place that had similar effects, giving more power to DM decisions and less to strict RAW.

But I agree with the "easy to understand, hard to master" feel, usually I'm the rules consultant for more mechanics heavy stuff like combat and way more than I expected my answer's been "X and Y might happen, but who decides what's going on is the DM".

But I see it as an improvement as long as the DM is committed to make a fun game and not just increase his/her PC frag count.

[Gryndle]

short and easy.

to me the rules are mostly clear. 5E makes sense to me for the most part. Having played every iteration of D&D since Chainmail, I find 5E to be the most intuitive and simplest ruleset as both player and DM.

Most of the interpretation issues I have witnessed have stemmed from players "overthinking" the rules or trying to interpret something the way a previous system did just because it was their preference.

It isn't perfect, but then nothing is. Once everyone at my table came around to the idea of accepting 5E for what it is and not trying to make it something it is not, then the enjoyment factor went way up.

[Tanarii]

My question is: Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game? I think so, since all the questions I had were already asked in the past. Is it the shortness of the rules what actually makes them difficult to grasp in it's entirety, i.e. was complexity sacrificed at the cost of ambiguity?
No. It was the easiest set of D&D rules to learn since BECMI when I was a kid. And to be fair, since I was a kid and I was also learning AD&D at the same time, I learned a lot of BECMI and was wrong the first time around.

Complexity wasn't sacrificed. It was rejected, and what was gained in return was DM flexibility, as well as a massive increase in speed of play. What was sacrificed was precision tactical play appropriate for heavy war-gaming/battle-mat play.

Most of the ambiguity is in very intentional places. Like skills, in particular Perception & Stealth. That's on of the places the lack of complexity makes for problems ... precisely because people used to 3e & 4e -style tactical war-gaming/battle-mat play. It causes a lot of people to try and figure out the 'rules' for them as if they're independent of additional DM judgement. Including me until recently. I was making a LOT of the same wrong assumptions because I hadn't properly wrapped my head around the new paradigm completely, and perception/stealth was just one of the places. The rules for them are, as is typical for 5e, clear and detailed but depend on DM judgement.

Also it'll probably help if you read the rules with the understanding that they were designing the game as an old-school D&D game: for dungeon, wilderness and urban adventures. Once you realize that's the focus of the rules, a lot of areas where they're fairly precise (adventuring chapter, skill list) vs broad (anyone can use any skill for anything appropriate) make perfect sense.

[mephnick]

Most of the interpretation issues I have witnessed have stemmed from players "overthinking" the rules or trying to interpret something the way a previous system did just because it was their preference.

Pretty much. See: surprise. I don't know how many times I've explained this to different players at different tables who keep trying to warp it into 3.5's surprise round or "Let me have automatic free attacks because I'm an assassin: The Game." I think most problems with 5e stem from the same thought process

[Tanarii]

Pretty much. See: surprise. I don't know how many times I've explained this to different players at different tables who keep trying to warp it into 3.5's surprise round or "Let me have automatic free attacks because I'm an assassin: The Game." I think most problems with 5e stem from the same thought process
Yep. I've said it before and I'll day it again. D&D 5e is the most 'retro' version of D&D since Basic. It keeps a lot of the 3e innovations in classes & skills, but plays a lot like B/X or BECMI. Simple, straight forward, easy to play without a tactical map, and if there's ever a rules question the DM rules and play moves on. It's not about rules minutia interactions, at least it shouldn't be during actual play. If you're trying to use it that way at the table you've missed the idea.

Which is why many optimizers and battle-mat tacticians either miss the point or bemoan the lack of complexity and too much ambiguity.

Edit: don't get me wrong I love both character design (including a certain degree of optimizing) and crunchy tactical maneuvers on a battle mat. I just like them for the editions designed to work with them. Especially 4e for the latter.

[MeeposFire]

Yep. I've said it before and I'll day it again. D&D 5e is the most 'retro' version of D&D since Basic. It keeps a lot of the 3e innovations in classes & skills, but plays a lot like B/X or BECMI. Simple, straight forward, easy to play without a tactical map, and if there's ever a rules question the DM rules and play moves on. It's not about rules minutia interactions, at least it shouldn't be during actual play. If you're trying to use it that way at the table you've missed the idea.

Which is why many optimizers and battle-mat tacticians either miss the point or bemoan the lack of complexity and too much ambiguity.

Edit: don't get me wrong I love both character design (including a certain degree of optimizing) and crunchy tactical maneuvers on a battle mat. I just like them for the editions designed to work with them. Especially 4e for the latter.

I agree with you here that it goes in a retro vibe a lot but it lovingly steals a lot of mechanics from 4e and dresses them up in a different fashion. Then the whole things is packaged lightly shown in a class description that is very 3e in style including the method to multiclassing.

[Fishyninja]

May I chime in as primarily a 5e player, and again a somewhat new player. The rules that are laid out in the PHB while easy to learn (and sometimes difficult to master) can sometimes (in my opinion) lead to overexcitement (as a player) or overarching power trips (as a DM).

I am not talking about a specific rule or anythign but most of the questions I have posted on here in the variosu threads have been to clarify the interepreationg of a rule, yeas we have RAW but it seems that the large majority of people have their own take on the RAW ruling. This I feel is what makes 5e ultimately confusing but extremely entertaining.

[Socratov]

Tanarii, Mephnick, I think surprise was done badly in this edition.

And by badly I mean, they based a class feature (and not a ribbon) on a condition that pretty much only exists when the DM feels like it. it was done as well as Tides of Chaos for the WM sorcerer and WMS for the WM sorc.

IMO the improvement for 5e is to make a system that gives the players everything to rely on in the PHB (as in the players can count on stuff in the PHB to count and stuff in their classes to count), and that the Md gets all the room he wants in the DMG with enough info and examples to run a game (including a better understanding of what makes a fair or challenging skill test) and the monsters to back it up (including a primer on how to design a monster that a party of X can handle).

But then again, I think that DnD should let of its current ability system, and separate the skill system from the abilities (and attacks) and all in all should let go of a lot of stuff to progress into a role playing game instead of the wargame simulation it was a couple of editions ago.

That said, will it do so? Probably not...

[Alatar]

I've played all the editions, while they were current, since AD&D. I also played the D&D Next playtest. I've played all those editions at the same table, with the same DM (most of the time). We have a very gamist table, and we have had no problems with the 5e rules.

It has always been my practice to spot the ambiguities in the rules and sidestep them. There are ambiguities in every edition, even 4e. I don't want to have those conversations with my DM. To the degree that I can, I avoid them. So, for example, in all my years of D&D, playing wizards more than any other class, I played an enchanter once, an illusionist never.

For 5e, they went rules light. And the approach they are quietly fostering is story first. The rules matter to the degree that they support the story, or at least that is more the case than it has been previously. The vagueness that is in the rules makes it easy for the DM to ease into that approach if they aren't already there. In that context, even for a story light, gamist group, the approach to take is: don't sweat it.

In 3rd edition, we were always hauling out the books during the game, trying to figure out how to proceed. Turning undead and grappling were classic examples, but more generally, the books were required at the table. In 4e, once we got going, we never needed to turn to the Player's Handbook during the game. Never. And that has been the case with 5e as well, pretty much. Casters will reference spell descriptions, but that's about it. The game does not pause for rules adjudication.

It's great that you have studied the ruleset to the degree that you have. It's nice to have someone like that at the table. It was more valuable in 3rd edition than it is now. There will also be someone at the table who has not read one word of the rules and never will. They learn the game by osmosis. We have a guy like that at our table. 3rd edition took him about three years, and for much of that time he railed about the straightjacket of 3e squeezing all the creativity out of the game. But he did come around in the fullness of time and eventually got to love it. 4th edition took him a few months. Some moaning, but not much, and he never really loved it. 5th edition took him almost no time at all and there were no complaints. Well, he would like more magic items.

I play a very tactical game in 5e. I find it to be a good game for tactical play. You don't need a lot of rules to play a very tactical game. Chess has very few rules. The rule book is a pamphlet.

[DMJ1]

Thank you all for your insights.

Yeah, I just wanted to be very familiar with the rules before I play, since the rest of the guys I play with are veterans and my RPG experiences lie mostly in the AD&D and Shadowrun 2.01 times, so I do not want to slow everyone down :smallwink: I think I will be fine! I have no problem if the DM wings it as he goes along, I just wanted to be prepared...

[Foxhound438]

I'd say there's enough leaps of rules faith with what's written compared to what's supposedly the rules according to sage advice that it'd be forgivable for most new players to not understand a lot of things. Not to mention there's a lot of things that come up pretty much in every encounter that you might never know about if you don't go through all the rules- for instance bonus actions, you can only take one on your turn, but almost everything in class features and spells and so on just says "when you do x you can do y as a bonus action", which to less experienced players might imply that they could do every thing that they possibly can with their bonus action on every turn.

So yeah, the books are written poorly- you'd need to be a pro lawyer to get everything in one go, and even then Jeremy f'in crawford will tell you "but that's not the intent" for some things, and for others there simply isn't anything precise on how to adjudicate things.

[DragonSorcererX]

My question is: Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game? I think so, since all the questions I had were already asked in the past. Is it the shortness of the rules what actually makes them difficult to grasp in it's entirety, i.e. was complexity sacrificed at the cost of ambiguity?

I'm normally really slow and maybe stupid, I lost all my good grades in the past 5~7 years, I have some concentration problems, I think about killing myself every day, I probably have anxiety, I failed at progressing in high school three times and I find 5e really easy, and I tried to learn 4e but it was too slow motion, and I tried to learn both 3.5 (because of my love from dragons and draconic stuff) and GURPS twice and failed miserably... so yeah, 5e is really easy (also, I still don't understand Vampire: The Masquerade at all, and it was meant to be played by non-nerd teenagers and apes)...

[goatmeal]

This thread has been very informative in understanding my own gaming experience. I was in a 5e Lost my Mine game very briefly last summer, using the 5esrd to build my character. I just recently got the PHB and have been looking through it. I think one thing I’ve realized is that in the past few years I’ve become accustomed to finding all the rules online, so reading through an actual rulebook book again for the first time in about a decade is kind of different. I can’t just click to find answers.
I think some of the other answers have also helped me look back on my gaming experience and put it in context as far as what to expect with 5e. I never really cared about optimization in 2e, but as I started to play 3.5/Pathfinder it soon became apparent how important it was. One time I was in a game with another player and we were both alchemists and he optimized and I didn’t and it became somewhat less fun because I was “stuck” with the character I had. I also realized when DMing it was important to at least understand optimization in order to know if a character was trying shenanigans. And once I knew how to do it, making characters for optimization became really fun. (my most recent alchemist is pretty awesome, though I realized I probably don’t need both grease bomb and frost bomb when we were facing a night hag and I couldn’t contribute in any meaningful way. But Android Preservationists can be pretty resilient, especially with alchemical allocations.
I think I’m going to like 5e, as it sounds like there aren’t huge power differentials between most levels and it’s a bit more low magic. Also having fewer rules means more room for RP without worrying about those sorts of details.
As to the condescending language, I think that is WOTCs way of trying to reach out to new players that might not get rules as easily as some of us do. I can definitely see how it could be confusing and/or annoying.

[Potato_Priest]

My first experience with D&D was when a D&D club was started at our school, with the guy who founded it DMing. He had never played a game before in his life, but had read the player's handbook most of the way through. Even with his inexperienced instruction, I found the rules to be incredibly simple and easy to learn. As I have taught others to play the game, they have expressed to me their amazement at how simple it is. Of course, we still have one guy who adds his proficiency bonus to damage rolls, but he is the exception.

That said, I still, even after over a year of playing, encounter weird little things that can be very finicky if the DM wants them to be, like material and somatic components for spellcasting. Because of this, I'd agree with the easy to learn, hard to master statement above.

[Vogonjeltz]

I spent now 4 weeks familiarising myself with the rules after taking a timeout from d&d for pretty much a long time. First of all, I think the rules are by far the best in all the versions I know (2e and 3e). 2e is very old, 3.x was too much modifiers and craziness with all the multiclassing and the unbalance. 5e is really pretty good. I do not know too much about 4e, but heard a lot of not so good stuff. 1e I was simply too young :smallwink:

But...there is a but. I said already a few things about some concepts that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in another thread (the uselessness of INT, the redundant concept of ability scores, etc.).

But besides that, I want to ask about a different thing that makes me wonder. I think the shortness of the rules does not make the rules easy. There are so many exceptions and things you would not expect in the rules. Also so many innuendos, which you do not realise until you read it for the 4th or 5th time, and still you have to google to confirm. I undertook hundreds of google searches in order to get clarification on certain rules spent countless hours on this forum and a few others and on sageadvice.eu, reading errata and sage advice compendium etc. I never in my life spend so much time for getting clarification on rules in a rpg. I played Shadowrun in during 2e and 3e, and those rules were really lengthy and complex, but at least I always knew exactly how the rules were meant. With d&d 5e I very often ask myself...well...how is this meant, then I start googling and then I realise that pretty much every question I have had already come up in the past.

What I really don't like is how from the official side they often talk about the rules in such a condescending way, as if everything is soooo easy and everybody with a high school degree must understand what is meant without much efford. They behave as if some uber-guru behind the scenes has a great masterplan and everything perfectly under control. I have a masters degree in mathematics, so I pretty much spend years learning how to express stuff precisely, but with this rules (or the way they are written) it's really really difficult. However, I think slowly but steadily I'm getting the hang of it and looking forward to my first session :smallsmile:

My question is: Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game? I think so, since all the questions I had were already asked in the past. Is it the shortness of the rules what actually makes them difficult to grasp in it's entirety, i.e. was complexity sacrificed at the cost of ambiguity?

Just to make it clear again: I like the new d&d 5e in general, all things considered. I'm just interested how others felt!

No. The rules were simple to read, even easier to look up when I want to confirm something if I don't recall what the rule is.

[Samayu]

There is something to said said in favour of the crap binding; if you let it fall apart and put the pages into plastic sleeves in a ring binder, there's a lot more utility you can get out of it. Remove pages you want to have handy at the gaming table (and put them back afterward), alphabetically tabbed spells (or just being able to put tabs in at all), put pages in an order you like (definitely something I'm tempted to do with the DMG; the arrangement of that book is just peculiar), add printed Errata in the appropriate places...I'm sure there's some other benefits too. I'm not saying the poor binding is a good thing, per se, but it does open up the possibility of making improvements.

I once had a Shadowrun book fall out of it's binding, which I punched and put in a three-ring binder. It was... freeing.

[furby076]

My question is: Did you feel the same way I felt when you "learned" the game? I think so, since all the questions I had were already asked in the past. Is it the shortness of the rules what actually makes them difficult to grasp in it's entirety, i.e. was complexity sacrificed at the cost of ambiguity?

Absolutely. The problem with 5e is 3.x. The game makers wanted to differ from the rules heavy 3.x; however, they went too far down that path. Now we have a game that is made with the explicit premise of "rule zero". We clearly know about DM fiat, and have known this since the original DND. Not every DM wants to rely on having to make a judgement call, and not every table wants that ambiguity of not knowing how a decision will be made until the group is faced with the question.

I am not a fan of this simplification. This is a game that simulates a fantastical world. There are tons of rules in a world, and knowing them is important. THink of it this way - a video game is made of gigabytes of code, and all of those codes are rules in to how to manage the world. In my opinion, the DMG could have more rules, and less world building "fluff".

Just my two cents.

[Spellbreaker26]

I am not a fan of this simplification. This is a game that simulates a fantastical world. There are tons of rules in a world, and knowing them is important. THink of it this way - a video game is made of gigabytes of code, and all of those codes are rules in to how to manage the world. In my opinion, the DMG could have more rules, and less world building "fluff".


This confuses me. It's easy to play a video game, there are even video games that simulate the DnD ruleset and are really good games (like Baldur's Gate). So why do we go to the effort of assembling a group, and writing an adventure and getting together every week, just to play a video game? The advantage that DnD has over tabletop games is the freedom, is rule zero, and to try and make it a video game would kill the very aspect of it that makes it appealing, at least for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Absolutely. The problem with 5e is 3.x. The game makers wanted to differ from the rules heavy 3.x; however, they went too far down that path. Now we have a game that is made with the explicit premise of "rule zero". We clearly know about DM fiat, and have known this since the original DND. Not every DM wants to rely on having to make a judgement call, and not every table wants that ambiguity of not knowing how a decision will be made until the group is faced with the question.

I am not a fan of this simplification. This is a game that simulates a fantastical world. There are tons of rules in a world, and knowing them is important. THink of it this way - a video game is made of gigabytes of code, and all of those codes are rules in to how to manage the world. In my opinion, the DMG could have more rules, and less world building "fluff".

Just my two cents.

I disagree. The problem is that no single human mind can hold enough of the (real) rules to even attempt an accurate simulation. It's the idea of the "uncanny valley." Sometimes, approaching "reality" more closely leads to worse results than a less accurate simulation. Too many contradictions occur since we can't simultaneously model all the interactions, even at their most basic. 3.X did a horrible job of simulating an actual world. I find (as I entirely DM these days) that having fewer "bright-line" rules allows me to put my limited realism efforts into what matters. Being able to eye-ball DCs for things (based on my internal model of them) instead of having to find the nearest line-item in a table. Being able to modify monsters on the fly, knowing that it's really hard to break a monster without being absurd (instead of having to build everything using the same rules as PCs). This lets me put much more effort into my descriptions and ad-libbed scenarios.

For example, I just (an hour or so ago) finished a session. The players went in a different direction than I had thought they would before hand, and so I had to ad-lib. Extensively. Whole goblin tribes and a keep full of undead. I was able to do so with basically no problems or downtime, because the rules are so simple. That's what I love about 5e (as a DM).

[Tanarii]

Absolutely. The problem with 5e is 3.x. The game makers wanted to differ from the rules heavy 3.x; however, they went too far down that path. Now we have a game that is made with the explicit premise of "rule zero". We clearly know about DM fiat, and have known this since the original DND. Not every DM wants to rely on having to make a judgement call, and not every table wants that ambiguity of not knowing how a decision will be made until the group is faced with the question.
That last is a fair complaint. Not every table likes rules light games that depend heavily on DM judgement. 5e isn't the rules lightest RPG out there, or even by D&D standards. BECMI is even lighter (even when you add in companion and master rules or use the Rules Cyclopedia). But for someone used to any of AD&D 1e thru 4e, especially with splats, it's very rules light and DM judgement. Especially the ability check (former skills) system.

I like that, because I feel that it enhances versimilitude if done well, works better for off-battle mat combat, and it speeds up play. But we've hashed out why others don't prefer that many times on this forum, especially in regards to the skills system.

[2D8HP]

I spent now 4 weeks familiarising myself with the rules after taking a timeout from d&d for pretty much a long time...... Me too.
.......I want to ask about a different thing that makes me wonder. I think the shortness of the rules does not make the rules easy.....
:confused:

My perception seems the opposite of yours.

I'm increasingly happy with 5e, but short?
My first D&D was the 48 page 1977 "Holmes bluebook Basic" rules, which I used as a DM, (I was a DM before I was a player) and 5e (and every other version of) D&D doesn't seem short to me in comparision.

Easy?
My first DM used the oD&D "LBB's", the 1977 AD&D "Monster Manual", and a bunch of supplements, and trying to learn those rules just from reading them wouldn't be easy (the game spread by folklore and head scratching).
The 1978 AD&D PHB, and the '79 DMG were a little more clearly written than the LBB's, but AD&D was a more complex game.

I find 5e more clearly written than the D&D I knew, and the "core" rule (a d20 for most rolls), is simpler, it's the length and breadthn of options that makes the game complex.
The 1994 "Classic" game (it was levels 1-5 only), seems almost as clearly written as 5e, and since it simply has less pages of rules it gets my vote for the easiest version to learn, and would be my choice as a DM, but as a player I give the edge to 5e because of the options, and how easy it is for a PC to survive to second level.

The length of the 5e PHB makes it a complex game, but the "Starter Set" on the other hand is a great introduction. I also like just how many of the 5e rules are free online.

So, I find 5e easier to read than old D&D, but that they are so many rules makes it harder for me to remember them, which seems to be the opposite of your experience.

[pwykersotz]

This is a game that simulates a fantastical world.

It's been alluded to by other posters already, but I believe this line to be a misunderstanding. The game doesn't simulate a world. The game provides tools for a person to play a game, and based in how they want to play they are free to create their own world that is compatible with the rules. I think that it is a vastly preferable system to simulation, as it lets me do vastly more with the same toolkit.

[Knaight]

I think there are a few edge cases where the wording is a bit iffy and it makes things harder than is needed; there's some organizational problems with 5e (although they aren't that bad: D&D in general has a history of book organization that is a lot more solid than a lot of other RPGs, it's a bit of polish that really needs to make it other places*). There are also a couple of things sticking around as legacy bits that could have been simplified, starting with ability scores and ability modifiers kicking around as two separate things.

I wouldn't attribute it to the game being rules light. For one thing, I'd dispute that categorization - it's rules light by the standard of games with 960 pages of core books, but that doesn't mean much. There are plenty of rules light games written much more clearly, and plenty of games that are much heavier where the rules are murkier. How clearly written a games rules are and how many there are seem pretty disconnected.

*See: Everything Luke Crane has ever done.

[GlenSmash!]

I used to want answers to every question in the rules, but that would mean a bunch of time is wasted on rules that were hardly ever used. In the past couple of years I've learned a lot about the basic conversation of the game: The DM presents a Schenario, the players state there approach, the DM decides if the approach succeeds, fails, or the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain the DM uses the rules to help decide the outcome. All the rules in the rulebook just serve to help resolve uncertainty.

Once I started to get a good grasp on this concept. I realized I didn't need rules for everything. As the DM I could decide what type of Ability check is required, and set a DC that the player would try to overcome, and if a certain Skill proficiency would apply. Of course I try to be as consistent as possible with my rulings.

After that I noticed we started hunting for rules in the book less and less and kept things rolling and started to have more fun.

Overall I think 5e strikes a really good balance between keeping things light and quick, and having enough options that I still like thinking about how various things add together to provide interesting character builds, monsters, or other challenges.

[BeefGood]

Not to mention there's a lot of things that come up pretty much in every encounter that you might never know about if you don't go through all the rules- for instance bonus actions, you can only take one on your turn, but almost everything in class features and spells and so on just says "when you do x you can do y as a bonus action", which to less experienced players might imply that they could do every thing that they possibly can with their bonus action on every turn.

Another example from almost the same place in the PHB. Where the reaction is first introduced, we read: "Certain...situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction." (p. 190). OK, that's certainly true, but the neophyte needs to know that you don't get a reaction if one of these situations doesn't obtain. We can argue about whether that is implied by the quotation, but I think it's inarguable that it's not emphasized by the quotation.
Then, a little later, under Ready: "...which lets you act using your reaction before the start of the next turn." (p. 193). To the neophyte--okay, forget the neophyte--for me, the word "your" was confusing. "your reaction"...like "your dog", if you have a dog, you have it always, you don't have it sometimes and not have it other times.
And here's one more observation along the same lines from the Bonus Action section: "You can take a bonus action only when a special....feature of the game states that you can...You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take." (p. 189) I think that's clear, especially the "only" and the "otherwise you don't get one!". You don't always get a bonus action. Now flip the page to the Reaction section. The Reaction section contains no language like this! It does not say "only," and it does not say "You otherwise do not have a [reaction] to take."
The Bonus Action section proves that the writers know that sometimes they need to say "otherwise you don't get one." So on the very next page, where the writers choose to not include this language, that must mean that it's not needed, in other words, that you always get a reaction, right?
I know that you don't always get a reaction. My point is just that certain places in the rulebooks are not clear enough for beginners.
Thanks OP for bringing up this interesting topic.

[furby076]

This confuses me. It's easy to play a video game, there are even video games that simulate the DnD ruleset and are really good games (like Baldur's Gate). So why do we go to the effort of assembling a group, and writing an adventure and getting together every week, just to play a video game? The advantage that DnD has over tabletop games is the freedom, is rule zero, and to try and make it a video game would kill the very aspect of it that makes it appealing, at least for me.

Fair point, and i dont mean to imply that i want to play a video game at the group table. Clearly the advantage of the tabletop game is free form rules (want that intelligent holy avenging vorpal sword of sunlight moonelf blade of vampiric draining? Done), vs video games (you can have a sunblade). And rules can, and should be, discarded if they suck. But 5e is very light in some basic aspects, that leave the players scratching their heads. Luckily, my DM turns to the group, sometimes, for the answer. He is the DM but doesnt imagine he knows it all


I disagree. The problem is that no single human mind can hold enough of the (real) rules to even attempt an accurate simulation. It's the idea of the "uncanny valley." Sometimes, approaching "reality" more closely leads to worse results than a less accurate simulation. Too many contradictions occur since we can't simultaneously model all the interactions, even at their most basic. 3.X did a horrible job of simulating an actual world. I find (as I entirely DM these days) that having fewer "bright-line" rules allows me to put my limited realism efforts into what matters. Being able to eye-ball DCs for things (based on my internal model of them) instead of having to find the nearest line-item in a table. Being able to modify monsters on the fly, knowing that it's really hard to break a monster without being absurd (instead of having to build everything using the same rules as PCs). This lets me put much more effort into my descriptions and ad-libbed scenarios.

For example, I just (an hour or so ago) finished a session. The players went in a different direction than I had thought they would before hand, and so I had to ad-lib. Extensively. Whole goblin tribes and a keep full of undead. I was able to do so with basically no problems or downtime, because the rules are so simple. That's what I love about 5e (as a DM).

In 3.5, my dm easily reacted to the party ditching his plan. More often than not, at the end of the game we would hear "man, i had this adventure planned, and you guys totally ditchded it for something else". Not only did we not realize that, but we had fun. Being flexible id a testament to your DM ability, not the game.

Rule 0 lets the table drop or modify rules. It shouldn't be an excuse for the game makers to not make them in the first place, or to write them poorly (e.g., detect evil and good spell)



That last is a fair complaint. Not every table likes rules light games that depend heavily on DM judgement. 5e isn't the rules lightest RPG out there, or even by D&D standards. BECMI is even lighter (even when you add in companion and master rules or use the Rules Cyclopedia). But for someone used to any of AD&D 1e thru 4e, especially with splats, it's very rules light and DM judgement. Especially the ability check (former skills) system.

I like that, because I feel that it enhances versimilitude if done well, works better for off-battle mat combat, and it speeds up play. But we've hashed out why others don't prefer that many times on this forum, especially in regards to the skills system.

I dont think many plsyers want to be bogged down with an encyclopedia of rules. I think shifting from 3.5 made sense. I just think they went a couple steps too far. There is still lots of ambiguity, poor writing, and misinterpretation in 5e...just like 3.x


It's been alluded to by other posters already, but I believe this line to be a misunderstanding. The game doesn't simulate a world. The game provides tools for a person to play a game, and based in how they want to play they are free to create their own world that is compatible with the rules. I think that it is a vastly preferable system to simulation, as it lets me do vastly more with the same toolkit.

I think d&d very much simulates our world (at least middle ages era). Its constantly being referenced to European era during the 1200 to 1700s. Some of the examples in the books refer to literature that references that period. Even if you play dark sun, or eberron...there are many things that are based on our world. It makes sense...its easy...its made for us. Now just add magic, crazy monsters, and gods who walk the material plane and boom.

[pwykersotz]

I think d&d very much simulates our world (at least middle ages era). Its constantly being referenced to European era during the 1200 to 1700s. Some of the examples in the books refer to literature that references that period. Even if you play dark sun, or eberron...there are many things that are based on our world. It makes sense...its easy...its made for us. Now just add magic, crazy monsters, and gods who walk the material plane and boom.

Oh, if we're talking fluff, then yes. The game absolutely evokes certain themes and puts you in the mindset for it. But the quote I made was taken from a line that talked more about the rules and (if I'm not mistaken) was indicating that the rules should be more comprehensive with regards to the minutia of the world so you can provide players with a more reliable experience. The 5e rules do a poor job of that on purpose, and 3.5 did far worse because it tried too hard. The worlds created by the rules were completely divorced from understanding if you took even a few parts of them one step along their logical path. 5e understood that we really only need incentives and resolution mechanics, and it did away with the messy stuff in between. It got out of the way and let the players and GM pursue those incentives rather than getting hung up in the details. Not to the extreme (the game is NOT rules-light as I have come to understand from reading actual rules-light systems), just far more than 3.5 or 4e.

Even in your example, you assume gravity and inertia and such work the way that it does here on earth unless told otherwise by a spell or somesuch. In 3.5, the rules (if applied as a simulation) destroyed that notion fairly quickly. You were left with a choice of a relatable world that broke the rules and necessitated countless fixes to mechanics that defied sense, or an unrelatable world that followed the rules but had little connection to a shared human understanding (unless you were playing with a table full of fellow forum-goers).

Of course your initial point was that there should be more rules in the DMG. Considering these are all variant rules, I am in wholehearted agreement. I love modular subsystems that I can choose to add or subtract which allow me greater ability to simulate certain aspects of a world. Heck, I invent new subsystems all the freaking time. I just want the core mechanics to be simple and flexible, and that's what we got.

None of this is to say that achieving a happy medium is impossible with 3.5, your group is in that place by your account. But my table finds it easier to achieve that medium with 5e. And with less rules to remember to worry about, the players don't have to be crazy obsessed with the game like their GM is.