Does 5e D&D successfully let TSR & WotC D&D fans play together?

[2D8HP]

This could go in the 5e Sub-Forum, but I want to hear dissenting views.

A while back (in a bit of hyperbole) I posted about D&D:

True, they'll grumble while they play the game by default, because they won't be compromise together on another game. Being "everyone's second favorite" game means it actually gets played, unlike "favorite" games that mostly remain on the shelf.

What I was trying to get across was that even if it isn't the majority at a table's favorite RPG, some version of D&D is often what a table will agree to play.

Now with so many disparate editions, which D&D to play is an issue.

Somewhere I saw 5e described as "the nostalgia edition", and some posts seem to bear that out:

. 5e brought me back. I had sold my 3 and 3.5 books at second hand books, still have my OD&D and 1e stuff and my 2e stuff in the closet.

5e does feel more like old school D&D, doesn't it?

Is it though?

Is 5e an effective "compromise" edition that folks who are fans of disparate editions agree to play, or has it only further segmented D&D players?

[Thrudd]

I don't really see it as being any closer to the TSR editions than 3e was. It may be an easier game to get into than 3e, overall, the simplicity might feel more familiar, but it still is more similar to 3e and 4e than to AD&D.

[hamlet]

I've been playing and running D&D 5 pretty much since it came out (and a fair bit under playtest) and while I think it's relatively fun, I must admit, I'm enjoying it less and less. Why? No real definable reason. Nothing that I can put a finger on and say "that, that right there!".

It just doesn't . . . feel right . . . I guess?

Dunno.

Yes, I think that New and Old school gamers can get together and play this edition together and have a good time (though I'm positive in the time I've run it I heard equal or more amounts of grumbling coming from the 3.x/pathfinder members in the group), but that's a lot like saying that you can have fun playing just about any game with the right group. Hell, I'm pretty sure with the right group you could actually enjoy a game of FATAL. It's not an actual point of data so much as it's "less objectionable than 4th edition" which is the general consensus amongst pretty much all the gamers I game with. It's better than no D&D, really, but it still ain't old school.

Just my opinion. Just sayin'.

[hamlet]

I don't really see it as being any closer to the TSR editions than 3e was. It may be an easier game to get into than 3e, overall, the simplicity might feel more familiar, but it still is more similar to 3e and 4e than to AD&D.

Yeah, bad form double posting, but anyway.

Yeah, this. It's got less problems in it than 3.x and 4.0 do for the old schoolers, which doesn't mean that they really like it any more, just dislike it less.

[Darth Ultron]

No.

The rules aside, you have two huge, incompatible ways to play. The classic way and the modern way....and there just is no compromise.

But the 5E rues are a lot better then the 3E rules in terms of DM control of the game and get away from the silly ''everyone must follow the rules that are set in stone'' idea that popped up at the start of 3E. In 5E a DM can once again just say ''X happens'', without a jerk player slamming a fist on the table and demanding to know what rule the DM is using and get all up on their high horse to ''check'' and make sure the DM is ''following the rules like a player''.

The end result is you can play 5E more in the vague style of Old School.....but it still has a huge amount of ''new'' stuff like ''balance'' and 3/4 E ideas.

[Yora]

If I had players really wishing to play 5th edition than I wouldn't put up a big fight and run it. I really don't want to touch 3rd edition (or any other d20 game) ever again.

I still don't want to run 5th edition, though. And I still would run it pretty much the same way I run B/X.

[ngilop]

]first off I need to say that coming from somebody who started in 1st ed. I have never ever understood that hate filled 'edition wars' that 'old school' people always start.

if the OP disliked any other edition except 1st or 2nd he/she will simply continue to dislike any other edition except for 1st/2nd. That's no going to change with 5th, 6th or even 157th edition.


Now, I can say that while I played 4th edition and enjoyed it. It did not feel like D&D to me. I enjoyed the rules, abilities, and most everything about said edition. it just did not feel like I was playing D&D when I sat at the table and started gaming. SO I can totally understand how KorvinStarmast said 5th brought him back he probably tried 4th and did not enjoy it that much,

If you loathed later editions of D&D then there are going to be enough of those elements in 5th edition to make you dislike 5th as well.

I never experienced a whole lot of difference between the various editions. Played them all the same, each has their own issue(s); 1st/2nd having a lot (lot) of open to whatever rules,3rd being all bout dem spells, etc etc. It is, at least in my experience, all in the way you play the game, less so to do with the actual edition behind it.


the editions themselves DO NOT segment the players.. the player's do that all on their own.

[Knaight]

]first off I need to say that coming from somebody who started in 1st ed. I have never ever understood that hate filled 'edition wars' that 'old school' people always start.

if the OP disliked any other edition except 1st or 2nd he/she will simply continue to dislike any other edition except for 1st/2nd. That's no going to change with 5th, 6th or even 157th edition.

I don't buy it. I've seen enough people consider it a solid successor to 2nd edition that this is clearly refuted.

]I never experienced a whole lot of difference between the various editions. Played them all the same, each has their own issue(s); 1st/2nd having a lot (lot) of open to whatever rules,3rd being all bout dem spells, etc etc. It is, at least in my experience, all in the way you play the game, less so to do with the actual edition behind it.

There are definitely similarities - as someone who plays mostly not-D&D, I can confirm that the differences between the editions seem much smaller with the broader context. As far as it just being the way you play the game, I've also seen it not play out that way - the group is the most important factor, but if you take the same group and swap the game around they'll have more fun with some games than others. For instance, my standard group had a lot of fun playing Microscope and Fudge, and then this same group really didn't enjoy Torchbearer. It was the same group, we were playing in similar ways (inasmuch as personal style does get mixed with the game for the end result), and the system demonstrably mattered. The same thing happens across editions.

[Florian]

Hm... No, not really. 5th managed to stop and revert some of the design decisions that lead to 3rd and 4th, but it still has inherited too many of the necessary aspects of both to create the same "feel" that the old TSR stuff had. For example, it´s still miles too "gamey" than some of the better clones are, especially Adventurer, Conqueror, King.

[Yora]

I just plain don't like the idea of new class features every level. Except for spells, I am really very happy with characters having the same mechanics at every level. Characters evolving with each level puts stats and level advancement in the foreground, which perhaps you could call gamey. It's much better in 5th edition, but when characters can have builds, I think something is going wrong.

[ngilop]

I don't buy it. I've seen enough people consider it a solid successor to 2nd edition that this is clearly refuted.


There are definitely similarities - as someone who plays mostly not-D&D, I can confirm that the differences between the editions seem much smaller with the broader context. As far as it just being the way you play the game, I've also seen it not play out that way - the group is the most important factor, but if you take the same group and swap the game around they'll have more fun with some games than others. For instance, my standard group had a lot of fun playing Microscope and Fudge, and then this same group really didn't enjoy Torchbearer. It was the same group, we were playing in similar ways (inasmuch as personal style does get mixed with the game for the end result), and the system demonstrably mattered. The same thing happens across editions.

the same can be said for 3rd edition as a successor to 2nd. I have seen that countless times, just because a lo of people say something does not make it fact, let alone true.



I am going to argue against the whole editions are just as different as a whole new system.


anybody is not going to play champions the same way they play vampire they same way they play D&D the same way they play.. eh what's that one game GiTP is in love with.. fated..fate or something like that? But within those disparate games one is going to play champions pretty much the same throughout the what...6 different editions I think it is up to? Barring big rules changes that make some things not work the same or at all from edition to edition. One game is going to look pretty much the same no matter the edition.

I bet I can tell a story of a game happening and tell you the specific game but leave out the exact edition and one would not be able to tell the difference in the majority of times.

and the group directly effects the playstyle. or at least in my won experience it has. I have one set of friends where I know the guy is a storyteller DM, think of playing with him like playing a video game but only the 23 hours you put into it, its 21 hours of cutscenes. I am going to play completely different under him as a DM as I am my other friends who are very combat and politics oriented. I understand that different people have different playsyles and some games lean more towards a certain play style than others.




I fail to see the issue with me as a player getting something every level or every power increase? what is the point of me playing a game if I have absolutely no advancement in the hours I'm putting into the game?

What is wrong with character builds? I mean.. I want to be an archer in X game, so building my character around archery focused abilities is inherently doing it wrong?

[Knaight]

the same can be said for 3rd edition as a successor to 2nd. I have seen that countless times, just because a lo of people say something does not make it fact, let alone true.

It's not about whether it's actually a successor in either case. It doesn't need to be - it just needs to have people who think that it is, and who are thus willing to play it, and 5e does that.

I am going to argue against the whole editions are just as different as a whole new system.

I wouldn't argue they're just as different either (at least if it's genuinely a new system and not something like Pathfinder or ACKS which are basically offshoots), but the point is that the system does matter. D&D also has unusually large changes between editions, compared to something like GURPS, Champions, etc.

[2D8HP]

]...if the OP disliked any other edition except 1st or 2nd he/she will simply continue to dislike any other edition except for 1st/2nd...

OP here.

For the record the only RPG's I've played this decade have been TSR '81 B/X D&D, and WotC 5e D&D.

I think I actually like 5e better at 1st level, and B/X better by 11th level. 2nd level 5e and 3rd level B/X feel like a tie to me, both are fun.

Neither has been as fun for me as 1977 "Basic", oD&D, and the AD&D that I played before I entered high school, but since that's true of most everything, I think fun was just more fun at 12 than at 48!

I've never played "2e", "3e", "3.5", or "4e". 2e looks to be mostly like the other TSR D&D I've played, so I think I would like it especially if I can get a PC past 1st level. 3e looks like it would be fun for me at lower levels but than feel too "OP", at higher levels, and I haven't really looked much at 3.5 and 4e.

Of all RPG's I've found Call of Cthullu the easiest to gamemaster, and I still find D&D (any edition) to be the most fun to play, of games I've played.

Also for what it's worth I'm curious to play Pendragon, Castle Falkenstein, 7th Sea, Savage World's, Flashing Blades, and FATE.

[ComaVision]

In response to the thread title, I don't think so.

I play 3.5e because I like the depth of the system and the breadth of options. I'm sure 5e would be fun to play but I'd get bored with it mechanically. I'd say roughly half of the people I play with hold 5e in contempt.

[thamolas]

I think people's frustrations with D&D are mostly fluff-related. The crunch of level-based systems doesn't work well.

I loved old school D&D and AD&D, but I think it was because the settings hadn't become cliche yet. It was fresh. Now, the setting is stale and attempts to freshen it up either don't work or fail to connect with enough fans to further develop (Dark Sun was fresh, but it came too soon). Never had the "spooky dark elf, hiding in the shadows" in your group?

Back in ye good olde days, whenever I played skill-based systems, they were always better than the level-based systems, but these games usually had setting problems (see White Wolf, for example) or glaring design failings (see Shadowrun, for example).

In the past, I played D&D more than any other system because it was the only game the groups could consistently agree on on play consistently enough for characters and/or story to develop. Not because it was the best choice. I don't remember it ever being the best choice, except maybe when I first started and didn't know that other games existed.

Honestly, 2Ed wasn't great, but its failings could be overlooked. 3Ed and 3.5/Pathfinder seem designed to inspire people to act like OCD rules lawyers (which isn't fun for me) -- never saw such crap happen so often before or since. 4Ed is just poorly designed. 5Ed is better than 4Ed, but still seems altogether too "meta" and the default Tolkien-esque setting is showing its age in a bad way. When people ask me to play D&D, I pass. It's just not that fun anymore. I LOVE RPG-ing. Just not D&D.

To get TSR and WotC fans to play together, why not pick a different game altogether? Such divisiveness doesn't make sense.

[Knaight]

To get TSR and WotC fans to play together, why not pick a different game altogether? Such divisiveness doesn't make sense.

Some people really like D&D, setting and basic rules both. For them, a mutually accepted D&D edition is the best option. I'd argue that the number of people who really like D&D is dwarfed by the number of people who only play it because it's the big name in the market and who would be better suited with other games, but the people who are really attached to particular editions and can articulate why are going to be disproportionately the fans whom D&D suits.

[thamolas]

I'd argue that the number of people who really like D&D is dwarfed by the number of people who only play it because it's the big name in the market and who would be better suited with other games

You might be right. I've seen it in forums a lot. Never seen it in real life, but I haven't played with every group in existence, either.

Sorry for the negative tone of that post. Everybody's different.

[Cluedrew]

No.

Although the reason I said that is probably not what you expect. As someone who plays a lot of "pagan games" the differences between D&D... look pretty small. In fact I think it comes down more to a matter of the associated play style than the rules. Not that the rules don't mean anything, they are built with a play style in mind. Still I have seen/heard play styles within each edition, that pretty much seems to cover the range the systems were aiming at anyways.

So really, there was nothing stopping people from playing together before, besides lines in sand. So 5e, even if it starts somewhere in the middle, probably still covers the full range. If they want to play together they could do it, you might need some tweaks here and there, but people have been house ruling D&D since it was born from a collection of house rules.

I'm not saying that any game covers all play styles, but people are arguing over spaghetti and spaghettoni while I have wondered off and gotten some pizza.

[Beelzebubba]

I've played since Blue Box in 1978, and this version is good. It feels like a good 'triangulation' of the best stuff from each version, with the simplest 'math & chart nonsense' I've seen since B/X.

My group is a mix of people; an old fart like me, a few 3.x veterans, a 4.x Dark Sun player, and even a few total newbies. It really works for the whole group.

Advantage/disadvantage is a fantastic mechanic, and the super nerfed spellcasting makes it probably the best balance it can be while still giving casters things to do each round.

It does have problems - I almost think it wouldn't be D&D without them - but it's really fun so far.

[Kurald Galain]

It strikes me that since 3E was released seventeen years ago, the amount of TSR players left is small enough to not actually matter to WOTC's sales team.

In terms of gameplay, there's two main groups who like to see "combat as war" vs "combat as sport". 1E and 2E are clearly designed for the former philosophy, 5E is obviously in the latter group. So that's a clear clash of design. Of course, the third and arguably bigger group is "let's have fun with my friends not not overanalyze the game" and this group will most likely enjoy any edition.

[Florian]

It strikes me that since 3E was released seventeen years ago, the amount of TSR players left is small enough to not actually matter to WOTC's sales team.

In terms of gameplay, there's two main groups who like to see "combat as war" vs "combat as sport". 1E and 2E are clearly designed for the former philosophy, 5E is obviously in the latter group. So that's a clear clash of design. Of course, the third and arguably bigger group is "let's have fun with my friends not not overanalyze the game" and this group will most likely enjoy any edition.

Hm....

No, can´t agree with you there. There´s a rather huge cultural difference in how "role playing games" are understood and played.

[Cluedrew]

In terms of gameplay, there's two main groups who like to see "combat as war" vs "combat as sport".

When I say that from the outside D&D is all kind of the same, this is what I am talking about. I mean all of them are combat focused systems for one, I play some "combat as an event" system where combat does happen. And if we collected together all the combat rules it might take less than a page. So it falls pretty far from D&D in terms of how it approaches combat.

I was going to say something else about within combat focused games, but before I do I should clarify: What is the difference between combat as war and combat as sport? The main ones I am aware of are really about how difficult combat should be to win and maybe a player skill vs. character skill divide.

To Florian: What cultural difference are you talking about?

[Florian]

To Florian: What cultural difference are you talking about?

European culture is more about collaborative Story Telling than focusing on beating Encounters.

[Anonymouswizard]

Some people really like D&D, setting and basic rules both. For them, a mutually accepted D&D edition is the best option. I'd argue that the number of people who really like D&D is dwarfed by the number of people who only play it because it's the big name in the market and who would be better suited with other games, but the people who are really attached to particular editions and can articulate why are going to be disproportionately the fans whom D&D suits.

I think this is a big thing, I was once in a group where only one member loved D&D, the rest of us were much more of the 'I played D&D, then I played other games and much preferred them'.

Now I'm in an odd position with most groups, I'm rarely going to run my favourite system (GURPS) because it's rarely what people want (a simulationist skill based crunchy game, most people want something a fluffier and a bit gamist or narrativist in my experience). A big problem some people have is that the game that's the biggest name in the industry is a relatively crunchy system, while they'd prefer something like Savage Worlds where they just need to know 'roll skill die type and get above TN' (and despite the variety of Edges you can get a good number dedicated to just 'ignore this penalty' or 'add +1 to this').

I'll agree that the difference between D&D 3.X and D&D 5e is tiny when compared to the difference between say Unknown Armies and Ars Magica, in that they both use the same basics (level based system that gives both bonuses and new powers with levels) and work from the same assumptions (the game is about killing things and exploring dungeons). I don't offer to run D&D because I hate these assumptions and the gaining of 'nonsupernatural' powers as the game goes on. Comparing this to Unknown Armies, which is about a bunch of people going crazy in the occult underground of the modern world, and we can see pretty major fundemental differences compared to 'do fighters get bonus feats or class features'.

Now unlike a year or so ago I don't hate level-based RPGs, because I've discovered games which do what I want (levels are mainly incrementing numbers, new powers smoothly come online as you gain the resources to activate them), primarily Anima: Beyond Fantasy (a gloriously crunchy game that is the only fantasy RPG that I'll consider running at this point despite it's balance problems). But I don't run D&D because it's just not what I like, everybody's second favourite only works if the game's actually in my top 50%.

There's also the fact that sometimes the group wants a certain genre, but a particular game doesn't fit it. While I can use Anima for pirate campaigns I'm unlikely to, it encourages being careful and moves slowly, I'll use Savage Worlds instead because PCs can easily tank a couple of hits and action remains relatively fast in combat. If my science fiction game is about Rebels heroically taking down the Empire I'll use Fate, if it's about a bunch of corporate representatives trying to strike a deal with Martian Prospectors I might use GURPS instead.

Also, I've generally seen the GM of the next game getting to call what system we're using. The players might get input on the type of game they want, but it comes down to who's willing to run and what sort of game are they offering.

[Steampunkette]

Yes... provisionally.

So, 2e was my game.

I started playing D&D in or around 1993. I was a young geekling just taking their first steps into true nerddom. I walked into a comic and gaming shop called "The Bookmark" to buy some magic cards and saw some people playing a game I didn't know anything about... so I sat in.

Within a couple of weekends, I was rolling up a Mage that was horribly derivative of Raistlin for the Dragonlance campaign Toby (The DM) was running. I was easily distracted, unfocused, annoying, and constantly needed help to do literally anything from character creation to rolling the dice because the rules didn't make sense, yet.

And it was kind of fun. Mostly I think I enjoyed having so many older teens focused on me in a positive way, sharing something they enjoyed, was a precious feeling that I'll never forget. Over the next few years my brother and I got a real "Feel" for what roleplaying and Dungeons and Dragons were about.

It wasn't long before both of us were running our own games. Sometimes at home, sometimes at the Bookmark. My parents were delighted because the family was pretty poor at the time, but people were happy to loan us their books if it meant someone else was the DM, y'know? My parents would drop us off at the Bookmark on Weekends and due to the way gaming worked at the shop, we'd get a decent meal without it costing the family precious food stamps...

I traveled the Sea of Silt in a skiff. My brother walked through the doors of Sigil. We fled from Darkon with riches untold, and died at the teeth of countless fantastic beasts. The game was fantasy, and escape, and warmth of camaraderie. Surrounded by people who would die for me, even if it was only in a game of imagination.

Over time, we scrimped and saved enough to buy a few sourcebooks, the Dark Sun Boxed Set, and the core rulebooks. But Norman grew out of tabletop gaming and, without my knowledge, sold all of the books for some cash so he could buy tickets to a Metallica Concert. I was devastated.

Still. I borrowed books. I wrote until my wrist hurt. I memorized charts and tables of attacks and experience and I continued to run games to the best of my ability, and play in them.

Third Edition came out while I was in Job Corps. I had been unable to get to a tabletop game for over a year, and satisfied myself with reading GURPS books and the like or trying to play in some ridiculous games that had as much focus as a camera with no lens dipped in bacon grease. These weren't even beer and pretzels games, folks, they were hollow attempts at self-aggrandizement by the GM while everyone else tried and failed to do anything interesting.

My boyfriend and I bought the core books for 3e somewhere around 2001. I started running games pretty much immediately and pretty much nonstop. I used old campaign notes and adapted monsters to the new stats and systems, but it all felt... wrong. The stories didn't feel supported by the rules, being things of deadly seriousness while the rules were too lenient with the players, giving them endless solutions and choice paralysis.

The feeling of real RISK was gone. My players? Loved it. So I ran.

3.5 came along and, for a brief time, it was a bit better. With the changes they made, there, helped to limit some of the shenanigans, but soon the massive glut of rulesets bogged everything down, again. Endless new classes and prestige classes and feat trees created mires that left my stories by the wayside... Most of my old campaign notes and adventures were lost around that time. I just gave up on ever hoping to have that feeling, again.

4e was a mess. I had minimal interest in it. But Pathfinder was a new and interesting take on 3e's systems while killing off the 3.5 glut. New class design and features shifting things around and made the overwhelming quantity of tables and rules-infringements disappear... at least until they made it all 3.5 compatible.

At that point, I more or less left tabletop gaming behind for the second time in my life, and threw myself into MMORPGs and Internet Chat RP to scratch that escapist itch. It's where I eventually met my husband (A different story, altogether!) and the best friend we both have. This best friend? He does tabletop gaming online. And brought us into it, full force. Mutants and Masterminds, Pathfinder, 4th Edition D&D, some small measure of Savage Worlds... None of it felt -exactly- like home, but it was warm, and friendly, and I loved it.

5th edition came down the pipeline. By this point in my life, I was a systems design nerd. I love breaking down the mechanics of how a game determines successes or damage, balances different characters, and more. So 5th edition initially drew me in on -that- basis.

But as I played, I started feeling that old feeling, again. Just glimmers of it, here or there. The feeling I had, sitting at a table of friends, looking up from character sheets to dice and shouting with delight at the result. OF being truly -excited- by the game, by the friends, by the outcomes. Feeling nervous when I rolled a die. Feeling like there was a real weight in my hand...

It still wasn't perfect. Not until I started running Tyranny of Dragons. I know. I know. It's so simplistic and railroady and site-to-site... But my players don't always hold to the rails. Don't always follow the plan. They're players like that. And during one of the first encounters in that game, the whole table, scattered across the US as we are, felt the excitement, the weight of the dice. The feelings I'd not truly felt in almost two decades crystallized in that moment, into perfect clarity.

And suddenly I was a kid, sitting at the table with my friends, watching a die bounce in slow motion, feeling the trepidation and hope for how it would land, the fifth death save of my husband's character, bouncing across the digital playspace as a computer generated image of a polyhedral dice...

And the feeling stayed. It hasn't faded, yet.

When I look at 5e D&D I feel that joy, again, that unbridled exuberance. Like a sleeping dragon finally taking to the skies, anew, after a decades long slumber. And the glory of the world is blinding and bold. Worlds. From Athas to Faerun to Golarion and Krynn. Across Oerth and the Planes I'm ready, again, to step forth onto a skiff to cut across the sea of silt. To step into the dungeon-tomb of Acererak. To plunder Undermountain and to stand Against the Giants.

5th edition isn't for everyone. 5th edition won't rekindle everyone's childhood feeling of what D&D truly -was-. It's not a perfect system, by a long shot. And it's definitely not 2nd edition. But it's closer, in my opinion, than anything has ever been. And it did it while moving forward, while learning from 2e's mistakes and making new ones that it'll learn from as it goes on.

I highly recommend it.

[2D8HP]

....I'm ready, again, to step forth onto a skiff to cut across the sea of silt. To step into the dungeon-tomb of Acererak. To plunder Undermountain and to stand Against the Giants....

I'm in awe:



Your post....

[neonchameleon]

5e is designed to be a compromise edition - something that is designed to give a little something to everyone and not too much to anything. To me that makes it lukewarm tofu and as a strong 4e fan I'd far rather play BECMI than 5e. But yes, there is a bit of something for everyone.

In terms of gameplay, there's two main groups who like to see "combat as war" vs "combat as sport". 1E and 2E are clearly designed for the former philosophy, 5E is obviously in the latter group. So that's a clear clash of design. Of course, the third and arguably bigger group is "let's have fun with my friends not not overanalyze the game" and this group will most likely enjoy any edition.

No RPG in the history of RPGs where someone can take an orc wailing on them with an axe for a full minute and have precisely zero chance to take any long-lasting consequence has ever treated combat as war. Especially not with resurrection magic on the table. I've plenty of games, including GURPS and even WoD games, that have shock penalties, injury rules, and where combat is actually war. But D&D grew out of tabletop wargaming and for 1e and 2e fans to claim that they play combat as war is like soccer fans claiming that American Football is artificial because the teams regularly stop and line up opposite each other.

but it still has a huge amount of ''new'' stuff like ''balance'' and 3/4 E ideas.

Because E. Gary Gygax spent no time at all balancing D&D and challenging hardcore wargamers to do their worst. Oh wait.

The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals

Balance in D&D is not new. It's as old as D&D gets from both Gygax and Arneson. Yes the Lorraine Williams years more or less dropped it. But D&D was written with a lot of care for balance.

[Anonymouswizard]

5th edition isn't for everyone. 5th edition won't rekindle everyone's childhood feeling of what D&D truly -was-. It's not a perfect system, by a long shot. And it's definitely not 2nd edition. But it's closer, in my opinion, than anything has ever been. And it did it while moving forward, while learning from 2e's mistakes and making new ones that it'll learn from as it goes on.

I think this is the key. I've played 5e and even enjoyed it, but it's not for me. It rekindles those original days I had of playing the Red Box with my dad, but that's not actually what my defining experience of what an RPG was.

That was sitting down to create characters for an Unknown Armies game when I was 19. Suddenly because of my concept I had to balance three different aspects of the game and everyone else was balancing two (combat ability and their magic, I was insane and went for two types of magic), and designing the character to contribute in ways other than killing people was fun, and then the GM asked me a question, 'why do you have two hardened notches in self'. It made me think about the game in a different way, I could take these numbers on the sheet and use them to define my character's personality. For the first time my character had a role in the world as well as the game. It literally changed what I saw an RPG as.

If 5e had come out six years ago (yeah, I'm one of those upstart youngsters with their ideas of 'player fiat' and 'not giving the GM ultimate control') I'd probably still be raving about it, but for me my childhood is no longer the moment which defines what I see and RPG as, and what I want to rekindle. I don't want the experience of going into a dungeon and bashing goblins anymore, I want those cases where four people are roleplaying socially awkward characters who don't know each other but have to learn to be a group, and slowly moving to a competent team (of hapless fools admittedly, we were never sure what exactly we should be doing, but still competent.

[Steampunkette]

The point of my post wasn't "Bashing Goblins is where it's at" but rather than 2e had significant emotional memories for me, of the way the game and the table felt.

2e shaped my way of thinking of roleplay and tabletop gaming for much of my life because of those 7 formative years spent playing it. There was a lot more in that time than doorkicking fights. I went through a very painful puberty with D&D as my primary outlet of expressing emotions, ideas, and contextualizing concepts through roleplay. It was a particularly significant time in my life, is what I was getting at, and no other game -felt- the same. Even other editions of the same one.

[2D8HP]

....as a strong 4e fan I'd far rather play BECMI than 5e. But yes, there is a bit of something for everyone.

Except for wanting to learn a very popular game, so that I may have more opportunities to actually play, I'm more curious to try 4e than 3.x (sorry!). As far as BECMI goes, I've jumped at the opportunities to play TSR D&D when they've come up recently, but they never last. I've had much more luck with 5e DM's not quitting.

All the superpowers at higher levels in 5e bug me, but at least I get to play!

B/X?

It's fun for a while, but no game of it that I've gotten to play has lasted very long this decade.

OD&D, and AD&D?

Are just dim memories for me now so they don't count (unless someone reading this is going to start a game hint hint).

FATE and other RPG's?

Potential GM's talk a good game, but when you show up with a PC?

*crickets*
No one actually starts the game!
Pathfinder and 5e just plain have actual tables, with actual living DM's.

Other games?

*searches in vain*
Dammit! Where are you?

...Balance in D&D is not new. It's as old as D&D gets from both Gygax and Arneson. Yes the Lorraine Williams years more or less dropped it. But D&D was written with a lot of care for balance.

It was also a different kind of balance.
Demi-humans had extra abilities at first, but they couldn't reach the heights that humans could, and Caster vs. Martial?

Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic, page 6 (1974)
"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are very weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

Yes... provisionally.....

....I highly recommend it.

I just had to read that post again.

That was some seriously good writing.



Thanks.