5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
It is until that 1st edition character tries to, say, grapple something. Which there are (completely dysfunctional) rules for. Oh, and did you remember to roll for psionics?
*arranges face in a complete absence of emotion*
No Comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
The first of the Dragonlance novels was published in 2007. That is well beyond `Extremely Early` but rather in the late 3.5 era, just before 4e was published.
Say what?
1987 is closer, and I'm pretty sure it was a few years before that. Still not 'extremely early', but he didn't say they were.
Yeah, I missed that too. I was reading dragons of spring dawn or something in the (very) early 90's. I also read of the brother's books before even starting HS as well ... (90's)
Within reach, I have the 1e DMG. My original, in fact. Within five steps, I have my original PHB, and then a bunch of other odds and ends. wtf is the manual of the planes doing here?
I haven't' picked up the old PHB, but I should note that I never did the B/X sets. The reason that I have this all in reach is that I am converting stuff -- so I have been staring at the style.
That is absolutely the old B/X. 5e is not descended from B/X. It is descended from AD&D. To those that came after the end of BECMI during the 3/3.5 era, and later folks, that distinction is pretty meaningless.
Tom Moldvay did the stuff you are thinking of for Basic (the 76/77 era issue). Schick did the mechanical stuff. Cook's Expert set took that and moved forward. Dave Cook is the one that handles the really complicated stuff fairly well, because he created really complicated stuff.
BECMI was Mentzer. He was really good about that kind of thing as well.
Gygax was... ...not.
Now, this matters to us long term players (which sounds way better than old farts) because during that era, it was two completely different games that claimed familial similarity and led to a lot of infighting (especially over space to play) and crap like my own lingering bias. It really is two very different ways of looking at the games.
Moldvay and Schick were the Mystara folks, and it was a much, much simpler version of the ideas around AD&D, and slanted for Mystara, a world influenced by ERB, Howard, and Verne.
AD&D was the (then) more recent stuff inspired, Greyhawk setting. Flavor, profile, even the understanding of what fantasy was different. Cook's work on Oriental Adventures is pretty close, but that's because it was essentially a brand new Player's Handbook, for what was really a different world entirely at the time.
All of which is in my head because some of the folks I have talked to, and I have been using the old 1e/2e era books for a point of reference. That DMG? I have bookmarks for certain materials for a crafting system marked. (1e did not have a real crafting system, either).
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
IT probably was Basic, which I LIKED for that....
The DMG for AD&D, was.... How to put it? It showed you a lot more "under the hood" of the game, which is just lacking.
Hell, i designed my own DM screen. The official one is nice and handy, but it doesn't have all the stuff I like to have at my fingertips.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
So, an interesting thing happened with my group. I run games at a local hobby store, which i have been doing for about 6 years now. Recently, my group wanted to run a Dark Sun game, so I dusted off my old ADnD 2e books and ran the starting adventure for them. Then i decided to run the Audio adventure, Light in the Belfry for Ravenloft (they seriously need to bring back audio adventures), also using 2e rules.
So now I plan to return to some old Ravenloft modules and I asked my group if they wanted to use 5e characters and all 5 of them said, no. I believe the reason why is because they are truly invested in their 2e characters like they have never been in 5e and I feel a lot of satisfaction being there with them in their journey.
5e characters are basically Avengers. Every level comes with new super powers, no one really earns anything. Very little comes with questing. The result is that my players in 5e are constantly switching characters when they get bored. In my 2e game, they earn every power, every ability and every level. When a character dies in 1e or 2e, it usually takes few hours of counselling to get over it. I have had 5e players go out of their way to kill their character just to play something else. In 2e, when they level, they get better at what they do. Fighters are hitting more, rogues get better at thief skills, and Wizards and Priests get better at casting their spells. In 5e the skills are all shared, including thief skills, all classes have the same combat bonuses, spells are locked in at their level, unless you spend a higher spell slot, and they are limited to 3 magic items, which means getting loot is typically meaningless by level 6.
As a DM, i can't reward them with magic items, if its not better than the 3 they have. They just want to level, and only quest for the purpose of the level to get a new super power, which comes automatically. Not only that, concentration on spells prevents my casters from being creative with spells and spell combinations. Every combat, they cast fireball, and why not, its more effective than casting a buff that will be lost when they take damage.
I was wondering if any DMs have dealt with similar issues, and how they deal with it?
I am sincerely hoping with the new edition, we see some advanced rules in the DMG that brings more earned advancement, and raises the stakes, but I have a feeling the game will remain on easy mode. I like 5e a lot. Its simpler system, that is easy to follow, but I really want my players to get that feeling of ownership we had in 1e and 2e. I want to see real tears of joy when they get that magic item, or tears of sorrow when their characters die.
Thoughts?
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
Mostly a complaint fest.
Honestly, a huge fan of web dm. Surprised there isn't a topic asking who everyone's favorite d&d youtube channel is...
How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
A level 1 fighter (assuming strength < 17) normally needs a 14 to hit AC 6 (35%). Against a 4 hp orc, it takes an average of 1.42 hits to kill. Average attacks required: 4.07
With a flame tongue, that becomes 40% to hit, 1.125 hits to kill, average attacks required: 2.81. That's a 42% increase. That is, in fact, a big deal. And that's vs generic targets -- if you are going up against undead it's an enormous power multiplier.
Now, there's the separate issue that a flame tongue in 5e is a more powerful general purpose weapon than in 1e, because it does significant extra damage to all targets instead of just to certain particular classes of monster, but you originally talked about a "+3" flame tongue, which if it existed would certainly be highly disruptive in general.
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
Your claim is that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 makes the game more fun. While simultaneously claiming that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 doesn’t really change the outcome of the fight. If having powerful magic weapons doesn’t change the outcome of the fight, how is the game made more or less fun by their inclusion or exclusion? Because you are excited by the idea of having powerful magic weapons but fail to understand that if they don’t do anything, they are not powerful at all, they just have cool names?? This is not a design flaw of 5e nor a perk older editions, it’s something you have to reconcile within yourself by examining your relationship with the English language, first, and the purpose of things as a philosophical notion, second.
It was your example, no question, and I did toss in a tease, but by and large I was highlighting the way the difference in play style leads into that import of the weapons from a play perspective, not so much a mechanical perspective, because in 5e a fighter can often do that using some special ability they have.
THe mechanism is different, but the outcome is the same, in terms of practical damage done, blah blah (and why I didn't include your specifics about level and the fact you were referencing B/X at the time0).
The big difference, which we were trying to get across before we sidetracked, was that there really is a big difference in feel between the two games. While "leveling up" is a big deal in both, for the most part, neither version (none of them, really, in practical play) use or treat leveling up as a major role playing aspect, soa lot of that feel of "fighting your way to get to that magical weapon" was lost when they shifted to the special ability model in use at present.
In that respect, I am also referencing the OP (before folks like you and I ran away with the thread, lol) and that whole concept of feeling like you don't really earn that special ability in a single fight or a hard fought sequence because the special abilities are handwaved away into the idea of "downtime". Late stage 2, 3/3.5 had some chapbooks that sorta gave that period a little more depth and made it interesting, but 1e, 2e, and 5e don't and neither did B/X or BECMI.
So it was a lot more fun to go out and get that +3 flametongue than iit is to go "oh, hey, I went up a level, and now I can do this whole turn my sword into a fiery death thing, which is totally cool".
And, to your point and the general complaint, in B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e, you needed that sword to do some things you couldn't do any other way, so, as I noted, having it changed the way that a player approached the game. in 5e, that's baked into the subclass, so you already know how it is going to set your approach to the game, instead of having something appear that can really shift it.
But, give a Bladelock a flaming sword and it might change the way they are going to play the game in 5e. And it will have a much more significant impact than it ever did for previous editions. Look up and you'll see someone gloss over the absence of special weapon immunities and weapon requirements in the default 5e monster assortment.
Which makes my explanation of the particular complaint even more interesting, because while they got gargoyles, they ain't got any "cold iron" monsters or "magic draining but weak against normal" monsters because we had at least three books to their one and a half (since they used half the additionals for class, race, and similar updates).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Your claim is that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 makes the game more fun. While simultaneously claiming that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 doesn’t really change the outcome of the fight. If having powerful magic weapons doesn’t change the outcome of the fight, how is the game made more or less fun by their inclusion or exclusion? Because you are excited by the idea of having powerful magic weapons but fail to understand that if they don’t do anything, they are not powerful at all, they just have cool names?? This is not a design flaw of 5e nor a perk older editions, it’s something you have to reconcile within yourself by examining your relationship with the English language, first, and the purpose of things as a philosophical notion, second.
I don't know if I actually claimed it was "more fun" at any point yet, I simply claimed that in 1e you didn't have to worry about the introduction of magic items into the game as a balancing factor, though I will now since Im already accused of it, I do in fact believe that finding magic items is in fact fun for players and its not because it makes you more powerful, but because finding treasure is a fun part of the game. It's a part of Dungeons & Dragons to find treasure and magic items. This is not some sort of bizarre new thing I have invented.
My claim if there is such a thing is that finding magic items is a core part of the game of D&D, it always has been. Case in point, even in the 5e DMG there are 94 pages of the book dedicated to treasure and magical items, that is 1/3rd of the whole bloody book. If finding treasure and magic items is an unimportant part of the game, why dedicate this many pages of the DMG to it?
What you are suggesting is that something that doesn't make you more powerful, is useless and not fun with which I disagree. Not everything is about character builds and power creep. Finding a cool magical sword that doesn't do any major damage to balance adds to the mythos of the story, adventure and character. Its a memory, a part of the games feel. It doesn't need to break the game balance to be fun.
Going back to the OPs depiction of the events in his gaming group.
So, an interesting thing happened with my group. I run games at a local hobby store, which i have been doing for about 6 years now. Recently, my group wanted to run a Dark Sun game, so I dusted off my old ADnD 2e books and ran the starting adventure for them. Then i decided to run the Audio adventure, Light in the Belfry for Ravenloft (they seriously need to bring back audio adventures), also using 2e rules.
So now I plan to return to some old Ravenloft modules and I asked my group if they wanted to use 5e characters ll 5 of them said, no. I believe the reason why is because they are truly invested in their 2e characters like they have never been in 5e and I feel a lot of satisfaction being there with them in their journey.
This, doesn't surprise me even a little bit.
5e characters are basically Avengers. Every level comes with new super powers, no one really earns anything. Very little comes with questing. The result is that my players in 5e are constantly switching characters when they get bored. In my 2e game, they earn every power, every ability and every level. When a character dies in 1e or 2e, it usually takes few hours of counselling to get over it. I have had 5e players go out of their way to kill their character just to play something else. In 2e, when they level, they get better at what they do. Fighters are hitting more, rogues get better at thief skills, and Wizards and Priests get better at casting their spells. In 5e the skills are all shared, including thief skills, all classes have the same combat bonuses, spells are locked in at their level, unless you spend a higher spell slot, and they are limited to 3 magic items, which means getting loot is typically meaningless by level 6.
This is the result I would expect.
I think the hardest thing for 5e DM's to understand is the distinction between what players want and say they want and what they need for the game to be good. If there is a difference between old school and modern D&D as a culture and as a system, this is the difference. It's why the entire concept of the current playtest and development of the game is so broken. You have players who are certain about what they want, upvoting and downvoting developments. Its like asking a drug addict what they want.. yeah you guessed right, its more drugs!
When someone actually takes these players and puts them in an actual good game, it doesn't take long for the lights to come on and make the distinction between a great game in which you don't get what you want and a mediocre game where you always get everything you want. This OP's experience, its... predictable.
Going back to the OPs depiction of the events in his gaming group.
So, an interesting thing happened with my group. I run games at a local hobby store, which i have been doing for about 6 years now. Recently, my group wanted to run a Dark Sun game, so I dusted off my old ADnD 2e books and ran the starting adventure for them. Then i decided to run the Audio adventure, Light in the Belfry for Ravenloft (they seriously need to bring back audio adventures), also using 2e rules.
So now I plan to return to some old Ravenloft modules and I asked my group if they wanted to use 5e characters ll 5 of them said, no. I believe the reason why is because they are truly invested in their 2e characters like they have never been in 5e and I feel a lot of satisfaction being there with them in their journey.
This, doesn't surprise me even a little bit.
5e characters are basically Avengers. Every level comes with new super powers, no one really earns anything. Very little comes with questing. The result is that my players in 5e are constantly switching characters when they get bored. In my 2e game, they earn every power, every ability and every level. When a character dies in 1e or 2e, it usually takes few hours of counselling to get over it. I have had 5e players go out of their way to kill their character just to play something else. In 2e, when they level, they get better at what they do. Fighters are hitting more, rogues get better at thief skills, and Wizards and Priests get better at casting their spells. In 5e the skills are all shared, including thief skills, all classes have the same combat bonuses, spells are locked in at their level, unless you spend a higher spell slot, and they are limited to 3 magic items, which means getting loot is typically meaningless by level 6.
This is the result I would expect.
I think the hardest thing for 5e DM's to understand is the distinction between what players want and say they want and what they need for the game to be good. If there is a difference between old school and modern D&D as a culture and as a system, this is the difference. It's why the entire concept of the current playtest and development of the game is so broken. You have players who are certain about what they want, upvoting and downvoting developments. Its like asking a drug addict what they want.. yeah you guessed right, its more drugs!
When someone actually takes these players and puts them in an actual good game, it doesn't take long for the lights to come on and make the distinction between a great game in which you don't get what you want and a mediocre game where you always get everything you want. This OP's experience, its... predictable.
Further, crowd-sourcing game design, which is precisely what wotc is doing, is a disastrous manner to build a game.
that...
... depends on how you crowd source it.
I do mechanics and development for my games. The other DMs do the same for theirs, and we steal from each other the time, because we also playtest for each other, but not ourselves. An example of some quirks: I don't read litRPG stuff even a little,. Another DM does, and as voraciously as I take bites out of urban fantasy. I dislike anything having to do with werewolves or vampires being "good guys" in books, and others often want nothing but. But we all play with each other and have for years. I know their tastes, their styles, their approaches. THey know mine.
I showed them my basic rules but not my design goals for what I wanted to do with a new world, asked for game system, and got a list of about 100 items to put into it. I asked about magic, about combat, about elements. I always showed what I had, very much like the UAs. Removal of the subclasses was a collective decision, the way we removed them fell to development (which is me). Magic to spell points (and all the complaints about the 5e system because we had tried it) was my development, their calls. I did this over several years, not the abbreviated timetable here, and the part that excited the players most was the new approach to classes. It is still going on, and they love these "final form" versions after probably 25 iterations.Then I have come here and snagged ideas more than a few times, lol. That is a form of crowd sourcing as well -- but it has to fit in with the goals I have as a designer.
Now, to be fair, much smaller crowd, much less trained to be big on subclasses, and much more trained to like magic items. if TSR had done this with magic items in the old days, it would have been just as bad.
WotC's design goals are not the same. Aside from building mostly for one world but including a handful of others, they have also been doing some other things that they aren't sharing that are absolutely structural in nature that they aren't showing. THey thought about the universal list and different kinds of magic thing, scrapped it. They have been toying with a few combat mechanics and conditions, and they are totally doing a major rewrite of spells that's only being given a peek at and not even really discussed.
What are they really hyping and, to use the traditional phrase, giving players Bread and Circus about? Subclasses and classes. VTT. That's our bread and our circus, and when you stop and analyze what they are presenting, a lot of folks will probably go "oh, that's all they are doing" and odds are really, really good that's not the case. They haven't even gotten into the new DMG stuff yet. And they have these forums to use just like I do.
And all of that? That's only different in terms of scale and the fact that yeah, this stie is way too full of die hard by the book, written rules only minmaxers who love every influencer out there with a bone to pick with wotc, lol. Now, sure, they are drawing limited input from outside it, but it isnt the crowd sourcing that's bad, its that they aren't using an effective crowd and have a built in model bias that *matches the one wotc already has*.
The 1e DMG was at least partially crowd sourced -- if you ever read it, he spent paragraphs on explaining to people how they were wrong in their decisions between the release of the PHB and the DMG. So he heard from outside and used it. Hell, D&D itself is crowd sourced, lol. Arneson developed his basic stuff through a lot of sessions, and when Gygax grabbed the few rules, he ran with it while still building on it with his players and Arneson's and new people.
So it depends on how you do it. Crowd sourcing is opinion polling in the end -- if you don't control the input, you get what you put into it. In science, we call it GIGO, lol. I would *never* say that they are doing bad crowd sourcing, though, because of what GIGO means, and what it would say about the majority of players.
I don't think that's the case, because I ain't playing in their games and don't care how they do -- and given what I have seen, they wouldn't enjoy my games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I have noticed that the edition affects the kinds of stories one can tell. Early published adventures often focused on episodic tales of dungeon delving and treasure seeking. While things were already changing even in that edition, over the decades, the focus has shifted more to pulp action. I think if you're trying to tell stories that are more focused on the former in 5E than the latter, you're going to find the experience is not as fulfilling.
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
It wasn't all good mind you, I would say in the 1e days for every 1 good published adventure you would have half a dozen that were... let's just say, poorly executed and leave it at that.
The thing that was true about 1e, mainly because it was a very light system and very modular, was that you could pretty easily add modular rules to focus on whatever aspect of the game you wanted the adventure to focus on. So like, you could do fast travel to avoid wilderness stuff, but if you wanted to make an adventure out of it, you had detailed wilderness adventure rules that you could deploy. If you wanted to do stronghold building and dominion running a narrative story thing, no problem, or you had a system you could add to turn it into a mini game.
Well, if you exclude the Greyhawk modules, ignore the Mystara modules, and focus solely on adventures and campaign settings written by Tracy and Laura Hickman, then yeah. You're absolutely right. Classic dungeon crawls were no longer a thing by the time 2E came out. 🙄
Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, the further you move from 1E, the more the storytelling style moves away from collecting treasure and more towards pulp action. 5E went even further than earlier editions, deciding to make it unnecessary for players to have an arsenal of magic items to take on high level creatures. As a result, the class means more than the items.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. In fact, my players have wondered aloud what would motivate someone to become an adventurer if fortune isn't a factor. I'm just saying that it has changed how people play the game and storytelling devices that worked in previous editions are not as satisfying in the current edition.
Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, the further you move from 1E, the more the storytelling style moves away from collecting treasure and more towards pulp action. 5E went even further than earlier editions, deciding to make it unnecessary for players to have an arsenal of magic items to take on high level creatures.
That kind of started in 4e, though they did it in the reverse way -- rather than reducing the effect of magic items, they had optional rules where you just got level-based bonuses that matched expected itemization for that level. This meant that low-end magic items were totally irrelevant as they had less effect than your inherent bonuses and those bonuses didn't stack.
I have noticed that the edition affects the kinds of stories one can tell. Early published adventures often focused on episodic tales of dungeon delving and treasure seeking. While things were already changing even in that edition, over the decades, the focus has shifted more to pulp action. I think if you're trying to tell stories that are more focused on the former in 5E than the latter, you're going to find the experience is not as fulfilling.
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
It wasn't all good mind you, I would say in the 1e days for every 1 good published adventure you would have half a dozen that were... let's just say, poorly executed and leave it at that.
The thing that was true about 1e, mainly because it was a very light system and very modular, was that you could pretty easily add modular rules to focus on whatever aspect of the game you wanted the adventure to focus on. So like, you could do fast travel to avoid wilderness stuff, but if you wanted to make an adventure out of it, you had detailed wilderness adventure rules that you could deploy. If you wanted to do stronghold building and dominion running a narrative story thing, no problem, or you had a system you could add to turn it into a mini game.
Well, if you exclude the Greyhawk modules, ignore the Mystara modules, and focus solely on adventures and campaign settings written by Tracy and Laura Hickman, then yeah. You're absolutely right. Classic dungeon crawls were no longer a thing by the time 2E came out. 🙄
Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, the further you move from 1E, the more the storytelling style moves away from collecting treasure and more towards pulp action. 5E went even further than earlier editions, deciding to make it unnecessary for players to have an arsenal of magic items to take on high level creatures. As a result, the class means more than the items.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. In fact, my players have wondered aloud what would motivate someone to become an adventurer if fortune isn't a factor. I'm just saying that it has changed how people play the game and storytelling devices that worked in previous editions are not as satisfying in the current edition.
I think there's plenty of story hooks, it's just with a safer world, (because people are less able to handle offensive or controversial material in an adult manner, both from a DM and a player perspective.), The focus of the rules being on combat, and thus, combat dominates over role playing means a less and less of a drive for narrative, whether overtly or subconsciously, I'd argue players are more motivated than ever to find the biggest treasure hoard, be the strongest just cause, etc.
I see more PVP death match style play than I do quests to save the realm, rescue a long lost love, etc. Irreverent fun storytelling is nice from time to time, but when it's the norm it gets... tiring.
EDIT: I guess my point is, old actual dungeon crawls and hex crawls are gone, but in their place are thinly veiled narratives for what players are basically treating as dungeon crawls and hex crawls and...
*arranges face in a complete absence of emotion*
No Comment.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yeah, I missed that too. I was reading dragons of spring dawn or something in the (very) early 90's. I also read of the brother's books before even starting HS as well ... (90's)
IT probably was Basic, which I LIKED for that....
The DMG for AD&D, was.... How to put it? It showed you a lot more "under the hood" of the game, which is just lacking.
I may just have to design my own crib notes.
I did design my own crib notes! lol.
Hell, i designed my own DM screen. The official one is nice and handy, but it doesn't have all the stuff I like to have at my fingertips.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Mostly a complaint fest.
Honestly, a huge fan of web dm. Surprised there isn't a topic asking who everyone's favorite d&d youtube channel is...
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
A level 1 fighter (assuming strength < 17) normally needs a 14 to hit AC 6 (35%). Against a 4 hp orc, it takes an average of 1.42 hits to kill. Average attacks required: 4.07
With a flame tongue, that becomes 40% to hit, 1.125 hits to kill, average attacks required: 2.81. That's a 42% increase. That is, in fact, a big deal. And that's vs generic targets -- if you are going up against undead it's an enormous power multiplier.
Now, there's the separate issue that a flame tongue in 5e is a more powerful general purpose weapon than in 1e, because it does significant extra damage to all targets instead of just to certain particular classes of monster, but you originally talked about a "+3" flame tongue, which if it existed would certainly be highly disruptive in general.
Your claim is that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 makes the game more fun. While simultaneously claiming that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 doesn’t really change the outcome of the fight. If having powerful magic weapons doesn’t change the outcome of the fight, how is the game made more or less fun by their inclusion or exclusion? Because you are excited by the idea of having powerful magic weapons but fail to understand that if they don’t do anything, they are not powerful at all, they just have cool names?? This is not a design flaw of 5e nor a perk older editions, it’s something you have to reconcile within yourself by examining your relationship with the English language, first, and the purpose of things as a philosophical notion, second.
Hey now, it wasn't *just* about you.
It was your example, no question, and I did toss in a tease, but by and large I was highlighting the way the difference in play style leads into that import of the weapons from a play perspective, not so much a mechanical perspective, because in 5e a fighter can often do that using some special ability they have.
THe mechanism is different, but the outcome is the same, in terms of practical damage done, blah blah (and why I didn't include your specifics about level and the fact you were referencing B/X at the time0).
The big difference, which we were trying to get across before we sidetracked, was that there really is a big difference in feel between the two games. While "leveling up" is a big deal in both, for the most part, neither version (none of them, really, in practical play) use or treat leveling up as a major role playing aspect, soa lot of that feel of "fighting your way to get to that magical weapon" was lost when they shifted to the special ability model in use at present.
In that respect, I am also referencing the OP (before folks like you and I ran away with the thread, lol) and that whole concept of feeling like you don't really earn that special ability in a single fight or a hard fought sequence because the special abilities are handwaved away into the idea of "downtime". Late stage 2, 3/3.5 had some chapbooks that sorta gave that period a little more depth and made it interesting, but 1e, 2e, and 5e don't and neither did B/X or BECMI.
So it was a lot more fun to go out and get that +3 flametongue than iit is to go "oh, hey, I went up a level, and now I can do this whole turn my sword into a fiery death thing, which is totally cool".
And, to your point and the general complaint, in B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e, you needed that sword to do some things you couldn't do any other way, so, as I noted, having it changed the way that a player approached the game. in 5e, that's baked into the subclass, so you already know how it is going to set your approach to the game, instead of having something appear that can really shift it.
But, give a Bladelock a flaming sword and it might change the way they are going to play the game in 5e. And it will have a much more significant impact than it ever did for previous editions. Look up and you'll see someone gloss over the absence of special weapon immunities and weapon requirements in the default 5e monster assortment.
Which makes my explanation of the particular complaint even more interesting, because while they got gargoyles, they ain't got any "cold iron" monsters or "magic draining but weak against normal" monsters because we had at least three books to their one and a half (since they used half the additionals for class, race, and similar updates).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't know if I actually claimed it was "more fun" at any point yet, I simply claimed that in 1e you didn't have to worry about the introduction of magic items into the game as a balancing factor, though I will now since Im already accused of it, I do in fact believe that finding magic items is in fact fun for players and its not because it makes you more powerful, but because finding treasure is a fun part of the game. It's a part of Dungeons & Dragons to find treasure and magic items. This is not some sort of bizarre new thing I have invented.
My claim if there is such a thing is that finding magic items is a core part of the game of D&D, it always has been. Case in point, even in the 5e DMG there are 94 pages of the book dedicated to treasure and magical items, that is 1/3rd of the whole bloody book. If finding treasure and magic items is an unimportant part of the game, why dedicate this many pages of the DMG to it?
What you are suggesting is that something that doesn't make you more powerful, is useless and not fun with which I disagree. Not everything is about character builds and power creep. Finding a cool magical sword that doesn't do any major damage to balance adds to the mythos of the story, adventure and character. Its a memory, a part of the games feel. It doesn't need to break the game balance to be fun.
I liked the old special monsters. you needed something special to take them on.
Going back to the OPs depiction of the events in his gaming group.
This, doesn't surprise me even a little bit.
This is the result I would expect.
I think the hardest thing for 5e DM's to understand is the distinction between what players want and say they want and what they need for the game to be good. If there is a difference between old school and modern D&D as a culture and as a system, this is the difference. It's why the entire concept of the current playtest and development of the game is so broken. You have players who are certain about what they want, upvoting and downvoting developments. Its like asking a drug addict what they want.. yeah you guessed right, its more drugs!
When someone actually takes these players and puts them in an actual good game, it doesn't take long for the lights to come on and make the distinction between a great game in which you don't get what you want and a mediocre game where you always get everything you want. This OP's experience, its... predictable.
No, it's not if you understand how to set expectations and give and take feedback correctly.
What I mean is that it's just another tool in one's toolbox
that...
... depends on how you crowd source it.
I do mechanics and development for my games. The other DMs do the same for theirs, and we steal from each other the time, because we also playtest for each other, but not ourselves. An example of some quirks: I don't read litRPG stuff even a little,. Another DM does, and as voraciously as I take bites out of urban fantasy. I dislike anything having to do with werewolves or vampires being "good guys" in books, and others often want nothing but. But we all play with each other and have for years. I know their tastes, their styles, their approaches. THey know mine.
I showed them my basic rules but not my design goals for what I wanted to do with a new world, asked for game system, and got a list of about 100 items to put into it. I asked about magic, about combat, about elements. I always showed what I had, very much like the UAs. Removal of the subclasses was a collective decision, the way we removed them fell to development (which is me). Magic to spell points (and all the complaints about the 5e system because we had tried it) was my development, their calls. I did this over several years, not the abbreviated timetable here, and the part that excited the players most was the new approach to classes. It is still going on, and they love these "final form" versions after probably 25 iterations.Then I have come here and snagged ideas more than a few times, lol. That is a form of crowd sourcing as well -- but it has to fit in with the goals I have as a designer.
Now, to be fair, much smaller crowd, much less trained to be big on subclasses, and much more trained to like magic items. if TSR had done this with magic items in the old days, it would have been just as bad.
WotC's design goals are not the same. Aside from building mostly for one world but including a handful of others, they have also been doing some other things that they aren't sharing that are absolutely structural in nature that they aren't showing. THey thought about the universal list and different kinds of magic thing, scrapped it. They have been toying with a few combat mechanics and conditions, and they are totally doing a major rewrite of spells that's only being given a peek at and not even really discussed.
What are they really hyping and, to use the traditional phrase, giving players Bread and Circus about? Subclasses and classes. VTT. That's our bread and our circus, and when you stop and analyze what they are presenting, a lot of folks will probably go "oh, that's all they are doing" and odds are really, really good that's not the case. They haven't even gotten into the new DMG stuff yet. And they have these forums to use just like I do.
And all of that? That's only different in terms of scale and the fact that yeah, this stie is way too full of die hard by the book, written rules only minmaxers who love every influencer out there with a bone to pick with wotc, lol. Now, sure, they are drawing limited input from outside it, but it isnt the crowd sourcing that's bad, its that they aren't using an effective crowd and have a built in model bias that *matches the one wotc already has*.
The 1e DMG was at least partially crowd sourced -- if you ever read it, he spent paragraphs on explaining to people how they were wrong in their decisions between the release of the PHB and the DMG. So he heard from outside and used it. Hell, D&D itself is crowd sourced, lol. Arneson developed his basic stuff through a lot of sessions, and when Gygax grabbed the few rules, he ran with it while still building on it with his players and Arneson's and new people.
So it depends on how you do it. Crowd sourcing is opinion polling in the end -- if you don't control the input, you get what you put into it. In science, we call it GIGO, lol. I would *never* say that they are doing bad crowd sourcing, though, because of what GIGO means, and what it would say about the majority of players.
I don't think that's the case, because I ain't playing in their games and don't care how they do -- and given what I have seen, they wouldn't enjoy my games.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, if you exclude the Greyhawk modules, ignore the Mystara modules, and focus solely on adventures and campaign settings written by Tracy and Laura Hickman, then yeah. You're absolutely right. Classic dungeon crawls were no longer a thing by the time 2E came out. 🙄
Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, the further you move from 1E, the more the storytelling style moves away from collecting treasure and more towards pulp action. 5E went even further than earlier editions, deciding to make it unnecessary for players to have an arsenal of magic items to take on high level creatures. As a result, the class means more than the items.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. In fact, my players have wondered aloud what would motivate someone to become an adventurer if fortune isn't a factor. I'm just saying that it has changed how people play the game and storytelling devices that worked in previous editions are not as satisfying in the current edition.
That kind of started in 4e, though they did it in the reverse way -- rather than reducing the effect of magic items, they had optional rules where you just got level-based bonuses that matched expected itemization for that level. This meant that low-end magic items were totally irrelevant as they had less effect than your inherent bonuses and those bonuses didn't stack.
I think there's plenty of story hooks, it's just with a safer world, (because people are less able to handle offensive or controversial material in an adult manner, both from a DM and a player perspective.), The focus of the rules being on combat, and thus, combat dominates over role playing means a less and less of a drive for narrative, whether overtly or subconsciously, I'd argue players are more motivated than ever to find the biggest treasure hoard, be the strongest just cause, etc.
I see more PVP death match style play than I do quests to save the realm, rescue a long lost love, etc. Irreverent fun storytelling is nice from time to time, but when it's the norm it gets... tiring.
EDIT: I guess my point is, old actual dungeon crawls and hex crawls are gone, but in their place are thinly veiled narratives for what players are basically treating as dungeon crawls and hex crawls and...