I am a player from the old grognard era. Sort of. I got into playing when 3e first came out, but my original group started in the 80s, and my first DM, started in the 70s, among the first ever players.
So I got introduced with a very different mindset towards the game.
That said, I quickly joined a second group, while still playing with the first, and immediately dropped the second group.
The second group was almost antithetical to the first. They used the same rules though. This brought to light something for me. The rules are not the game. 4e proved that rules still matter though.
Thus, ever since my introduction to the game, I've been particularly aware of *how* the game is being played, outside the specific rules. Which brings to light things that the rules support or hinder that are usually missed by the community at large.
One thing that absolutely agree with Gygax about, there is playing the game, and then there is playing the mechanics, and they are NOT the same thing.
I still prefer 3.x, and am even making my own system inspired by 3.x, but the reason I like 3.x, is because it is not a system to be played on it's own. It is a system that is more like a play aid, a tool to aid in the interaction with the narrative world.
5e to me, seems much more designed for playing the mechanics. The thought behind things like the economics, demographics, how the common person in the fantasy world lives, etc, are inadequate by a large degree. Sure that means the GM is free to do what they want, but it also means they A) don't have any tools to do it with, and B) where the rules do touch on these aspects, such as the cost of things like potions, end up feeling even more like immutable constraints.
So, why do you like 5e? Have you ever played 3.x?
Fun fact, in the 3.x era, a GP was 1/25 an ounce of gold, and worth around $100 dollars in today's money. A potion costs 50gp, which for the fantasy world is very much like us paying $5000 dollars today. Commoners didn't exactly get to have Cure Light Wounds whenever they get injured.
I played 3.5. Mechnically, it was an awful lot of bookeeping. By the time I reached double digit levels, there were so many temporary buffs and bonuses to track I created a half-assed version of D&D Beyond in a spreadsheet to keep it all straight. Narratively, I found that having a rule for everything meant DM and players alike were inclined to just go with what the rules say instead of making a common sense ruling or doing whatever seemed more fun. It also meant the action came to a stop more often because we know there's a rule for climbing a slippery rope somewhere, so let's go look it up.
There are some things 5e does I'm not a fan of. I liked that casting spells mid-combat was risky. I think it's silly you can do things like apply Healer's Kits while an enemy is right next to you. But those are relatively minor issues in my eyes. It'd be far less effort for me to add a few restrictions to 5e's base rules than to try to pare down 3.5's rules to half the size (and I'd probably just end up with a crappier version of 5e if I tried, since I can't crowdsource a ton of playtesting like WotC.)
5e to me, seems much more designed for playing the mechanics. The thought behind things like the economics, demographics, how the common person in the fantasy world lives, etc, are inadequate by a large degree. Sure that means the GM is free to do what they want, but it also means they A) don't have any tools to do it with, and B) where the rules do touch on these aspects, such as the cost of things like potions, end up feeling even more like immutable constraints.
I'd actually argue the opposite, how can 5e be about playing the mechanics when you admit yourself there aren't mechanics for lots of things? And it's exactly that light touch that appeals to me, there's rules for the bits I want to have rules (like combat) but everything else is left to the needs of the story. I haven't played 3e, although my introduction to TTRPG was Pathfinder 1e so I kind of have, but like Inquisitive I found the book keeping to be a nightmare. By higher levels there was far too much on my character sheet to track easily, feats that basically did nothing but I needed to take to access others I would use, and everything else outside of combat ground to a halt while we had to consult the rule book for everything we wanted to do. That was definitely playing the mechanics rather than playing the game
I am a player from the old grognard era. Sort of. I got into playing when 3e first came out, but my original group started in the 80s, and my first DM, started in the 70s, among the first ever players.
So I got introduced with a very different mindset towards the game.
That said, I quickly joined a second group, while still playing with the first, and immediately dropped the second group.
The second group was almost antithetical to the first. They used the same rules though. This brought to light something for me. The rules are not the game. 4e proved that rules still matter though.
Thus, ever since my introduction to the game, I've been particularly aware of *how* the game is being played, outside the specific rules. Which brings to light things that the rules support or hinder that are usually missed by the community at large.
One thing that absolutely agree with Gygax about, there is playing the game, and then there is playing the mechanics, and they are NOT the same thing.
I still prefer 3.x, and am even making my own system inspired by 3.x, but the reason I like 3.x, is because it is not a system to be played on it's own. It is a system that is more like a play aid, a tool to aid in the interaction with the narrative world.
5e to me, seems much more designed for playing the mechanics. The thought behind things like the economics, demographics, how the common person in the fantasy world lives, etc, are inadequate by a large degree. Sure that means the GM is free to do what they want, but it also means they A) don't have any tools to do it with, and B) where the rules do touch on these aspects, such as the cost of things like potions, end up feeling even more like immutable constraints.
So, why do you like 5e? Have you ever played 3.x?
Fun fact, in the 3.x era, a GP was 1/25 an ounce of gold, and worth around $100 dollars in today's money. A potion costs 50gp, which for the fantasy world is very much like us paying $5000 dollars today. Commoners didn't exactly get to have Cure Light Wounds whenever they get injured.
Yet in what seems like a mechanically heavy version, 5th edition is lite compared to 3.5ed.
And because there is not any hard fact “this the the only way to play” aspects of the way the mechanics actually allow a great deal of flexibility in crafting an adventure in a universe that can be drastically different from a prebuilt one.
That isn’t to say a prebuilt universe can’t be used as a foundation for expansion, and the general concept of the rules altered to the creators liking, and that’s the reason 5th edition IMHO is so popular and so well liked by those who play the game.
5th edition compared to 3.5ed is like watching 3.5ed go on a weight reduction plan and be lighter rules wise, flexible enough to allow some bending, and open enough to let a creator’s imagination run wild.
Of course any edition of D&D will do this but different taste for different folks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
In the groups I play in, we typically have two different types of player - I have players who enjoy the mechanical aspects of games and folks who would rather just toss together a character and throw some dice around. 5e is a system where both groups can be satisfied at the same time.
For the first group, there is just enough complexity in 5e's character creation options (multiclassing, choice of spells, feats, etc.) to keep those folks engaged as well as to provide them tactical options they can utilize during gameplay itself. However, while there is a degree of complexity here, most of that complexity is front-loaded and does not manifest within the game itself in terms of complex math and numerical comparisons to determine successes and failures. This ensures the second group still can have fun when actually playing.
That is why I enjoy this system - while I might be able to find more rules heavy systems/editions some of my players like more or more rules light systems the other players would like, 5e provides my groups a system everyone enjoys using when we sit around the table. It is the first edition of D&D my group has been through where everyone always seems to be having fun at every element of the game--in other versions, particularly the second group, sometimes felt aspects of the game design were a chore.
Just as a note, you had a critique of how rules light 5e was on certain aspects of the game, such as items. That is an incredibly fair critique and one Wizards is fully aware of--there is a reason a number of these issues are being specifically addressed by the 2024 DMG. Whether those updates are successful or not shall be seen in a few weeks.
I find it odd that people would stop playing to go look up a rule in a game that tells you not bother. And the idea that 3.5 is so much heavier than 5e, when 3/4s of the "rules" are just reference points that serve as mere aids to help GMs establish a plausible outcome relative to the real world, and absolutely not required.
Heck, I spent years trying to play the witch class in the core rulebooks. Do you know how many DMs know that there is a witch class in the core rulebooks? Practically none, certainly none I ever met. Guess where the witch class is, it is one of the examples in the DMG for how DMs can tell the rules to go suck it and make custom classes including unique ones specific to a particular player and not intended to be used by anyone else, because 3.x does not believe in following the rules. Massive amounts of the core content is literally just there to help you if you if you feel like it and totally encourages DMs to completely ignore anything they don't like or that slows down the game.
It kinda kills me that nearly all the critique is based on a mindset that is the opposite of what 3.x was trying to encourage.
So, InquisitiveCoder: So many temp buffs? You aren't supposed to use every single thing you can find. You are supposed to use enough to be fun and to make various encounters feel different. For example, thw Unstable Platform penalty, is great if the party is on a trip on a boat as it would make the fights on the boat feel like being on a boat actually mattered to the fight, but you should never use it for seafaring campaign. Many other things are likewise there to be used only when beneficial. If you actually stepped back and dropped all the extra there for advice, inspiration, or reference (as in, not needing to look up how far real world olympians can jump to help figure out plausible long jump DCs) then you'd be dropping the majority of the book and be left with a sleek and thin game system that would probably be much simpler than 5e.
At CunningSmile: How can I argue that 5e is about playing the mechanics, when it lacks mechanics for so much? Because playing the mechanics is not about how many mechanics are there, but rather it is about the role the mechanics have on the play of the game and specifically in the decision making of the players. Dissociated mechanics for example, require you to step outside the character, the role you are playing, in order to make choices bases on the mechanics that have no equivalence in the narrative world that your character would be considering. Just as an example. So, a system thay seems built around ypu making choices as a player rather than as your character, is playing the mechanics rather than playing "the game." 3.x had tons of reference material, but the mechanics were there largely to evoke the right feel in the right moments when used appropriately by the DM, but never to get between the player and thinking as thwir character would, and a character would be looking at the world around them for advantages, hence why the 3.x rules were so simulationist.
Paradox_Traveller, the ultimate flexibility is in not using a system at all, commonly known as freeform. If you want flexibility, why use a system at all? Well, the answer is different for many, but if you can't imagine playing the game without any mechanics and still seeming like the same game, then you are absolutely not the kind of player 3.x was designed for. Mechanics sometimes exist to be supporting tools, not constraints nor how-tos. 3.5 is all about flexibility, and it has more flexibility, and more DM advice on being flexible than any other system I've yet seen (except perhaps storytelling games like pbta). It is a mistake to equate rules with shackles. Yet I must admit that this maistake is so incredibly common that it seems nearly inescapable. Heck, part of the reason of my discussions on the matter is to seek out ways I can try to avoid having players make this mistake with my system, because I find 3.x as a tool not only useful, but uniquely equipped for me to use a system at all. Except for pf1, no other system I've played has the tools I want thus I would rather play freeform than any other system because every other system completely and entirely fails at being a tool I find useful in play. But no one else calls mechanics tools, and I don't know why. (No one else meaning people in the last 15 years. Mu old groups had similar mindset and ideas of play, but I can't find players like that anymore.)
Caerwyn, my critique is not about being rules light on items. It is the mindset behind how such things are handled. As I'm working through 5e, I feel more like they are the rules of a boardgame than a roleplaying game. The mechanics seem designed to have my focus on the mechanics rather than seeing past the mechanics to the narrative world in the way you look past my english writing to the ideas I convey with my english writing. It's like a conversation where people are so concerned with your grammer they don't even notice the topic you are speaking about. 5e feels like that to me. 3.x is a system where once you have system mastery, it can fade into the background and work like a language does, a simple conveyance between players and the narrative world.
Anyway, thank you all for the answers. I actually got some insightful responses for once. Have fun!
At CunningSmile: How can I argue that 5e is about playing the mechanics, when it lacks mechanics for so much? Because playing the mechanics is not about how many mechanics are there, but rather it is about the role the mechanics have on the play of the game and specifically in the decision making of the players. Dissociated mechanics for example, require you to step outside the character, the role you are playing, in order to make choices bases on the mechanics that have no equivalence in the narrative world that your character would be considering. Just as an example. So, a system thay seems built around ypu making choices as a player rather than as your character, is playing the mechanics rather than playing "the game." 3.x had tons of reference material, but the mechanics were there largely to evoke the right feel in the right moments when used appropriately by the DM, but never to get between the player and thinking as thwir character would, and a character would be looking at the world around them for advantages, hence why the 3.x rules were so simulationist.
I'm very happy that you enjoy 3.5 but what you're describing here about being forced out of character is exactly what my experience of Pathfinder was and exactly what I rarely experience playing 5e. As I said the fact Pathfinder has rules for everything meant we were very very aware of the fact there were rules, that's 100% a player thing not a character thing. By contrast all my experiences of 5e have been very much players in character making decisons because they know the DM isn't going to spring some obscure rule they've never heard of on them but instead just narrate what happens.
It probably says a lot about either the way these games are designed or the mindset of players that both of us think the other version is really bad at exactly the same thing
I find it odd that people would stop playing to go look up a rule in a game that tells you not bother. And the idea that 3.5 is so much heavier than 5e, when 3/4s of the "rules" are just reference points that serve as mere aids to help GMs establish a plausible outcome relative to the real world, and absolutely not required.
Heck, I spent years trying to play the witch class in the core rulebooks. Do you know how many DMs know that there is a witch class in the core rulebooks? Practically none, certainly none I ever met. Guess where the witch class is, it is one of the examples in the DMG for how DMs can tell the rules to go suck it and make custom classes including unique ones specific to a particular player and not intended to be used by anyone else, because 3.x does not believe in following the rules. Massive amounts of the core content is literally just there to help you if you if you feel like it and totally encourages DMs to completely ignore anything they don't like or that slows down the game.
It kinda kills me that nearly all the critique is based on a mindset that is the opposite of what 3.x was trying to encourage.
Paradox_Traveller, the ultimate flexibility is in not using a system at all, commonly known as freeform. If you want flexibility, why use a system at all? Well, the answer is different for many, but if you can't imagine playing the game without any mechanics and still seeming like the same game, then you are absolutely not the kind of player 3.x was designed for. Mechanics sometimes exist to be supporting tools, not constraints nor how-tos. 3.5 is all about flexibility, and it has more flexibility, and more DM advice on being flexible than any other system I've yet seen (except perhaps storytelling games like pbta). It is a mistake to equate rules with shackles. Yet I must admit that this maistake is so incredibly common that it seems nearly inescapable. Heck, part of the reason of my discussions on the matter is to seek out ways I can try to avoid having players make this mistake with my system, because I find 3.x as a tool not only useful, but uniquely equipped for me to use a system at all. Except for pf1, no other system I've played has the tools I want thus I would rather play freeform than any other system because every other system completely and entirely fails at being a tool I find useful in play. But no one else calls mechanics tools, and I don't know why. (No one else meaning people in the last 15 years. Mu old groups had similar mindset and ideas of play, but I can't find players like that anymore.)
Anyway, thank you all for the answers. I actually got some insightful responses for once. Have fun!
So the understanding of the reply is if the ultimate flex is not to flex at all, then why the question of why do people like 5e?
Imho, 5e is just a simplified version of 3.5e and gives even more flex in both DM and player creation and creativity by not setting rigid limits or rules on certain aspects of play that make every experience different and unique.
While 3.5e was an improvement over 2e, by switching the mechanics from a D6 system to a new D20 system, simplifying the math and allowing for greater flexibility in the way the game can be designed and played uniquely by individual groups, but still stiff enough to ensure that the base rules are consistent enough to allow players and DM’s to simply jump into a majority of different versions of an adventure.
There may be some kind of initial adjustment that both player and DM has to make, but ultimately the systems are basically the same, the real difference between the two is that 5e is more sandbox friendly in the fact that it is so minimalistic yet diverse in its ability to accommodate different styles of play.
Sure we would all love to see a system that can do it all ; define all-and or do all for us, but then everyone would be doing the same thing with no problems and no creativity and no fun or challenges to explore or excite the people who play or DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I have never played 3.x at table-top. My only experience with it was with Neverwinter Nights. I did buy the core books at one point, but I wasn't really invested enough to read it and get back into D&D. I played 1st and 2nd up until I was 23 then quit cause I had other things going on in life. I came back to D&D as a player 2 years ago to 5e. I love 5e. I think that it made D&D easy to get into and, imo, it gives so many options to really flesh out your characters. 1e and 2e had profiencies and such. 2e had more of them due to the Complete Handbook edition of books for the classes and races (yes it is still races to me lol). But 5e with the subclasses, feats and backgrounds are fantastic. Now is everything perfect? No. There is still room for improvement. In fact, some of the improvements they made in 5.24e are disappointing (looking at you Paladin Smite). But overall, I love 5e.
I really agree with cunningsmile. 3.x was all about rules, 5e has as its design philosophy, rulings not rules. I’ve been playing since 1e, and I really enjoy this edition just for that reason.
In 3.x, the designers thought one of the reasons D&D wasn’t really popular was bad DMs. A bad DM would abuse their power make willy-nilly rulings and as a result, players didn’t have fun. So 3.x piled on rules for every situation in an effort to protect players from those bad DMs. If something happened, there was a rule somewhere in some book that would tell you what to do so the DM couldn’t be mean. 5e took a step back from that and trusts DMs to make the game fun.
Also, 3.x really rewarded system mastery, and punished those without it. The gap between an optimized character and an un-optimized character was enormous. There’s still a gap in 5e, certainly, but it’s nothing compared to 3.x. Which also means rules, the more rules you knew, the better your character would be.
As to the OP’s issue with a lack of things like economic or demographic information, those are going to be setting specific. The default setting for 5e is the multiverse, so there’s no way they could include it. That sort of thing belongs in setting books, which is where it is as far as I know.
I started with AD&D 1st edition 2nd cover. The older I get the simpler I like things. Thus, I do like what feels like simplicity to me with 5e. I also think the style doesn't make the fighter, the fighter makes the style. The game is what the player(s) and DM make it.
by 1998, my regular group was 23 players large, friends who had been playing since 1980.
We collectively consider 3.x to be the worst version of the game ever produced. We stayed with 2e for what ended up being 25 year as a direct result of how bad 3.x ws to us.
However, that has a strong tendency to make old 1e era folks itchy when you play with rules and don't tweak them, and so we tweaked and tweaked and we loved the game we were playing when 5e came out.
We are now a group of 53 people, and we like 5e because it allows us to play thee game we love in a way that is a really nice blend of what we tweaked and the current rule set -- it's why a whole separate group of people decided to join our group, bringing it up to its current number.
They are rules that enable us to keep the members of our group who are younger -- and we range from 12 to 60, with grandkids and kids learning in special 6 to 12 games -- so that we can continue to have them find joy and friendship in what is now touching three generations across 7 families.
And better yet, the game doesn't have the things that caused a lot of our tweaking and twisting and refusal to use officially published stuff. Since we are mostly women, queer, and PoC.
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 am a player from the old grognard era. Sort of. I got into playing when 3e first came out, but my original group started in the 80s, and my first DM, started in the 70s, among the first ever players.
...
One thing that absolutely agree with Gygax about, there is playing the game, and then there is playing the mechanics, and they are NOT the same thing.
I still prefer 3.x, and am even making my own system inspired by 3.x, but the reason I like 3.x, is because it is not a system to be played on it's own. It is a system that is more like a play aid, a tool to aid in the interaction with the narrative world.
5e to me, seems much more designed for playing the mechanics. The thought behind things like the economics, demographics, how the common person in the fantasy world lives, etc, are inadequate by a large degree. Sure that means the GM is free to do what they want, but it also means they A) don't have any tools to do it with, and B) where the rules do touch on these aspects, such as the cost of things like potions, end up feeling even more like immutable constraints.
So, why do you like 5e? Have you ever played 3.x?
It's a nice blend of rules and rulings for my tastes while also being a game that focuses on story and narrative.
3e and Pathfinder really leaned into the rules. Rule 0 was minimized and there was this harder idea that the world was made of numbers and the DM was "cheating" if they didn't use the DCs in the book or use the rules. And there was just far more ways for the players to just "win" via rule loopholes and clever combos. When running Pathfinder I often felt I was more a rules adjudicator than a DM, presenting the encounter and then just running through the math. It was, as the OP describes, playing the mechanics not playing the game. 4e was much more of a board game in my mind. It was much more gamist, with powers having a board game/ card game aesthetic. It was much more of a tactical game, than the strategic game that 3e was. The story and flavour was almost vestigial. Which would be fine if I wanted to tell a heroic fantasy game with 3-5 encounters in a delve, but I liked different pacing to my campaigns and 4e was a square peg that wouldn't fit in my round GMing hole. Plus I just didn't like the encounter-based design. It made it harder to wear down and exhaust characters. Encounters only had one fail condition: death. So long as you lived you'd heal up and largely be in fighting shape the next encounter with refreshed Encounter powers and new Magic Item uses.
And, in general, the rule-dense games just made for a harder game to hack. If you removed magic items to avoid the treasure treadmill then there were a ripple of other effects. If you replaced hit points with Vitality and Wounds then there were dozens of feats and class features to work around.
5e had enough build options and variety to keep my munchkin players happy. But the focus on rulings rather than hard rules gave me more wiggle room to adjudicate. I can put the story first and not have to worry about being "well, actually..."-ed by a rules lawyer.
It had a simpler core and fewer assumptions of gameplay. And it was designed and balanced around the adventuring day and not the encounter, which I appreciated. And the game doesn't make the same assumptions of demographics and magic items and the frequency of spellcasters as 3e. I can do low magic settings. And I can do games where the magic items feel special and not just like another character option that is part of your build.
Lots more interesting answers, yet still everyone seems to equate more mechanics with needing to stick tighter to following rules.
My examination of 3.5 has always led to the conclusion that the mechanics are like the grid on grid paper.
No one uses grid paper and thinks they can only draw on the lines, nor does anyone look at gridpaper and think the grid is the drawing you bought the paper to look at. Nope. Instead everyone gets that the grid on gridpaper is a handy reference frame, a tool to make it easier to draw whatever other figure they are trying to draw, curves and weird angles welcome.
I analyze 3.5 and the only conclusion I can get is that 3.5 uses mechanics like the grid on gridpaper. The mechanics are intended to provide a frame of reference to make rulings and campaign, party, or even PC specific adjustments easier to make, easier to figure out the plausible societal impact, and most importantly, easier to maintain a sense of consistency.
Yet few see 3.5 that way, and the number who do seems to continuously shrink, which I think is bad because this is what 3.x does the best. It is 3.x's best done attribute. The one thing the few other systems come close to matching.
It is also one of the key traits I desire for my own systems, so much so that I don't bother designing systems without this trait because I won't use a system without this, not for an rpg experience anyway, because I'd rather play freeform.
I ask why people prefer 5e because I'm looking for hints of the mindset. More than a hint, people seem to default to the assumption that more mechanics means ironclad rules. What I really need to know now is how to get people away from that mindset when I present my systems. How can I go "here are a bunch of mechanics, but they are merely tools to help you. Ignore them unless you need them." Clearly 3.x failed at this despite practically screaming it in the DMG.
3.5 doesn't so much make assumptions as it makes a grid, it says "here is where the numbers balance out." Then it gives tons of advice on using that grid as a mere reference upon which you can draw what you want, such as the witch class that no one knows about that is in the core DMG (yes I'm kinda sore about the fact that I've literally tried to use the witch class over a dozen times and not a single DM read the DMG enough to know it even existed. And none were comfortable enough with tweaking rules to use a literal textbook example on tweaking rules.).
As I read 5e, it seems to pull in stuff from earlier editions. I admit to being surprised to find the 10' pole in the 5e equipment list. Why am I surprised? Because the structure of 5e screams "plays the mechanics" so strongly that I really can't imagine how to use a 10' pole without just ignoring the existence of the mechanics. The rules seem tailor made to encourage examining your sheet first for a solution to any problem, and doing something old school like using a pole only when your party is lacking something mechanical to handle the problem, such as when not bringing a traphandler. I certainly don't look at these classes and imagine how I can make my own class, but rather I look at these classes and see only meta mechanics behind them.
When I look at 3.5 I can see where the different levels and powers fit into the overall structure of the world the game takes place in. Heck, I look around the real world and see how to describe it all in 3.5 mechanics and numbers, because 3.5 is made that way, it is designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. But in 5e, what level are navy seals? No Idea. No clue. 5e doesn't seem to convey that sort of equivalence, it doesn't want to be descriptive in that way. I have to look at the heritage drawn from 3.5 to notice that the proficiency bonus is essentially what 3.5 would call level, but then other aspects of 5e don't line up anymore with that. It just fails to work. And 5e is clearly trying to not fit on the 3.5 base. It clearly is not wanting to be simulationist or even be equated with any objective measure of the world milieu.
Heck, in the 2024 version they are even removing the racial stat bonuses. In 3.x, how did you know that orcs were on average stronger than humans on average, and by how much? The orc's bonus to strength. That mechanic was literally and explicitly telling you the level of strength that is normal for orcs. PCs didn't have to be normal, that wasn't what the mechanic was there for.
But 5e 2024, no more. Now the fact that orcs are normally stronger than humans, is not only by an unspecified amount (because no mechanics measure it anymore), but it is just this fluff lore that you hang on the mechanics like you're dressing up a robot with a dress and calling it real live girl. The dress does not make a robot a real live person, and you can put whatever lore you want on a mechanic when the mechanic itself says nothing about the lore, but that is also 5e's weakness and why I won't use it. If the mechanics cannot convey that orcs are 40% stronger than humans, then that puts the burdan on me to take time away from the narrative to demonstrate and convey that fact in the story somewhere, or to just ignore that orcs are stronger and leave that detail unknown which could be a problem, either because it leads to players making a choice under the assumption that orcs are equal in strength to humans, or in having a lore detail that remains unknown until much later where it feels like a pointless retcon when the players finally find out, which becomes a negative moment.
Honestly, I feel a lot like people are claiming that a blank sheet of paper is better than gridpaper for mapping your dungeon because you don't have lines telling you where to draw.
And I know 5e is not nearly as bad as 4e is on that front, but it's still the same mindset, just not as extreme. People claiming that 5e is more flexible because it lacks tools.
Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that people can't see mechanics as tools unless introduced in a specific way. Certainly those I and some of my early DMs introduced new players who got the idea quite easily. Perhaps players just need to be taught to see the rules as such.
But there is a wrinkle there, experienced players have a harder time getting the idea. Indeed, it seems that the longer they have played without understanding this concept, the harder it is for them to be taught this concept.
And I'm desperately searching for how I can break this odd mindset to convey that the existence of mechanics are a tool, not a shackle. (With a little bit of seeking improvements as well. If people started talking about the infinite cantrips being a big reason to switch, I'd absolutely make that work). My systems, like 3.5, are toolboxes, like the grid on gridpaper, not the lines in a coloring book.
I ask why people like 5e, because I want to know more about this mindset of seeing rules as barriers, so I can break that mindset when introducing my system. I don't care if people play 5e with that mindset, but my system, they should at least understand how it is intended to played even if they don't play it that way. And more than that, the current mindset is a limitation that should absolutely be broken. It's like saying movies can only be comedies. That's patently absurd, but this mindset that seems to be the default is similarly limiting.
It sounds like the problem is that you're trying to break the mindset of people who enjoy playing 5E. Don't be a yumyucker.
Also, from your complaints about orc strength it sounds an awful lot like you don't like 5E because it doesn't maintain tired old stereotypes. Now I think about it, this specific gripe undercuts your assertion that 5E is about playing to the mechanics even more.
Honestly I'm really not finding any consistency in your argument. And I'm wondering why you're even making an argument against people enjoying 5E.
Different strokes for different folks. I liked AD&D 2E back in the day, I thought 4E was perfectly cromulent, and I love 5E (both 2014 and 2024). I didn't particularly like 3/3.5E, but I'm not going to yuck your yum over it, or argue that you're enjoying it wrong.
Lots more interesting answers, yet still everyone seems to equate more mechanics with needing to stick tighter to following rules.
My examination of 3.5 has always led to the conclusion that the mechanics are like the grid on grid paper.
No one uses grid paper and thinks they can only draw on the lines, nor does anyone look and gridpaper and think the grid is final result you should focus on. Nope. Instead everyone gets that the grid on gridpaper is a handy reference frame, a tool to make it easier to draw whatever figure they are trying to draw, curves and weird angles welcome.
I analyze 3.5 and the only conclusion I can get is that 3.5 uses mechanics like the grid on gridpaper. The mechanics are intended to provide a frame of reference to make rulings and campaign specific adjustments easier to make, easier to figure out the plausible societal impact, and most importantly, easier to maintain a sense of consistency.
Yet few see 3.5 that way, and the number who do seems to continuously shrink, which I think is bad because this is what 3.x does the best. It is 3.x's best done attribute. The one thing the few other systems come close to matching.
It is also one of the key traits I desire for my own systems, so much so that I don't bother designing systems without this trait because I won't use a system without this mindset, not for an rpg experience anyway.
I ask why people prefer 5e because I'm looking for hints of the mindset. More than a hint, people seem to default to the assumption that more mechanics means ironclad rules. What I really need to know now is how to get people away from that mindset when I present my systems. How can I go "here are a bunch of mechanics, but they are merely tools to help you. Ignore them unless you need them." Clearly 3.x failed at this despite practically screaming it in the DMG.
3.5 doesn't so much make assumptions as it makes a grid, it says "here is where the numbers balance out." Then it gives tons of advice on using that grid as a mere reference upon which you can draw what you want, such as the witch class thay no one knows about that is in the core DMG (yes I'm kinda sore about the fact that I've literally tried to use the witch class over a dozen times and not a single DM read the DMG enough to know it even existed. And none were comfortable enough with tweaking rules to use a literally textbook example on tweaking rules.).
As I read 5e, it seems to pull in stuff from earlier editions. I admit to being surprised to find the 10' pole in the 5e equipment list. Why am I surprised? Because the structure of 5e screams "plays the mechanics" so strongly that I really can't imagine how to use a 10' pole without just ignoring the existence of the mechanics. The rules seem tailor made to encourage examining your sheet first for a solution to any problem, and doing something old school like using a pole only when your party is lacking something mechanical to handle the problem, such as when not bringing a traphandler. I certainly don't look at these classes and imagine how I can make my own class, but rather I look at these classes and see only meta mechanics brhind them. When I look at 3.5 I can see where the different levels and powers fit into the overall structure of the world the game takes place in. Heck, I look around the real world and see how to describe it all in 3.5 mechanics and numbers, because 3.5 is made that way. But in 5e, what level are navy seals? No Idea. No clue. 5e doesn't seem to convey that sort of equivalence. I have to look at the heritage drawn from 3.5, to notice that the proficiency bonus is essentially what 3.5 would call level, but then other aspects of 5e don't line up anymore with that. It just fails to work. And 5e is clearly trying to not fit on the 3.5 base. It clearly is not wanting to be simulationist or even be equated with any objective measure of the world ,milieu. Heck, in the 2024 version they are even removing the racial stat bonuses. In 3.x, how did you know ghay orcs were on average stronger than humans on average, and by how much? The orc's bonus to strength. That mechanic was literally and explicitly telling you the level of strength that is normal for orcs. PCs didn't have to be normal, that wasn't whay the mechanic was there for. But 5e 2024, no more. Now the gact that orcs are normally stronger than humans, is not only by an unspecified amount (because no mechanics measure it anymore), but it is just this fluff lore thay you hang on the mechanics like you're dressing up a robot with a dress and calling it real live girl. The dress does not make it a girl, and you can put whatever lore you want on a mechanic when the mechanic itself says nothing about the lore, but that is also 5e's weakness and why I won't use it. If the ,mechanics can't convey thay orcs are 40% stronger than humans, then that pits tje burdan on me to take time aaway from the narrative to demonstrate and convey that fact in the story somewhere.
Honestly, I feel a lot like people are claiming that a blank sheet of paper is better than gridpaper for mapping your dungeon because you don't have lines telling you where to draw.
And no, I know 5e is not nearly as bad as 4e is on thay front, but it's still the same argument. People claiming that 5e is more flexible because it lacks tools.
And I'm desperately searching for how I can break this odd mindset to convey that the existence of mechanics are a tool, not a shackle. (With a little bit of seeking improvements as well. If people started talking about the infinite cantrips being a big reason to switch, I'd absolutely make that work)
I don't think this is an entirely fair take on the situation. The way I see it is that you and the people who like 5e in this thread like the same thing: being free to choose their adventure and adventurers as they see fit. The difference is that you have a way of thinking that easily allows you to see the crunch as an a la carte menu or a buffet. The people who like 5e like it because it's more of a kitchen: the food isn't made yet besides the pre-packaged stuff in the fridge. If you want to add crunch, you have to make it from scratch. FWIW, the new DMG seems to give some guidance here and based on the video there does seem to be a bit more crunch in it than the 2014 one.
In fact, I actually think your grid paper analogy is a pretty good one. The grid is a tool, a reference, but it's there in your final product. You can't erase it. The players know it's there even if you aren't expressly using it. 5e is more of a blank paper, sure, but ask any artist what they actually want to draw/paint on for a final product and very few will take the grid paper over the blank canvas. Perhaps the "problem" is simply that the majority of people (players and DMs alike) see crunch as not-so-optional, and would rather do it themselves if they are to do it at all.
As for the orc vs human thing... I used the think the same thing, but I've now changed how I think about it. You don't need the +2 STR on the orc species to denote that Orcs are, on average, stronger than humans because neither an orc PC nor a human PC are average and stat bonuses were for PCs; it has no place there when the vast majority of PCs are meant to be extraordinary in some way. NPC stat blocks could convey that, if they want, I guess, by giving your random orc a STR of 12 while a random human has a STR of 10, and I think as long as you stick to the physical stats, it might be more palatable, but putting the PC stat bonuses on backgrounds makes more sense to me. That said, I'd assume most NPC stat blocks also have some kind of "profession" attached to it (Orc soldier, or something like that), which would also tweak the stats.
More than a hint, people seem to default to the assumption that more mechanics means ironclad rules. What I really need to know now is how to get people away from that mindset when I present my systems. How can I go "here are a bunch of mechanics, but they are merely tools to help you. Ignore them unless you need them."
So, bluntly, it is not "ironclad rules" it is *too many rules*.
3.5 is a Hard Crunchy game. It has a lot of rules. What people are saying is they want fewer rules, they do not like having a lot of rules, they do not want Crunchy rules.
5e is clearly trying to not fit on the 3.5 base.
Yes. That is intentional. They drew from 4e and 2e instead of 3e. They even talk about it.
I'm desperately searching for how I can break this odd mindset to convey that the existence of mechanics are a tool, not a shackle.
Well, good news: most people don't think of them as a shackle. But they also don't think of them as a tool unless they happen to need that tool at that moment, and in that way -- in which case, they will go out and pick one up at the tool store.
They think of those rules as a waste of time, energy, and space for the purposes they have for the game. Not all people -- plenty of folks still play Pathfinder, and you will still see people talking about it and suggesting it, and that's where most of the 3.5 folks went during the 4e era.
But the reason that D&D has grown so much over the last decade is because the rules are NOT at all like Pathfinder or 3.5. Those rules turn people off, and make them not want to play the game. Hell, someone who likes medium crunch - something in between 3.5 and 5.5, say, folks even are turned away from that.
They are still using graph paper. They are still drawing and they are not limited by the lines.
They are just using 30mm grid squares and you are using 3mm grid squares. You would like them to use the 3mm, and they see that and wonder if they can move to the 300mm grid.
The cost to get me or my folks to sit down and listen to someone explain how we should give 3.5 another chance would likely be in the several millions of dollars per hour range. Not a joke, not an exaggeration. It is that strongly disliked. And they would not guarantee that they would still give it a shot -- that's just to listen to the pitch.
Some people feel the same way about 5e 2024. I say groovy, enjoy that opinion. Just like we enjoy ours. It took us 25 years to get past just the fact a card company bought the game we love.
But do not insult us and tell us that we need to change the way we think about what we like and dislike.
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
Considering you think 3.5 is a looser system rules wise than 5e and almost everyone else on this thread thinks the opposite is it possible that the reason you think that is just because you’ve had almost 25 years with your preferred system and learnt what to ignore and when? You’re not as familiar with 5e so are hyper aware of every single rule you come across in exactly the same way that those of us that are used to 5e feel when we look at the sheer volume of rules in 3.5e. As I said previously my experience of Pathfinder was that every decision was met with the rule book coming out and being looked up but that might have just been because we thought there might be a rule, looked for it and found it. Meanwhile I’m far more familiar with 5e so don’t even bother looking
Just a thought but I can’t think of any other reason your view is so polar opposite the rest of us
I’ve played 3.5e and I like crunchy from time to time. 5e can be crunchy if you want more well defined rules, or it can be feather lite and have the bare minimum of rules use.
5e is that in-between that serves both styles, but I do wish there was more descriptive information in the published material that would help clarify some of the confusion that a good number of people have about the rules and game.
Different people have different taste, as they say “different strokes for different folks”. Some want crunchy and some don’t. I personally like the mid crunch 5e has, and while it could have a bit more crunch, it needs it in things other than just more player options, IMHO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Xalthu - "I really agree with cunningsmile. 3.x was all about rules, 5e has as its design philosophy, rulings not rules. I’ve been playing since 1e, and I really enjoy this edition just for that reason."
3.x is not about rules. It is all about rulings, but it gives tools to aid in making those rulings instead of just throwing you into the deep with no guidance.
This is especially handy given the use of mechanics as a form of description. DC 40 is meant to be something we consider borderline impossible in the real world. If you have a player making a long jump, where should you use DC 40? How far of a jump should be as difficult as breaking the world record of long jumps?
1) as a DM you can certainly go through the work of looking up the world record jump distances, and then figure out how to scale that to DCs. But 3.x did that for you already.
1b) why does this matter? Because of consistency and "believability." I know roughly the world record. If you told me it was only DC 30 to jump a 50' canyon when DC 40 is supposed to be the limit of real world achievement, then I'm going to have a really negative moment, because I know this is a load of horsepoop. But you as the DM may not know that. And among those who don't know the world records, the limit of what strains belief will vary. But with 3.x putting the numbers in the book, it means you don't gave to look it up and fit it to the system, and it means everyone is on the same page.
2) Consistency. With 3.x, if you need to set the DC for jumping a 20' gap one day, then 3 sessions later ypu need a DC for jumping a 25' gap, well some players are going to remember the DC you used the first time, and they'll be a bit miffed if you called for a lower DC the second time because you didn't bother remembering what DC you used the first time, especially if they failed that check and now another player with a lower bonus is getting an easier time to jump farther.
But if you do remember what DC you used the first time and try to maintain some consistency in your rulings, then you are basically doing what 3.x already did for you.
Do you see how in the above the mechanics are not be used as shackles, but instead are being used as guidelines, tools to aid the DM?
And yes, not everyone will care about consistency nor about believability. In fact, there are basically two types of people in the world, understanding first people, and emotion first people. Drama is largely an emotion thing, so emotion first people can thoroughly enjoy drama without any consistency or believability whatsoever. However, the understanding first people, like myself, feel emotions based on their understanding of things, so when inconsistencies and similar problems with believability show up, they interfere with the enjoyment of the drama.
So yea, emotion first people won't care, but honestly they'd be happier with pbta style rulesets (even if they don't know that just yet, and wotc really doesn't want them to find out).
Now understanding first people, they don't need things to be believable relative to the real world. Chess for example, certainly does not map to the real world. But the rules of Chess are not a description, they are prescriptive, a definition of how things work in Chess. Understanding first people can apply a similar mindset to a rpg, looking at the mechanics as a definition instead of guidelines and reference. When they do, the rpg is played more like a boardgame with story than a freeform rpg with game aids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a player from the old grognard era. Sort of. I got into playing when 3e first came out, but my original group started in the 80s, and my first DM, started in the 70s, among the first ever players.
So I got introduced with a very different mindset towards the game.
That said, I quickly joined a second group, while still playing with the first, and immediately dropped the second group.
The second group was almost antithetical to the first. They used the same rules though. This brought to light something for me. The rules are not the game. 4e proved that rules still matter though.
Thus, ever since my introduction to the game, I've been particularly aware of *how* the game is being played, outside the specific rules. Which brings to light things that the rules support or hinder that are usually missed by the community at large.
One thing that absolutely agree with Gygax about, there is playing the game, and then there is playing the mechanics, and they are NOT the same thing.
I still prefer 3.x, and am even making my own system inspired by 3.x, but the reason I like 3.x, is because it is not a system to be played on it's own. It is a system that is more like a play aid, a tool to aid in the interaction with the narrative world.
5e to me, seems much more designed for playing the mechanics. The thought behind things like the economics, demographics, how the common person in the fantasy world lives, etc, are inadequate by a large degree. Sure that means the GM is free to do what they want, but it also means they A) don't have any tools to do it with, and B) where the rules do touch on these aspects, such as the cost of things like potions, end up feeling even more like immutable constraints.
So, why do you like 5e? Have you ever played 3.x?
Fun fact, in the 3.x era, a GP was 1/25 an ounce of gold, and worth around $100 dollars in today's money. A potion costs 50gp, which for the fantasy world is very much like us paying $5000 dollars today. Commoners didn't exactly get to have Cure Light Wounds whenever they get injured.
I played 3.5. Mechnically, it was an awful lot of bookeeping. By the time I reached double digit levels, there were so many temporary buffs and bonuses to track I created a half-assed version of D&D Beyond in a spreadsheet to keep it all straight. Narratively, I found that having a rule for everything meant DM and players alike were inclined to just go with what the rules say instead of making a common sense ruling or doing whatever seemed more fun. It also meant the action came to a stop more often because we know there's a rule for climbing a slippery rope somewhere, so let's go look it up.
There are some things 5e does I'm not a fan of. I liked that casting spells mid-combat was risky. I think it's silly you can do things like apply Healer's Kits while an enemy is right next to you. But those are relatively minor issues in my eyes. It'd be far less effort for me to add a few restrictions to 5e's base rules than to try to pare down 3.5's rules to half the size (and I'd probably just end up with a crappier version of 5e if I tried, since I can't crowdsource a ton of playtesting like WotC.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd actually argue the opposite, how can 5e be about playing the mechanics when you admit yourself there aren't mechanics for lots of things? And it's exactly that light touch that appeals to me, there's rules for the bits I want to have rules (like combat) but everything else is left to the needs of the story. I haven't played 3e, although my introduction to TTRPG was Pathfinder 1e so I kind of have, but like Inquisitive I found the book keeping to be a nightmare. By higher levels there was far too much on my character sheet to track easily, feats that basically did nothing but I needed to take to access others I would use, and everything else outside of combat ground to a halt while we had to consult the rule book for everything we wanted to do. That was definitely playing the mechanics rather than playing the game
Yet in what seems like a mechanically heavy version, 5th edition is lite compared to 3.5ed.
And because there is not any hard fact “this the the only way to play” aspects of the way the mechanics actually allow a great deal of flexibility in crafting an adventure in a universe that can be drastically different from a prebuilt one.
That isn’t to say a prebuilt universe can’t be used as a foundation for expansion, and the general concept of the rules altered to the creators liking, and that’s the reason 5th edition IMHO is so popular and so well liked by those who play the game.
5th edition compared to 3.5ed is like watching 3.5ed go on a weight reduction plan and be lighter rules wise, flexible enough to allow some bending, and open enough to let a creator’s imagination run wild.
Of course any edition of D&D will do this but different taste for different folks!
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
In the groups I play in, we typically have two different types of player - I have players who enjoy the mechanical aspects of games and folks who would rather just toss together a character and throw some dice around. 5e is a system where both groups can be satisfied at the same time.
For the first group, there is just enough complexity in 5e's character creation options (multiclassing, choice of spells, feats, etc.) to keep those folks engaged as well as to provide them tactical options they can utilize during gameplay itself. However, while there is a degree of complexity here, most of that complexity is front-loaded and does not manifest within the game itself in terms of complex math and numerical comparisons to determine successes and failures. This ensures the second group still can have fun when actually playing.
That is why I enjoy this system - while I might be able to find more rules heavy systems/editions some of my players like more or more rules light systems the other players would like, 5e provides my groups a system everyone enjoys using when we sit around the table. It is the first edition of D&D my group has been through where everyone always seems to be having fun at every element of the game--in other versions, particularly the second group, sometimes felt aspects of the game design were a chore.
Just as a note, you had a critique of how rules light 5e was on certain aspects of the game, such as items. That is an incredibly fair critique and one Wizards is fully aware of--there is a reason a number of these issues are being specifically addressed by the 2024 DMG. Whether those updates are successful or not shall be seen in a few weeks.
I find it odd that people would stop playing to go look up a rule in a game that tells you not bother. And the idea that 3.5 is so much heavier than 5e, when 3/4s of the "rules" are just reference points that serve as mere aids to help GMs establish a plausible outcome relative to the real world, and absolutely not required.
Heck, I spent years trying to play the witch class in the core rulebooks. Do you know how many DMs know that there is a witch class in the core rulebooks? Practically none, certainly none I ever met. Guess where the witch class is, it is one of the examples in the DMG for how DMs can tell the rules to go suck it and make custom classes including unique ones specific to a particular player and not intended to be used by anyone else, because 3.x does not believe in following the rules. Massive amounts of the core content is literally just there to help you if you if you feel like it and totally encourages DMs to completely ignore anything they don't like or that slows down the game.
It kinda kills me that nearly all the critique is based on a mindset that is the opposite of what 3.x was trying to encourage.
So, InquisitiveCoder: So many temp buffs? You aren't supposed to use every single thing you can find. You are supposed to use enough to be fun and to make various encounters feel different. For example, thw Unstable Platform penalty, is great if the party is on a trip on a boat as it would make the fights on the boat feel like being on a boat actually mattered to the fight, but you should never use it for seafaring campaign. Many other things are likewise there to be used only when beneficial. If you actually stepped back and dropped all the extra there for advice, inspiration, or reference (as in, not needing to look up how far real world olympians can jump to help figure out plausible long jump DCs) then you'd be dropping the majority of the book and be left with a sleek and thin game system that would probably be much simpler than 5e.
At CunningSmile: How can I argue that 5e is about playing the mechanics, when it lacks mechanics for so much? Because playing the mechanics is not about how many mechanics are there, but rather it is about the role the mechanics have on the play of the game and specifically in the decision making of the players. Dissociated mechanics for example, require you to step outside the character, the role you are playing, in order to make choices bases on the mechanics that have no equivalence in the narrative world that your character would be considering. Just as an example. So, a system thay seems built around ypu making choices as a player rather than as your character, is playing the mechanics rather than playing "the game." 3.x had tons of reference material, but the mechanics were there largely to evoke the right feel in the right moments when used appropriately by the DM, but never to get between the player and thinking as thwir character would, and a character would be looking at the world around them for advantages, hence why the 3.x rules were so simulationist.
Paradox_Traveller, the ultimate flexibility is in not using a system at all, commonly known as freeform. If you want flexibility, why use a system at all? Well, the answer is different for many, but if you can't imagine playing the game without any mechanics and still seeming like the same game, then you are absolutely not the kind of player 3.x was designed for. Mechanics sometimes exist to be supporting tools, not constraints nor how-tos. 3.5 is all about flexibility, and it has more flexibility, and more DM advice on being flexible than any other system I've yet seen (except perhaps storytelling games like pbta). It is a mistake to equate rules with shackles. Yet I must admit that this maistake is so incredibly common that it seems nearly inescapable. Heck, part of the reason of my discussions on the matter is to seek out ways I can try to avoid having players make this mistake with my system, because I find 3.x as a tool not only useful, but uniquely equipped for me to use a system at all. Except for pf1, no other system I've played has the tools I want thus I would rather play freeform than any other system because every other system completely and entirely fails at being a tool I find useful in play. But no one else calls mechanics tools, and I don't know why. (No one else meaning people in the last 15 years. Mu old groups had similar mindset and ideas of play, but I can't find players like that anymore.)
Caerwyn, my critique is not about being rules light on items. It is the mindset behind how such things are handled. As I'm working through 5e, I feel more like they are the rules of a boardgame than a roleplaying game. The mechanics seem designed to have my focus on the mechanics rather than seeing past the mechanics to the narrative world in the way you look past my english writing to the ideas I convey with my english writing. It's like a conversation where people are so concerned with your grammer they don't even notice the topic you are speaking about. 5e feels like that to me. 3.x is a system where once you have system mastery, it can fade into the background and work like a language does, a simple conveyance between players and the narrative world.
Anyway, thank you all for the answers. I actually got some insightful responses for once. Have fun!
I'm very happy that you enjoy 3.5 but what you're describing here about being forced out of character is exactly what my experience of Pathfinder was and exactly what I rarely experience playing 5e. As I said the fact Pathfinder has rules for everything meant we were very very aware of the fact there were rules, that's 100% a player thing not a character thing. By contrast all my experiences of 5e have been very much players in character making decisons because they know the DM isn't going to spring some obscure rule they've never heard of on them but instead just narrate what happens.
It probably says a lot about either the way these games are designed or the mindset of players that both of us think the other version is really bad at exactly the same thing
So the understanding of the reply is if the ultimate flex is not to flex at all, then why the question of why do people like 5e?
Imho, 5e is just a simplified version of 3.5e and gives even more flex in both DM and player creation and creativity by not setting rigid limits or rules on certain aspects of play that make every experience different and unique.
While 3.5e was an improvement over 2e, by switching the mechanics from a D6 system to a new D20 system, simplifying the math and allowing for greater flexibility in the way the game can be designed and played uniquely by individual groups, but still stiff enough to ensure that the base rules are consistent enough to allow players and DM’s to simply jump into a majority of different versions of an adventure.
There may be some kind of initial adjustment that both player and DM has to make, but ultimately the systems are basically the same, the real difference between the two is that 5e is more sandbox friendly in the fact that it is so minimalistic yet diverse in its ability to accommodate different styles of play.
Sure we would all love to see a system that can do it all ; define all-and or do all for us, but then everyone would be doing the same thing with no problems and no creativity and no fun or challenges to explore or excite the people who play or DM.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I have never played 3.x at table-top. My only experience with it was with Neverwinter Nights. I did buy the core books at one point, but I wasn't really invested enough to read it and get back into D&D. I played 1st and 2nd up until I was 23 then quit cause I had other things going on in life. I came back to D&D as a player 2 years ago to 5e. I love 5e. I think that it made D&D easy to get into and, imo, it gives so many options to really flesh out your characters. 1e and 2e had profiencies and such. 2e had more of them due to the Complete Handbook edition of books for the classes and races (yes it is still races to me lol). But 5e with the subclasses, feats and backgrounds are fantastic. Now is everything perfect? No. There is still room for improvement. In fact, some of the improvements they made in 5.24e are disappointing (looking at you Paladin Smite). But overall, I love 5e.
I really agree with cunningsmile. 3.x was all about rules, 5e has as its design philosophy, rulings not rules. I’ve been playing since 1e, and I really enjoy this edition just for that reason.
In 3.x, the designers thought one of the reasons D&D wasn’t really popular was bad DMs. A bad DM would abuse their power make willy-nilly rulings and as a result, players didn’t have fun. So 3.x piled on rules for every situation in an effort to protect players from those bad DMs. If something happened, there was a rule somewhere in some book that would tell you what to do so the DM couldn’t be mean. 5e took a step back from that and trusts DMs to make the game fun.
Also, 3.x really rewarded system mastery, and punished those without it. The gap between an optimized character and an un-optimized character was enormous. There’s still a gap in 5e, certainly, but it’s nothing compared to 3.x. Which also means rules, the more rules you knew, the better your character would be.
As to the OP’s issue with a lack of things like economic or demographic information, those are going to be setting specific. The default setting for 5e is the multiverse, so there’s no way they could include it. That sort of thing belongs in setting books, which is where it is as far as I know.
I started with AD&D 1st edition 2nd cover. The older I get the simpler I like things. Thus, I do like what feels like simplicity to me with 5e. I also think the style doesn't make the fighter, the fighter makes the style. The game is what the player(s) and DM make it.
I started in 1979.
by 1998, my regular group was 23 players large, friends who had been playing since 1980.
We collectively consider 3.x to be the worst version of the game ever produced. We stayed with 2e for what ended up being 25 year as a direct result of how bad 3.x ws to us.
However, that has a strong tendency to make old 1e era folks itchy when you play with rules and don't tweak them, and so we tweaked and tweaked and we loved the game we were playing when 5e came out.
We are now a group of 53 people, and we like 5e because it allows us to play thee game we love in a way that is a really nice blend of what we tweaked and the current rule set -- it's why a whole separate group of people decided to join our group, bringing it up to its current number.
They are rules that enable us to keep the members of our group who are younger -- and we range from 12 to 60, with grandkids and kids learning in special 6 to 12 games -- so that we can continue to have them find joy and friendship in what is now touching three generations across 7 families.
And better yet, the game doesn't have the things that caused a lot of our tweaking and twisting and refusal to use officially published stuff. Since we are mostly women, queer, and PoC.
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
It's a nice blend of rules and rulings for my tastes while also being a game that focuses on story and narrative.
3e and Pathfinder really leaned into the rules. Rule 0 was minimized and there was this harder idea that the world was made of numbers and the DM was "cheating" if they didn't use the DCs in the book or use the rules. And there was just far more ways for the players to just "win" via rule loopholes and clever combos. When running Pathfinder I often felt I was more a rules adjudicator than a DM, presenting the encounter and then just running through the math. It was, as the OP describes, playing the mechanics not playing the game.
4e was much more of a board game in my mind. It was much more gamist, with powers having a board game/ card game aesthetic. It was much more of a tactical game, than the strategic game that 3e was. The story and flavour was almost vestigial. Which would be fine if I wanted to tell a heroic fantasy game with 3-5 encounters in a delve, but I liked different pacing to my campaigns and 4e was a square peg that wouldn't fit in my round GMing hole.
Plus I just didn't like the encounter-based design. It made it harder to wear down and exhaust characters. Encounters only had one fail condition: death. So long as you lived you'd heal up and largely be in fighting shape the next encounter with refreshed Encounter powers and new Magic Item uses.
And, in general, the rule-dense games just made for a harder game to hack. If you removed magic items to avoid the treasure treadmill then there were a ripple of other effects. If you replaced hit points with Vitality and Wounds then there were dozens of feats and class features to work around.
5e had enough build options and variety to keep my munchkin players happy. But the focus on rulings rather than hard rules gave me more wiggle room to adjudicate. I can put the story first and not have to worry about being "well, actually..."-ed by a rules lawyer.
It had a simpler core and fewer assumptions of gameplay. And it was designed and balanced around the adventuring day and not the encounter, which I appreciated.
And the game doesn't make the same assumptions of demographics and magic items and the frequency of spellcasters as 3e. I can do low magic settings. And I can do games where the magic items feel special and not just like another character option that is part of your build.
Lots more interesting answers, yet still everyone seems to equate more mechanics with needing to stick tighter to following rules.
My examination of 3.5 has always led to the conclusion that the mechanics are like the grid on grid paper.
No one uses grid paper and thinks they can only draw on the lines, nor does anyone look at gridpaper and think the grid is the drawing you bought the paper to look at. Nope. Instead everyone gets that the grid on gridpaper is a handy reference frame, a tool to make it easier to draw whatever other figure they are trying to draw, curves and weird angles welcome.
I analyze 3.5 and the only conclusion I can get is that 3.5 uses mechanics like the grid on gridpaper. The mechanics are intended to provide a frame of reference to make rulings and campaign, party, or even PC specific adjustments easier to make, easier to figure out the plausible societal impact, and most importantly, easier to maintain a sense of consistency.
Yet few see 3.5 that way, and the number who do seems to continuously shrink, which I think is bad because this is what 3.x does the best. It is 3.x's best done attribute. The one thing the few other systems come close to matching.
It is also one of the key traits I desire for my own systems, so much so that I don't bother designing systems without this trait because I won't use a system without this, not for an rpg experience anyway, because I'd rather play freeform.
I ask why people prefer 5e because I'm looking for hints of the mindset. More than a hint, people seem to default to the assumption that more mechanics means ironclad rules. What I really need to know now is how to get people away from that mindset when I present my systems. How can I go "here are a bunch of mechanics, but they are merely tools to help you. Ignore them unless you need them." Clearly 3.x failed at this despite practically screaming it in the DMG.
3.5 doesn't so much make assumptions as it makes a grid, it says "here is where the numbers balance out." Then it gives tons of advice on using that grid as a mere reference upon which you can draw what you want, such as the witch class that no one knows about that is in the core DMG (yes I'm kinda sore about the fact that I've literally tried to use the witch class over a dozen times and not a single DM read the DMG enough to know it even existed. And none were comfortable enough with tweaking rules to use a literal textbook example on tweaking rules.).
As I read 5e, it seems to pull in stuff from earlier editions. I admit to being surprised to find the 10' pole in the 5e equipment list. Why am I surprised? Because the structure of 5e screams "plays the mechanics" so strongly that I really can't imagine how to use a 10' pole without just ignoring the existence of the mechanics. The rules seem tailor made to encourage examining your sheet first for a solution to any problem, and doing something old school like using a pole only when your party is lacking something mechanical to handle the problem, such as when not bringing a traphandler. I certainly don't look at these classes and imagine how I can make my own class, but rather I look at these classes and see only meta mechanics behind them.
When I look at 3.5 I can see where the different levels and powers fit into the overall structure of the world the game takes place in. Heck, I look around the real world and see how to describe it all in 3.5 mechanics and numbers, because 3.5 is made that way, it is designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. But in 5e, what level are navy seals? No Idea. No clue. 5e doesn't seem to convey that sort of equivalence, it doesn't want to be descriptive in that way. I have to look at the heritage drawn from 3.5 to notice that the proficiency bonus is essentially what 3.5 would call level, but then other aspects of 5e don't line up anymore with that. It just fails to work. And 5e is clearly trying to not fit on the 3.5 base. It clearly is not wanting to be simulationist or even be equated with any objective measure of the world milieu.
Heck, in the 2024 version they are even removing the racial stat bonuses. In 3.x, how did you know that orcs were on average stronger than humans on average, and by how much? The orc's bonus to strength. That mechanic was literally and explicitly telling you the level of strength that is normal for orcs. PCs didn't have to be normal, that wasn't what the mechanic was there for.
But 5e 2024, no more. Now the fact that orcs are normally stronger than humans, is not only by an unspecified amount (because no mechanics measure it anymore), but it is just this fluff lore that you hang on the mechanics like you're dressing up a robot with a dress and calling it real live girl. The dress does not make a robot a real live person, and you can put whatever lore you want on a mechanic when the mechanic itself says nothing about the lore, but that is also 5e's weakness and why I won't use it. If the mechanics cannot convey that orcs are 40% stronger than humans, then that puts the burdan on me to take time away from the narrative to demonstrate and convey that fact in the story somewhere, or to just ignore that orcs are stronger and leave that detail unknown which could be a problem, either because it leads to players making a choice under the assumption that orcs are equal in strength to humans, or in having a lore detail that remains unknown until much later where it feels like a pointless retcon when the players finally find out, which becomes a negative moment.
Honestly, I feel a lot like people are claiming that a blank sheet of paper is better than gridpaper for mapping your dungeon because you don't have lines telling you where to draw.
And I know 5e is not nearly as bad as 4e is on that front, but it's still the same mindset, just not as extreme. People claiming that 5e is more flexible because it lacks tools.
Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that people can't see mechanics as tools unless introduced in a specific way. Certainly those I and some of my early DMs introduced new players who got the idea quite easily. Perhaps players just need to be taught to see the rules as such.
But there is a wrinkle there, experienced players have a harder time getting the idea. Indeed, it seems that the longer they have played without understanding this concept, the harder it is for them to be taught this concept.
And I'm desperately searching for how I can break this odd mindset to convey that the existence of mechanics are a tool, not a shackle. (With a little bit of seeking improvements as well. If people started talking about the infinite cantrips being a big reason to switch, I'd absolutely make that work). My systems, like 3.5, are toolboxes, like the grid on gridpaper, not the lines in a coloring book.
I ask why people like 5e, because I want to know more about this mindset of seeing rules as barriers, so I can break that mindset when introducing my system. I don't care if people play 5e with that mindset, but my system, they should at least understand how it is intended to played even if they don't play it that way. And more than that, the current mindset is a limitation that should absolutely be broken. It's like saying movies can only be comedies. That's patently absurd, but this mindset that seems to be the default is similarly limiting.
It sounds like the problem is that you're trying to break the mindset of people who enjoy playing 5E. Don't be a yumyucker.
Also, from your complaints about orc strength it sounds an awful lot like you don't like 5E because it doesn't maintain tired old stereotypes. Now I think about it, this specific gripe undercuts your assertion that 5E is about playing to the mechanics even more.
Honestly I'm really not finding any consistency in your argument. And I'm wondering why you're even making an argument against people enjoying 5E.
Different strokes for different folks. I liked AD&D 2E back in the day, I thought 4E was perfectly cromulent, and I love 5E (both 2014 and 2024). I didn't particularly like 3/3.5E, but I'm not going to yuck your yum over it, or argue that you're enjoying it wrong.
I don't think this is an entirely fair take on the situation. The way I see it is that you and the people who like 5e in this thread like the same thing: being free to choose their adventure and adventurers as they see fit. The difference is that you have a way of thinking that easily allows you to see the crunch as an a la carte menu or a buffet. The people who like 5e like it because it's more of a kitchen: the food isn't made yet besides the pre-packaged stuff in the fridge. If you want to add crunch, you have to make it from scratch. FWIW, the new DMG seems to give some guidance here and based on the video there does seem to be a bit more crunch in it than the 2014 one.
In fact, I actually think your grid paper analogy is a pretty good one. The grid is a tool, a reference, but it's there in your final product. You can't erase it. The players know it's there even if you aren't expressly using it. 5e is more of a blank paper, sure, but ask any artist what they actually want to draw/paint on for a final product and very few will take the grid paper over the blank canvas. Perhaps the "problem" is simply that the majority of people (players and DMs alike) see crunch as not-so-optional, and would rather do it themselves if they are to do it at all.
As for the orc vs human thing... I used the think the same thing, but I've now changed how I think about it. You don't need the +2 STR on the orc species to denote that Orcs are, on average, stronger than humans because neither an orc PC nor a human PC are average and stat bonuses were for PCs; it has no place there when the vast majority of PCs are meant to be extraordinary in some way. NPC stat blocks could convey that, if they want, I guess, by giving your random orc a STR of 12 while a random human has a STR of 10, and I think as long as you stick to the physical stats, it might be more palatable, but putting the PC stat bonuses on backgrounds makes more sense to me. That said, I'd assume most NPC stat blocks also have some kind of "profession" attached to it (Orc soldier, or something like that), which would also tweak the stats.
So, bluntly, it is not "ironclad rules" it is *too many rules*.
3.5 is a Hard Crunchy game. It has a lot of rules. What people are saying is they want fewer rules, they do not like having a lot of rules, they do not want Crunchy rules.
Yes. That is intentional. They drew from 4e and 2e instead of 3e. They even talk about it.
Well, good news: most people don't think of them as a shackle. But they also don't think of them as a tool unless they happen to need that tool at that moment, and in that way -- in which case, they will go out and pick one up at the tool store.
They think of those rules as a waste of time, energy, and space for the purposes they have for the game. Not all people -- plenty of folks still play Pathfinder, and you will still see people talking about it and suggesting it, and that's where most of the 3.5 folks went during the 4e era.
But the reason that D&D has grown so much over the last decade is because the rules are NOT at all like Pathfinder or 3.5. Those rules turn people off, and make them not want to play the game. Hell, someone who likes medium crunch - something in between 3.5 and 5.5, say, folks even are turned away from that.
They are still using graph paper. They are still drawing and they are not limited by the lines.
They are just using 30mm grid squares and you are using 3mm grid squares. You would like them to use the 3mm, and they see that and wonder if they can move to the 300mm grid.
The cost to get me or my folks to sit down and listen to someone explain how we should give 3.5 another chance would likely be in the several millions of dollars per hour range. Not a joke, not an exaggeration. It is that strongly disliked. And they would not guarantee that they would still give it a shot -- that's just to listen to the pitch.
Some people feel the same way about 5e 2024. I say groovy, enjoy that opinion. Just like we enjoy ours. It took us 25 years to get past just the fact a card company bought the game we love.
But do not insult us and tell us that we need to change the way we think about what we like and dislike.
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
@Sandee
Considering you think 3.5 is a looser system rules wise than 5e and almost everyone else on this thread thinks the opposite is it possible that the reason you think that is just because you’ve had almost 25 years with your preferred system and learnt what to ignore and when? You’re not as familiar with 5e so are hyper aware of every single rule you come across in exactly the same way that those of us that are used to 5e feel when we look at the sheer volume of rules in 3.5e. As I said previously my experience of Pathfinder was that every decision was met with the rule book coming out and being looked up but that might have just been because we thought there might be a rule, looked for it and found it. Meanwhile I’m far more familiar with 5e so don’t even bother looking
Just a thought but I can’t think of any other reason your view is so polar opposite the rest of us
I’ve played 3.5e and I like crunchy from time to time. 5e can be crunchy if you want more well defined rules, or it can be feather lite and have the bare minimum of rules use.
5e is that in-between that serves both styles, but I do wish there was more descriptive information in the published material that would help clarify some of the confusion that a good number of people have about the rules and game.
Different people have different taste, as they say “different strokes for different folks”. Some want crunchy and some don’t.
I personally like the mid crunch 5e has, and while it could have a bit more crunch, it needs it in things other than just more player options, IMHO.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Xalthu - "I really agree with cunningsmile. 3.x was all about rules, 5e has as its design philosophy, rulings not rules. I’ve been playing since 1e, and I really enjoy this edition just for that reason."
3.x is not about rules. It is all about rulings, but it gives tools to aid in making those rulings instead of just throwing you into the deep with no guidance.
This is especially handy given the use of mechanics as a form of description. DC 40 is meant to be something we consider borderline impossible in the real world. If you have a player making a long jump, where should you use DC 40? How far of a jump should be as difficult as breaking the world record of long jumps?
1) as a DM you can certainly go through the work of looking up the world record jump distances, and then figure out how to scale that to DCs. But 3.x did that for you already.
1b) why does this matter? Because of consistency and "believability." I know roughly the world record. If you told me it was only DC 30 to jump a 50' canyon when DC 40 is supposed to be the limit of real world achievement, then I'm going to have a really negative moment, because I know this is a load of horsepoop. But you as the DM may not know that. And among those who don't know the world records, the limit of what strains belief will vary. But with 3.x putting the numbers in the book, it means you don't gave to look it up and fit it to the system, and it means everyone is on the same page.
2) Consistency. With 3.x, if you need to set the DC for jumping a 20' gap one day, then 3 sessions later ypu need a DC for jumping a 25' gap, well some players are going to remember the DC you used the first time, and they'll be a bit miffed if you called for a lower DC the second time because you didn't bother remembering what DC you used the first time, especially if they failed that check and now another player with a lower bonus is getting an easier time to jump farther.
But if you do remember what DC you used the first time and try to maintain some consistency in your rulings, then you are basically doing what 3.x already did for you.
Do you see how in the above the mechanics are not be used as shackles, but instead are being used as guidelines, tools to aid the DM?
And yes, not everyone will care about consistency nor about believability. In fact, there are basically two types of people in the world, understanding first people, and emotion first people. Drama is largely an emotion thing, so emotion first people can thoroughly enjoy drama without any consistency or believability whatsoever. However, the understanding first people, like myself, feel emotions based on their understanding of things, so when inconsistencies and similar problems with believability show up, they interfere with the enjoyment of the drama.
So yea, emotion first people won't care, but honestly they'd be happier with pbta style rulesets (even if they don't know that just yet, and wotc really doesn't want them to find out).
Now understanding first people, they don't need things to be believable relative to the real world. Chess for example, certainly does not map to the real world. But the rules of Chess are not a description, they are prescriptive, a definition of how things work in Chess. Understanding first people can apply a similar mindset to a rpg, looking at the mechanics as a definition instead of guidelines and reference. When they do, the rpg is played more like a boardgame with story than a freeform rpg with game aids.