Now that we've had a chance to delve into the treasures of the new Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, I'm eager to hear your thoughts!
I must admit, I'm finding the system a bit simplified (perhaps a tad too much?).
Many of the optional rules we cherished in the previous Dungeon Master's Guide seem to have vanished into the ethereal plane. While this might make the game more accessible for newcomers, I worry that us seasoned veterans might be left yearning for a bit more depth and complexity.
What are your impressions, fellow dungeon delvers?
My gaming group has been probing me with the same questions after 5 sessions of running 5th edition D&D, which we started after having run a variety of games including Forbidden Lands, Old School Essentials (using Dolmenwood) and games like Alien RPG and Start Trek Adventures.
I think their questioning has a built in opinion that is something of a consensus and reflected in your question as well which is basically them saying "don't you think that 5e is too generic and to simple?".
Which is weird because most of the systems like Forbidden Lands and Dolmenwood for example are even simpler mechanically than 5e, but I think what they are driving at is that these other games we ran had a very specific, mechanically connected, setting that was really fleshed out-out of the box, so it was more detail oriented and also a lot more free-form.
For example with Dolmenwood you have a crazy amount of detail about each species in the game, where they are from, what their culture is about, what sorts of habits they have, what form of government their culture has, how they think etc... I mean that players handbook is exceedingly detail. Their is even detailed lists on types of tobacco you can smoke, where it comes from and how it tastes..
Point is that there are very tangible, story driven links to everything be it a species, class and everything else about the setting. Its a very specific fantasy game.
5e on the other hand is, at least out of the box, exceedingly generic and there is really nothing specific from a fantasy angle about being an Elf, or being a Wizard... these are generic concepts, with generic fantasy with generic narrative connections to the mechanic and it takes a lot of work on the part of the DM to bring the flavor of a setting to the forefront as its not really built into the game itself. This from a player perspective means that as they look through the players handbook and pick halfling as their species, that doesn't actually tell them anything about what it means to be a halfling.. like its a very generic concept in 5e whereas in other games, being a halfing (for example in Forbidden Lands) had a very specific, very distinct narrative behind it.
Its here where I think modern D&D is a lot harder for players to get into it, like there is no built in setting or story to the game, its intentionally a generic fantasy game and it takes a tremendous amount of work to weave a setting and narrative definition into the game. The system is not designed to be anything specific and in fact its so generic, by default its a game that is really not about anything.
Its all just theory of course, but yeah, right now I think the consensus is that before D&D under 5e becomes "fun", we need more definition for things. My goal has been to write my own setting and to infuse and enrich the game with the setting but I have to be honest, I don't think its going to last.
My players are eager to get back to Dolmenwood for example because they know that this is a narratively rich setting and the game system is specifically design to support the themes, tone and playstyle of the setting. They want those narrative connections and I struggle to make that be a part of the 5e game. So I suspect my trek through 5e is probably going to be as short as it was with the 2014 version.
Its just too much work to get the experience at the table to where it needs to be with the system. I think mechanically its a fine system, but yeah... just too generic narratively. Feels pretty empty.
My gaming group has been probing me with the same questions after 5 sessions of running 5th edition D&D, which we started after having run a variety of games including Forbidden Lands, Old School Essentials (using Dolmenwood) and games like Alien RPG and Start Trek Adventures.
This is a tangent, but I did furrow my brow when you mentioned Star Trek Adventures as though it's a counterexample of genericness. It's based on the 2d20 system and is pretty much the epitome of being generic, pretty much none of the mechanics tie in specifically to the franchise really, and the game unfortunately suffers for it. It's more generic than 5e is in my view. I'd suspect similar for Aliens (being based on another generic engine, YZE), but I've not actually played it to make that judgement, so it could be they've made modifications, unlike STA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My gaming group has been probing me with the same questions after 5 sessions of running 5th edition D&D, which we started after having run a variety of games including Forbidden Lands, Old School Essentials (using Dolmenwood) and games like Alien RPG and Start Trek Adventures.
This is a tangent, but I did furrow my brow when you mentioned Star Trek Adventures as though it's a counterexample of genericness. It's based on the 2d20 system and is pretty much the epitome of being generic, pretty much none of the mechanics tie in specifically to the franchise really, and the game unfortunately suffers for it. It's more generic than 5e is in my view. I'd suspect similar for Aliens (being based on another generic engine, YZE), but I've not actually played it to make that judgement, so it could be they've made modifications, unlike STA.
Well I would argue its a matter of perspective. I don't think players generally understand or make the connection while playing a game as to whether or not a mechanic is truly linked or inherently generic, but in a game where the setting is hyper defined, the connection is made none the less.
There is a big difference for example to be a "Fighter" in a generic fantasy game and a "Samurai" in a Legend of the Five Rings RPG, even if both are based on the same mechanics. Players will make connections that might or might not exist.
What I think happens is that if you have a detailed setting in a players handbook where these connections are kind of made for you, even if the mechanics aren't different, to the players that connection is there.
Dolmenwood is a great example of this, while it does have very setting specific things, for all intense and purposes a fighter in Dolmenwood is the same as a Fighter in any other Old School Essentials game. Yet, the way the book defines what a fighter is in the context of the setting, those details blossom to give a very distinct imagery.
So I guess what I'm saying is that the setting specific games, real or imagined, create a foundation for a mechanic to narrative connection. Certainly many of these games do in fact adapt mechanics for settings but as you point out, this is not always the case, sometimes its just smoke and mirrors.
My point stands though that running 5e using the Players Handbook which very intentionally includes a none-distinct generic fantasy setting, its a much harder leap for the players and I think this is where the sentiment from players about 5e being generic and uninspired comes from.
Its a role-playing game, an inherently narrative-story driven game that really offers very little in the way of story/narrative to players in the book that describes what things are and how you create characters etc...
The game would be on better footing if it committed to say Forgotten Realms narratively and really fueled the writing with setting specific material and then simply said "hey you can re-flavor this however you want". Then it would be easier for players because most games of D&D would probably take place in the Forgotten Realms as this would require the least amount of effort on the DM's part to get that narrative into the minds of the players and have them make the setting to game connection.
It would not have affected anyones ability to layer a different setting onto 5e, but with a base setting clearly defined as part of the Players Handbook, it would make things easier for the DM's and players that don't want to take that extra creative step, yet still have a firmly defined narrative game in a specific fantasy setting.
Same principle that Pathfinder uses. Its a fantasy game and you can use any setting with it, but the game itself has a defined setting and most people just play in that setting and don't bother with the re-flavoring. It works much better that way in my opinion.
My gaming group has been probing me with the same questions after 5 sessions of running 5th edition D&D, which we started after having run a variety of games including Forbidden Lands, Old School Essentials (using Dolmenwood) and games like Alien RPG and Start Trek Adventures.
I think their questioning has a built in opinion that is something of a consensus and reflected in your question as well which is basically them saying "don't you think that 5e is too generic and to simple?".
Which is weird because most of the systems like Forbidden Lands and Dolmenwood for example are even simpler mechanically than 5e, but I think what they are driving at is that these other games we ran had a very specific, mechanically connected, setting that was really fleshed out-out of the box, so it was more detail oriented and also a lot more free-form.
For example with Dolmenwood you have a crazy amount of detail about each species in the game, where they are from, what their culture is about, what sorts of habits they have, what form of government their culture has, how they think etc... I mean that players handbook is exceedingly detail. Their is even detailed lists on types of tobacco you can smoke, where it comes from and how it tastes..
Point is that there are very tangible, story driven links to everything be it a species, class and everything else about the setting. Its a very specific fantasy game.
5e on the other hand is, at least out of the box, exceedingly generic and there is really nothing specific from a fantasy angle about being an Elf, or being a Wizard... these are generic concepts, with generic fantasy with generic narrative connections to the mechanic and it takes a lot of work on the part of the DM to bring the flavor of a setting to the forefront as its not really built into the game itself. This from a player perspective means that as they look through the players handbook and pick halfling as their species, that doesn't actually tell them anything about what it means to be a halfling.. like its a very generic concept in 5e whereas in other games, being a halfing (for example in Forbidden Lands) had a very specific, very distinct narrative behind it.
Its here where I think modern D&D is a lot harder for players to get into it, like there is no built in setting or story to the game, its intentionally a generic fantasy game and it takes a tremendous amount of work to weave a setting and narrative definition into the game. The system is not designed to be anything specific and in fact its so generic, by default its a game that is really not about anything.
Its all just theory of course, but yeah, right now I think the consensus is that before D&D under 5e becomes "fun", we need more definition for things. My goal has been to write my own setting and to infuse and enrich the game with the setting but I have to be honest, I don't think its going to last.
My players are eager to get back to Dolmenwood for example because they know that this is a narratively rich setting and the game system is specifically design to support the themes, tone and playstyle of the setting. They want those narrative connections and I struggle to make that be a part of the 5e game. So I suspect my trek through 5e is probably going to be as short as it was with the 2014 version.
Its just too much work to get the experience at the table to where it needs to be with the system. I think mechanically its a fine system, but yeah... just too generic narratively. Feels pretty empty.
I'm a much newer player and DM, under 5 years, and so are all my players which might account for the difference in perspective but we find the opposite. We don't look to mechanics to define characters, we look to lore for the setting. The 2014 rules very heavily favoured Faerun as a setting with most of the species traits linking directly to that which then caused a a jarring effect when trying to run another setting. With 2024 that link has been broken, what you see as being generic we've all seen as flexibility to create characters that fit the setting we're using without having to ignore bits that link to a different setting
My thoughts about D&D 5E24 is that it's a ruleset i like for the most part and find as much fun as 5E14 but of course there's things i prefer between one another.
If 5E24 came out 10 years ago, it'd probably still play it to this day.
I'm good with it. Many of the changes remind me of the switch from 1st edition AD&D to 2nd edition AD&D. Homebrew things and sensible changes that improved the rules structure. Familiar in a good way with new good stuff for my table.
My gaming circle loves it so far. We chose to go with custom backgrounds, but otherwise play pretty much straight 5.24 rules. There are only about 30 in our circle of friends and family that play so make of that what you will.
Many of the optional rules we cherished in the previous Dungeon Master's Guide seem to have vanished into the ethereal plane. While this might make the game more accessible for newcomers, I worry that us seasoned veterans might be left yearning for a bit more depth and complexity.
What are your impressions, fellow dungeon delvers?
Were newcomers really using optional rules that much? I'd think most new people would want to run the game as written before tweaking it. Optional rules are good material for a supplement later down the line. That would also give them more time to avoid or tweak the poorly-thought-out ones like 2014 Flanking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Greetings, fellow adventurers!
Now that we've had a chance to delve into the treasures of the new Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, I'm eager to hear your thoughts!
I must admit, I'm finding the system a bit simplified (perhaps a tad too much?).
Many of the optional rules we cherished in the previous Dungeon Master's Guide seem to have vanished into the ethereal plane. While this might make the game more accessible for newcomers, I worry that us seasoned veterans might be left yearning for a bit more depth and complexity.
What are your impressions, fellow dungeon delvers?
My gaming group has been probing me with the same questions after 5 sessions of running 5th edition D&D, which we started after having run a variety of games including Forbidden Lands, Old School Essentials (using Dolmenwood) and games like Alien RPG and Start Trek Adventures.
I think their questioning has a built in opinion that is something of a consensus and reflected in your question as well which is basically them saying "don't you think that 5e is too generic and to simple?".
Which is weird because most of the systems like Forbidden Lands and Dolmenwood for example are even simpler mechanically than 5e, but I think what they are driving at is that these other games we ran had a very specific, mechanically connected, setting that was really fleshed out-out of the box, so it was more detail oriented and also a lot more free-form.
For example with Dolmenwood you have a crazy amount of detail about each species in the game, where they are from, what their culture is about, what sorts of habits they have, what form of government their culture has, how they think etc... I mean that players handbook is exceedingly detail. Their is even detailed lists on types of tobacco you can smoke, where it comes from and how it tastes..
Point is that there are very tangible, story driven links to everything be it a species, class and everything else about the setting. Its a very specific fantasy game.
5e on the other hand is, at least out of the box, exceedingly generic and there is really nothing specific from a fantasy angle about being an Elf, or being a Wizard... these are generic concepts, with generic fantasy with generic narrative connections to the mechanic and it takes a lot of work on the part of the DM to bring the flavor of a setting to the forefront as its not really built into the game itself. This from a player perspective means that as they look through the players handbook and pick halfling as their species, that doesn't actually tell them anything about what it means to be a halfling.. like its a very generic concept in 5e whereas in other games, being a halfing (for example in Forbidden Lands) had a very specific, very distinct narrative behind it.
Its here where I think modern D&D is a lot harder for players to get into it, like there is no built in setting or story to the game, its intentionally a generic fantasy game and it takes a tremendous amount of work to weave a setting and narrative definition into the game. The system is not designed to be anything specific and in fact its so generic, by default its a game that is really not about anything.
Its all just theory of course, but yeah, right now I think the consensus is that before D&D under 5e becomes "fun", we need more definition for things. My goal has been to write my own setting and to infuse and enrich the game with the setting but I have to be honest, I don't think its going to last.
My players are eager to get back to Dolmenwood for example because they know that this is a narratively rich setting and the game system is specifically design to support the themes, tone and playstyle of the setting. They want those narrative connections and I struggle to make that be a part of the 5e game. So I suspect my trek through 5e is probably going to be as short as it was with the 2014 version.
Its just too much work to get the experience at the table to where it needs to be with the system. I think mechanically its a fine system, but yeah... just too generic narratively. Feels pretty empty.
This is a tangent, but I did furrow my brow when you mentioned Star Trek Adventures as though it's a counterexample of genericness. It's based on the 2d20 system and is pretty much the epitome of being generic, pretty much none of the mechanics tie in specifically to the franchise really, and the game unfortunately suffers for it. It's more generic than 5e is in my view. I'd suspect similar for Aliens (being based on another generic engine, YZE), but I've not actually played it to make that judgement, so it could be they've made modifications, unlike STA.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well I would argue its a matter of perspective. I don't think players generally understand or make the connection while playing a game as to whether or not a mechanic is truly linked or inherently generic, but in a game where the setting is hyper defined, the connection is made none the less.
There is a big difference for example to be a "Fighter" in a generic fantasy game and a "Samurai" in a Legend of the Five Rings RPG, even if both are based on the same mechanics. Players will make connections that might or might not exist.
What I think happens is that if you have a detailed setting in a players handbook where these connections are kind of made for you, even if the mechanics aren't different, to the players that connection is there.
Dolmenwood is a great example of this, while it does have very setting specific things, for all intense and purposes a fighter in Dolmenwood is the same as a Fighter in any other Old School Essentials game. Yet, the way the book defines what a fighter is in the context of the setting, those details blossom to give a very distinct imagery.
So I guess what I'm saying is that the setting specific games, real or imagined, create a foundation for a mechanic to narrative connection. Certainly many of these games do in fact adapt mechanics for settings but as you point out, this is not always the case, sometimes its just smoke and mirrors.
My point stands though that running 5e using the Players Handbook which very intentionally includes a none-distinct generic fantasy setting, its a much harder leap for the players and I think this is where the sentiment from players about 5e being generic and uninspired comes from.
Its a role-playing game, an inherently narrative-story driven game that really offers very little in the way of story/narrative to players in the book that describes what things are and how you create characters etc...
The game would be on better footing if it committed to say Forgotten Realms narratively and really fueled the writing with setting specific material and then simply said "hey you can re-flavor this however you want". Then it would be easier for players because most games of D&D would probably take place in the Forgotten Realms as this would require the least amount of effort on the DM's part to get that narrative into the minds of the players and have them make the setting to game connection.
It would not have affected anyones ability to layer a different setting onto 5e, but with a base setting clearly defined as part of the Players Handbook, it would make things easier for the DM's and players that don't want to take that extra creative step, yet still have a firmly defined narrative game in a specific fantasy setting.
Same principle that Pathfinder uses. Its a fantasy game and you can use any setting with it, but the game itself has a defined setting and most people just play in that setting and don't bother with the re-flavoring. It works much better that way in my opinion.
I'm a much newer player and DM, under 5 years, and so are all my players which might account for the difference in perspective but we find the opposite. We don't look to mechanics to define characters, we look to lore for the setting. The 2014 rules very heavily favoured Faerun as a setting with most of the species traits linking directly to that which then caused a a jarring effect when trying to run another setting. With 2024 that link has been broken, what you see as being generic we've all seen as flexibility to create characters that fit the setting we're using without having to ignore bits that link to a different setting
My thoughts about D&D 5E24 is that it's a ruleset i like for the most part and find as much fun as 5E14 but of course there's things i prefer between one another.
If 5E24 came out 10 years ago, it'd probably still play it to this day.
I'm good with it. Many of the changes remind me of the switch from 1st edition AD&D to 2nd edition AD&D. Homebrew things and sensible changes that improved the rules structure. Familiar in a good way with new good stuff for my table.
View my StartPlaying.Games profile to see my games!
My gaming circle loves it so far. We chose to go with custom backgrounds, but otherwise play pretty much straight 5.24 rules. There are only about 30 in our circle of friends and family that play so make of that what you will.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Were newcomers really using optional rules that much? I'd think most new people would want to run the game as written before tweaking it. Optional rules are good material for a supplement later down the line. That would also give them more time to avoid or tweak the poorly-thought-out ones like 2014 Flanking.