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.
I, and my players, are not happy with the switch from Forgotten Realms to Greyhawk. Greyhawk may have been the original setting, but my players are Millennials and younger. They grew up with Forgotten Realms lore found in various movies, tv shows, video games, YouTube channels, etc. They loved the Honor Among Thieves movie and wanted to walk and adventure in the streets of Neverwinter. They loved the Baldur's Gate games and wanted to explore those places. This is the world they're familiar with and enjoy.
To simply toss it all out in favor of a world that hasn't really been in use for almost thirty years is a leap too far. Greyhawk is just too unknown and alien to them and to me. No, our table will continue with the Forgotten Realms. At least, until my players want to try something else. Greyhawk could be an evil alternate reality for players to leap into and explore for a brief time, then return to the Forgotten Realms.
As for the simplifying of the game rules and classes, I actually like it. It helps to get new players into the game, as they're not bogged down by a ton of rules. The change to backgrounds being significant makes a lot of sense IMO as we're all shaped by the environment we live in. It is a bit weird that a gnome and a goliath can have the same strength though, but I understand why they went that way.
Certain races have become synonymous with certain classes. It became a stereotype for orcs to be some melee class of some kind. Gnomes and halflings to be artificers and magic users. I like that players can choose any species and class combination they want and not feel like they're losing something in the process.
I was a little surprised that there were no half races. No half-elves or half-orcs anymore. I thought it was an oversight, something that the writers simply forgot about. I've heard rumors that the game writers were trying to move away from half races or species which is unfortunate.
Our table is keeping the half-species option available to players if they want to choose it. They just have to choose which species is more genetically "dominant" in their character and they gain the traits of that species. If a player makes a half-elf and chooses elf as the dominant species, then they're classified as elf and gain the elf traits listed in the book. They're also human, but don't gain those traits listed in the book.
This is how Star Trek Adventures handles half-species characters and I like it.
I think you have a huge misconception of the Greyhawk material in the DMG. In 2025 we are getting not 1 but 2 Forgotten Realms books. FR has definitely not been left behind for Greyhawk. It is there to show the basic outline of a world and to give new players something to glomp onto without the need to spend more $$.
I'm not sure we know anything for sure with respect to default settings. The example setting in the DMG is Greyhawk, but beyond that? Nothing really. It could be they're focusing on Greyhawk, or it's just a one off.
Even if they're changing, it's worth it to note two things. One is that FR has already received a lot of adventures, enough to last you a very long time without repeats. The other thing is...not much will have changed. The timeline is fuzzy, but it's certainly not like they've been releasing them every year, between their insistence on releasing a new setting each year and doing anthologies. I don't really like it because the last adventure we bought was WBtWL, but that's their choice. There are other games. Regardless though, I don't think we're going to be seeing fewer FR stuff because there wasn't that much to begin with.
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 sense of it is that, while it does have some improvements with respect to specific classes, it goes the other direction in other terms (I like backgrounds being more the 2014 style than the 2024 style, for example). Meanwhile many of the class and character creation 'improvements' are things already offered via Tasha's.
Meanwhile, there is the pain of changing over, plus the $ cost of buying whole new sets of rules. Just does not feel better enough to justify all the downsides.
I am surprised by people saying they think 2024 D&D is less complex. To me, things like Weapon Masteries, the new dual wielding rules, and certain spells like conjure animals, have added a fair amount of complexity and power creep to the game. Tying stat bonuses and starter feats to a limited set of backgrounds feels like a bad decision from both a roleplay and power game perspective. I could go on with complaints but I do not think a detailed list was what you were asking for. For me, I think the good probably outweighs the bad but it is definitely a situation where I like some of the changes but there are also several I do not.
The new rules are just a cash grab with some ridiculous changes. Species? Orcs are just misunderstood? Player characters are now far too powerful. If you want to play a superhero game with a near zero risk of death then it’s for you I guess.
I already tossed my 2024 rule books aside never to be used as a whole. Might incorporate the odd thing here or there but not one of the 8 players at our table like them and feel it’s just a cash grab. Got to keep selling those books and accessories.
Changes like this are what killed D&D when they went to different rules systems and fractured the player base.
For the tables I play at the way it changed DDB it has ruined the game. All but 1 (a mostly pencil & paper game) of my tables has left D&D for other games solely for this reason. For that i think 5.5 is hot garbage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Not much of a backpedal, more like the typical throw it in neutral and wait-out the backlash, then try again.
So far, I’ve seen nothing that convinces me that 2024/5.5e/5e24, or whatever anyone wants to call it, worth the switch.
Other players have also expressed this “not really worth the effort feeling”, and more have decided to just stick with the original 5e than to convert.
The tools so far still support the 2014 structure, but as time goes on, more and more people are noticing something is changing in the way DnDBeyond operates.
IMHO, this whole 2024 D&D change feels like another 4E mistake by Hasbro/WotC/WDM( Wizards Digital Media ).
For the tables I play at the way it changed DDB it has ruined the game. All but 1 (a mostly pencil & paper game) of my tables has left D&D for other games solely for this reason. For that i think 5.5 is hot garbage.
Switching away from D&D entirely because you can’t use one website (especially when you can, I’m playing three 2014 games using it) sounds more like they’ve got a problem with D&D in general and wanted an excuse rather than a problem with 2024.
D&D has an issue in that it's actually challenging to keep track of using paper and pencil. Martials are harder to track than characters in the other two games I play - both of those systems can comfortably contain all the information for a character on a double-sided page and as standard only provides one side. D&D generally provides two sides for a reason, and for a caster, having three isn't anywhere near enough to run the character. You can fit the bare details of the spells on there...but there's a reason why I've spent a small fortune on methods to manage my spells in particular. DDB's big draw is to manage that for the player.
If you make DDB an unappetising option, then that's a big mark against D&D in general. There are some very good alternatives to D&D out there, and when you add the management problems that are particularly keen for D&D, being put off by that in favour of other systems is not really about hating D&D and this being an excuse to bug out, it's because the options that help answer D&D's challenges aren't weighing things in its favour anymore. I still enjoy D&D and have several campaigns either running or being set up. However, if my options were to be limited to pen and paper...I'll be honest, my rulebooks would probably start gathering dust. I'm just not in that position at the moment, so I'm happy to carry on playing.
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.
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.
I, and my players, are not happy with the switch from Forgotten Realms to Greyhawk. Greyhawk may have been the original setting, but my players are Millennials and younger. They grew up with Forgotten Realms lore found in various movies, tv shows, video games, YouTube channels, etc. They loved the Honor Among Thieves movie and wanted to walk and adventure in the streets of Neverwinter. They loved the Baldur's Gate games and wanted to explore those places. This is the world they're familiar with and enjoy.
To simply toss it all out in favor of a world that hasn't really been in use for almost thirty years is a leap too far. Greyhawk is just too unknown and alien to them and to me. No, our table will continue with the Forgotten Realms. At least, until my players want to try something else. Greyhawk could be an evil alternate reality for players to leap into and explore for a brief time, then return to the Forgotten Realms.
As for the simplifying of the game rules and classes, I actually like it. It helps to get new players into the game, as they're not bogged down by a ton of rules. The change to backgrounds being significant makes a lot of sense IMO as we're all shaped by the environment we live in. It is a bit weird that a gnome and a goliath can have the same strength though, but I understand why they went that way.
Certain races have become synonymous with certain classes. It became a stereotype for orcs to be some melee class of some kind. Gnomes and halflings to be artificers and magic users. I like that players can choose any species and class combination they want and not feel like they're losing something in the process.
I was a little surprised that there were no half races. No half-elves or half-orcs anymore. I thought it was an oversight, something that the writers simply forgot about. I've heard rumors that the game writers were trying to move away from half races or species which is unfortunate.
Our table is keeping the half-species option available to players if they want to choose it. They just have to choose which species is more genetically "dominant" in their character and they gain the traits of that species. If a player makes a half-elf and chooses elf as the dominant species, then they're classified as elf and gain the elf traits listed in the book. They're also human, but don't gain those traits listed in the book.
This is how Star Trek Adventures handles half-species characters and I like it.
I think you have a huge misconception of the Greyhawk material in the DMG. In 2025 we are getting not 1 but 2 Forgotten Realms books. FR has definitely not been left behind for Greyhawk. It is there to show the basic outline of a world and to give new players something to glomp onto without the need to spend more $$.
I'm not sure we know anything for sure with respect to default settings. The example setting in the DMG is Greyhawk, but beyond that? Nothing really. It could be they're focusing on Greyhawk, or it's just a one off.
Even if they're changing, it's worth it to note two things. One is that FR has already received a lot of adventures, enough to last you a very long time without repeats. The other thing is...not much will have changed. The timeline is fuzzy, but it's certainly not like they've been releasing them every year, between their insistence on releasing a new setting each year and doing anthologies. I don't really like it because the last adventure we bought was WBtWL, but that's their choice. There are other games. Regardless though, I don't think we're going to be seeing fewer FR stuff because there wasn't that much to begin with.
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 sense of it is that, while it does have some improvements with respect to specific classes, it goes the other direction in other terms (I like backgrounds being more the 2014 style than the 2024 style, for example). Meanwhile many of the class and character creation 'improvements' are things already offered via Tasha's.
Meanwhile, there is the pain of changing over, plus the $ cost of buying whole new sets of rules. Just does not feel better enough to justify all the downsides.
I am surprised by people saying they think 2024 D&D is less complex. To me, things like Weapon Masteries, the new dual wielding rules, and certain spells like conjure animals, have added a fair amount of complexity and power creep to the game. Tying stat bonuses and starter feats to a limited set of backgrounds feels like a bad decision from both a roleplay and power game perspective. I could go on with complaints but I do not think a detailed list was what you were asking for. For me, I think the good probably outweighs the bad but it is definitely a situation where I like some of the changes but there are also several I do not.
The new rules are just a cash grab with some ridiculous changes. Species? Orcs are just misunderstood? Player characters are now far too powerful. If you want to play a superhero game with a near zero risk of death then it’s for you I guess.
I already tossed my 2024 rule books aside never to be used as a whole. Might incorporate the odd thing here or there but not one of the 8 players at our table like them and feel it’s just a cash grab. Got to keep selling those books and accessories.
Changes like this are what killed D&D when they went to different rules systems and fractured the player base.
For the tables I play at the way it changed DDB it has ruined the game. All but 1 (a mostly pencil & paper game) of my tables has left D&D for other games solely for this reason. For that i think 5.5 is hot garbage.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That seems a bit overdramatic, particularly when they backpedaled so much on how to handle Legacy content.
Not much of a backpedal, more like the typical throw it in neutral and wait-out the backlash, then try again.
So far, I’ve seen nothing that convinces me that 2024/5.5e/5e24, or whatever anyone wants to call it, worth the switch.
Other players have also expressed this “not really worth the effort feeling”, and more have decided to just stick with the original 5e than to convert.
The tools so far still support the 2014 structure, but as time goes on, more and more people are noticing something is changing in the way DnDBeyond operates.
IMHO, this whole 2024 D&D change feels like another 4E mistake by Hasbro/WotC/WDM( Wizards Digital Media ).
Switching away from D&D entirely because you can’t use one website (especially when you can, I’m playing three 2014 games using it) sounds more like they’ve got a problem with D&D in general and wanted an excuse rather than a problem with 2024.
D&D has an issue in that it's actually challenging to keep track of using paper and pencil. Martials are harder to track than characters in the other two games I play - both of those systems can comfortably contain all the information for a character on a double-sided page and as standard only provides one side. D&D generally provides two sides for a reason, and for a caster, having three isn't anywhere near enough to run the character. You can fit the bare details of the spells on there...but there's a reason why I've spent a small fortune on methods to manage my spells in particular. DDB's big draw is to manage that for the player.
If you make DDB an unappetising option, then that's a big mark against D&D in general. There are some very good alternatives to D&D out there, and when you add the management problems that are particularly keen for D&D, being put off by that in favour of other systems is not really about hating D&D and this being an excuse to bug out, it's because the options that help answer D&D's challenges aren't weighing things in its favour anymore. I still enjoy D&D and have several campaigns either running or being set up. However, if my options were to be limited to pen and paper...I'll be honest, my rulebooks would probably start gathering dust. I'm just not in that position at the moment, so I'm happy to carry on playing.
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.