I moved away from everyone I played D&D with for a few years and never paid any attention to 5E.
How angry is 5E making /tg/? Or do people actually like it? Any recommended writeups about it and its pros/cons/differences?
/tg/ is not angry about 5e. Pretty much everyone thinks it's decent or is indifferent besides salty PF players scared that they're losing players.
It plays a lot like a hybrid 2e/3.5e, with a lot of 3's worthless fat cut out. Rules and chargen are extremely straightforward, so is combat. Classes are all useful at some niche, the only ones which are poor are the ranger and to a lesser extent the monk.
>>47022190
Eh, I've seen some confusion on some instances where.. The A word comes into play. Such as raise undead. And again with casters being so powerful, the reveiws are mixed. I'd say it's better than 4e but good luck having the Thread not turn into an intellectual debate, followed by butthurt.
>>47022215
>with a lot of 3's worthless fat cut out. Rules and chargen are extremely straightforward, so is combat.
Sounds like it's ripe for people crying about it being dumbed down, even if they were actually smart changes.
>>47022215
Its diluted 3rd
If that sounds good you'll like it.
If that sounds shit, well it will be.
>>47022190
It's not anger so much as it is indifference.
I love 5e for the same reasons that others find it boring; It's dumbed down.
The rules are straightforward and extremely easy to teach to noobs, but on the flip side, there's no real way to go full min-max 3.5 mode.
So you have the salty rollplayers one one side who refuse to play unless their character is a Dragon Acolyte/Artificer, and on the other side you have salty roleplayers who find the simplified classes and lack of splatbooks really neutering their creativity.
Tldr: 5e is a friendly system for noobs with no real major faults, but that's all it will ever be.
5e is regarded by indifference by /tg/ because it is such a lite product it would never please any one group as well as any other option.
You have 3.5 and PF for the rollplayers .
You have 4e for those that want a tactical boardgame.
You have AD&D or retroclones that do the "retro" simple style better.
If you want actual modern design and relativistic approach, you have 13th Age on one extreme and Dungeon World on the other.
5e tries to please everyone, and ends up being bland cardboard, which you can do with, but it will not satisfy you.
>>47022471
>it would never please any one group as well as any other option
Except for all the ones that it is pleasing better than the other options you listed.
5e isn't an awful game, but the complete lack of innovation or new ideas spoils it for me.
I still feel sad about the awesome stuff in the playtest documents which was slowly and surely removed until you had the most bland, safe D&D product imaginable. It's a better game than 3.5, the mechanics are a lot better put together and less exploitable, but 'functional' isn't the same as good. Still, I have to admit I'm not the target audience. They made it for people who wanted more D&D, not a progression of D&D, and from what I've heard, it's selling like hotcakes to exactly that crowd.
>>47022190
5e doesn't give you much to be angry aboiut, though it doesn't give you much to be excited about either. It's sort of like the "Denny's" of D&D editions. Very few people cound Denny's food as their favorite food, but nobody really has any objections to it, and you can always find one.
Its biggest problem is that there's nothing really exceptional about it. It's classic design by focus group AAA video game blandness applied to TTRPG.
It's main advantage is that, much like Dennys, you can always get everyone to agree that even if its not their favorite, it's good enough I guess.
>>47022565
True. You better over not playing anything D&D-like, but if you are, 5e has to be the lest fulfilling option you can pick.
I like it. It's my favorite edition of D&D.
Take that you fuckers.
>>47022651
"It is the only edition where there is not always someone pissed at the table." is a big sell, I give you that.
5e is fine. It serves as a perfectly acceptable introduction to ttrpgs and there's nothing in it that actively discourages role playing.
That being said... there's no real need for it. Anything it can do other systems can do better.
Still, basically harmless and potentially fun.
I'm not angry with 5e. It is basically 3.5 but with the skill system cut out and situational modifiers replaced with a catch-all "advantage". I do not like 5e, but it gives little to be angry about.
Where I live, so few people play it that there isn't any hostility to develop. Its like hating the Welsh if you live in Cleveland and never met one.
I've been running a 5e group for about 7 months now and it's been an interesting ride. The encounters were really easy so I've decided to start throwing "quantity" vs "quality" in them which has made the game harder.
My biggest concern with it is it just seems very easy. All of the bosses I've thrown at them according to CR calculations have been relatively easy. The only times players have died were due to mistakes on their end as opposed to a monster just out fighting them.
Warlocks are fucking broken too which doesn't help.
It does its job, not amazingly well as there are still a number of flaws.
It kind of lacks its own personality, some DMs dislike this, while others like it for allowing them to inject their own personality into it.
There are people who hate it, though you have to sift through a lot of shitposting and alternate system shilling to find people who genuinely hate it and have coherent reasons for doing so.
>>47022592
>It's main advantage is that, much like Dennys, you can always get everyone to agree that even if its not their favorite, it's good enough I guess.
It really is a great way to bring people in the game though. I like 5e for that reason but as a DM I've had to play hyper-aggressive now that the players have become familiar with how it works. With a lack of diverse skills and the simplicity of encounters you have to set DC's to ridiculously high numbers which pisses some players off because they get so used to succeeding.
I've fudged nearly all the monster stats too because they're just shit. The fucking Tarrasque has 30 strength now for christ sake
>>47022860
It would be, but D&D is still the crappiest way you can introduce someone to RPGs.
It is a good first D&D.
>>47022759
Broken how?
>>47022994
Just really powerful. Although casters in general are really powerful this edition, the Warlock is a lot simpler to understand than the Wizard and their Invocations get pretty crazy.
I had a Warlock player nearly ruined the game for everyone because of how ridiculous his character was.
>>47022860
Yeah I find myself buffing HP for enemies a LOT especially if I don't just want to throw a bunch of low level enemies at them.
>>47023069
What I've done is for every boss battle I add some sort of enemy adds to come into the fight at random intervals. It adds a layer of chaos but 5e wise it's the only way to really make something a challenge.
>>47023051
Warlock in my game is fucking annoying. She is really just shit at the game (somehow) and constantly telling me she's worried she is gonna underperform in terms of damage at later levels.
To which I've decided I'm gonna bait her into picking up a cursed artifact if she doesn't take the hint and stop.
The hint was me telling her to stop.
Someone tell me why a PC that picked a warlock would keep complaining about having such few spell slots. It's not like the information was withheld. The fuck.
>>47023105
I do this as well. But sometimes it doesn't make any sense to do this. Or as a player it would feel like DM bullshit.
It's complete shit, damage types are all the exact same, character progression is bland and empty, combat is a drag, weapons mean nothing. It's worse than 3.5, and that's saying something.
>>47023051
>>47023168
The worst think is that warlock is still the shittiest caster of 5e.
>>47023168
>Someone tell me why a PC that picked a warlock would keep complaining about having such few spell slots. It's not like the information was withheld. The fuck.
My Warlock was like this too. Constantly moaning about the spell slots. He'd take advantage of the short rest refresh thing which slowed the party down. It ended up costing him his life though as it got to the point where they'd be waiting for an hour resting in a dungeon and I'd just have them attacked halfway through.
5e makes the DM play aggressive if you want to pose a threat to the players. This is going to sound a little shitty but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. If you've got a shit player who's ruining it for everyone else you need to set an example and have that player killed: both as a reminder that you CAN die and that bad decision making is bad for everybody.
>>47023193
Make it fit within the context of what you're doing. For example, they were fighting a Vampire Lord in this crypt and every few turns he'd run over to some coffins and break them open. These coffins would produce Vampire Spawn that'd attack the PC's while he just kept opening more coffins. It forced the players to react to the situation and one of them died in the process.
>>47023247
Oh yeah, big time. Casters are hard to handle in this which is why you just need to adapt as a DM to them. Force them out of position with tactics otherwise they'll mop you up.
>>47023273
>Make it fit within the context of what you're doing.
I know, I know. I do exactly this. I'm just saying, not every encounter makes sense to do this. That's all I'm saying.
>>47023273
Yeah, she hasn't been too bad about the short rests so far.
But I have certainly decided that if she insists on forcing the party into a rest during a time-sensitive situation, they all will fucking suffer for it.
This is also the same player that likes to say "I ROLL FOR X" and then rolls without being prompted by me. Whenever she does this she always fails. I don't know how she is so oblivious to this.
>>47022190
5e is alright. It doesn't really fix the caster/martial imbalances of earlier editions, but I've long since given up on wizards of the coast not producing wizard biased material.
Inevitably, someone will respond to my post with >but martials do so much damage this edition.
And they're right. But that was never the main problem with martials/casters. The problem is that everything a martial can do, a caster can also do, but not everything a caster can do a martial can do. Casters get to interact with the game through skill challenges, combat, and spells, while martials only get skill challenges and combat. Until a 4th, martial exclusive method of interaction to the game is added, casters will always be both more fun to play, and offer more utility.
Also, 5e is still tied down to the archaic d20 binary success roll, instead of something superior like the one roll system, ffg's narrative dice, or pools of success.
But other than these fundamental problems, it's a fun system to play.
>>47023298
True. The rests are really important to party survival so harass them constantly and watch for moments of opportunity.
If they're getting too many rests in per day something isn't going right, especially if they're out in the wilderness or in a dungeon. It's meant to be a hostile environment after all, it also gives classes like Ranger a time to shine.
>>47023345
Yeah that's aggravating. I think it must be a Warlock player thing. One of them never wanted to do any quests whatsoever which puzzled me. He was content just milling about the city with his high Charisma skills and disguise spells. Eventually the Party turned on him though haha.
You've just got to remember that if they are in a hostile environment then sitting around for even an hour can be fatal. It doesn't always have to be a fatal encounter though. Maybe there's a patrol of enemies that interrupts this period of rest or perhaps the time wasted allowed the enemies to fortify a position or set up more traps, etc.
>>47023345
>This is also the same player that likes to say "I ROLL FOR X" and then rolls without being prompted by me
In a situation like this you just need to compensate for the brashness of the roll. It's important to be creative especially against players like this because the only way they learn is through punishment.
She wants to go ahead and make that Arcana check against this mysterious tome that the party found and you didn't prompt the roll? Alright, so originally it was just going to be some healing scroll but now it's a spell curse that reduces HP maximum by 30 for 24 hours.
>>47022759
>The only times players have died were due to mistakes on their end as opposed to a monster just out fighting them.
You are misrepresenting the 5e CR system. It's nowhere near as effective as you describe. They literally admit in the book that they largely assigned CR numbers arbitrarily based on tummy feels, and used "it's not meant to be balanced" as a justification for their lack of effort.
>>47022860
>I've fudged nearly all the monster stats too because they're just shit.
5e's monster math, and encounter balancing, or more accurately lack of it, make DMing hard for any DM who cares more about making encounters challenging but fun and avoiding squash-matches/TPK's than simulating a fully fleshed out dungeon, exactly as you wrote it, regardless of balance, "because deathtraps aren't balanced."
5e is very hard on DM's unless they are a very specific kind of DM.
>>47023454
>Alright, so originally it was just going to be some healing scroll but now it's a spell curse that reduces HP maximum by 30 for 24 hours.
I feel like this would encourage that bad behavior. She would be happy that she saved the group from a trap of some sort. Unless you mean the curse effects anyone who attempts to read it.
My compensation to this point was for the most part making the brash role an automatic failure, which would sometimes cause detrimental effects.
>>47023527
>Unless you mean the curse effects anyone who attempts to read it.
This is what I meant.
Just think of the un prompted roll as a sort of brashness and "reward" it as such.
As a DM, I honestly feel that is allows for a lot of killer home-brewing. The rules are very straight forward but it does leave some things sort of open to interpretation, which helps me keep control of a game and craft it to my players.
>>47022190
Take 3e, then remove the character-building-minigame (which was, for many, the most/only fun part,) then think to yourself "you know what's a drag in this combat-focused-game... the combat, let's whitewash it to the point that it takes five minutes." Then you'll have an idea of what 5e is like.
>>47023558
I agree with this, however, it does feel a little incomplete. I guess the thing to walk away from is 5e is more of a "General Edition, use this as a baseline" as opposed to 3.5 which has rules for pretty much everything from farting to breathing.
>>47022190
It's balanced, but there's so little options there might as well be just pregens instead of classes. /tg/ will flay me alive for saying this, but I personally wouldn't touch it until it gets more splatbooks
Seriously though, just play fantasycraft.
>>47023558
>>47023585
This is how I feel about it. There's a lot of freedom in this game, and a lot of DM discretion.
>>47023600
Splatbooks wouldn't help, every class is a caricature and any attempt to add the idea of variety would make the corebook redundant.
Play FC.
>>47022190
IMO it's just very bland. It does rollplay sort of ok and it does roleplay sort of OK but there's better systems for whatever you're going for. It's simple and there really isn't much to dislike about it, it's functional. There's also nothing to really get excited about either. Also bounded accuracy is lame and takes away some of the feeling of being strong away, but that's just my opinion I'm sure others disagree.
>>47023387
>FFG dice
>superior
d20 at least isn't reliant on shitty gimmicks. Almost every system is better, but FFG's dice is just as garbage.
>>47022471
Mind explaining the extremes that 13th Age and DW represent? I'm playing 13th age from time to time, but sadly not much else, so I'd like to know how/what extreme it is representing and how it compares to other things.
>>47023572
So it's better?
>>47023739
13th age represents the "good on paper, shit in practice" side, and DW represents the "shit on paper, good in practice" side. Both represent boring games that are hard to build more than one type of story from.
What's worse is that this comparison is solely based on narrative vs game-y system mechanics alone, but both are built to play out a single kind of fantasy story that "feels" like old school D&D.
5e is terrible not because of what it is, but because of what it refuses to be.
It also tries to pander to two diametrically fundamentally opposed playstyles: OSR and NSR.
OSR players do not want feats, skills, or class features beyond the basics. They don't care about the lame-ass 1st level fighter customization micro-mechanics that 5e has.
3.5 and 4e players DO want that shit. That's why a full-retard AD&D system would have been absolutely retarded.
The feat compromise results in all feats having to live up to a flat +2 to a stat. They cannot do this, hence plenty of feats include actual stat increases. That's right, a feat can give you +1 Dexterity. Why? Because the devs cannot balance their feats.
Now would have been a great time for Major and Minor feats. Not feat points, that's too much granularity. No, just major and minor feats.
Feats in 5e are great in concept. They give multiple benefits, don't focus on exception-based rules autism, and don't have feat trees like the obnoxious two-weapon-fighting tree. Plus feat taxes are gone. Were feat trees an entirely bad idea? No, but a lot of them were.
Speaking of the +2, are you fucking serious? The 20 ability cap was designed to encourage diversification instead of just maxing out one ability. The respnse to this was.... include a fucking +2 to ability scores? Why not +1 to two? Why not have that be the only option? That forces diversification instead of putting up walls and ceilings to force players to play a certain way. I see no reason why the +2 is a good idea.
Advantage / disadvantage is kind of gay but it's fine for what it is. Really, just having fewer fucking modifiers would have been fine.
Class features are still mostly the same linear bullshit as before in a lame attempt to "balance" the game.
Vancian casting is still a piece of crap and leads to annoying bookkeeping. Casters are still overpowered. Better than 3.5 does not mean better.
>>47023804
Both of those games are only "good" because they are rules light. You know what else is good? Freeform, but I want rules to add weight to my narrative and I want a game to go with it.
One of those is 4e with some special snowflake mechanics tacked on like escalation die, the other is an Apocalypse World rip with some AD&D concepts mixed in, and zero understanding of how either game was supposed to work.
>>47023600
>>47023643
Fantasy Craft is completely different than 5e. If you want 3.5 but with casters probably slightly weaker than martials and really just love a needlessly high amount of options in an over-the-top story FC has a lot of great things going for it.
5e is much lower power levels, and does a better job as a generalist game that can fit a large variety of settings. It's not as good as Mythras (RuneQuest 6) at it, but it's not bad - and that's a rave review for most games.
>>47022471
>Playing gygaxian wannabe retroclones
I want AD&D to be more like 2E, when it started actually being about playing a role, when the settings started to become varied and interesting, and when it stopped being the fantasy version of making a grindhouse movie with your borderline nameless characters as the hapless victims.
>>47023869
This is what 5e is built for - but it seems like a lot of DMs are just ignoring the whole 1/3 a character sheet devoted to the character's background and the background mechanics.
>>47023901
>but it seems like a lot of DMs are just ignoring the whole 1/3 a character sheet devoted to the character's background and the background mechanics.
That's because background mechanics are retarded and were better when they were divorced frmo the game mechanics.
>>47022215
>the ranger and to a lesser extent the monk.
The warlock isn't particularly well executed, imo.
What are your monk complaints, though? Too few ki points?
>Comic book stories
4e
FantasyCraft
3.pf
>Generic low or high fantasy without the high magic
RQ
5e
>Generic low-mid fantasy with mid-high magic
AD&D
Rules Cyclopedia
A couple Retroclones
>Lazy DM style player driven sandboxes
13th age
DW
Every other game on this list
>Dungeoncrawls
Any D&D game or retroclone besides 3.pf
Here's a basic list on what types of fantasy games for where. It obviously can be expanded to include things like Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel for lower magic games or other generic games like GURPS and what supplements to use for what.
>>47024012
I hear this, then I hear people hype Traveller with stories like "I died right before I got out of char gen but damn did I enjoy it." Which is it?
>>47024081
Warlock is one of the most flexible classes in the game.
People hate the Beastmaster ranger because it doesn't give an autonomous companion (and the companion is still probably nerfed too hard), and the Way of Four Elements monk because it is desperately Ki starved. Both are easy to patch by DMs - but they are shittily made.
>>47024012
The background mechanics in 5e are used in basically every non-D&D game in one form or another.
>>47024151
>Warlock is one of the most flexible classes in the game.
If you disregard that it's EXTREMELY reliant on EB+AB+Hex, the evil chainlock familiars are numerically far superior to the good, and that mountain dwarves with polearms are the only way to build a bladelock without stabbing yourself in the foot.
>inb4 multiclass synergy
>Beastmaster
If you crunch the numbers the BM's damage keeps up more or less okay, but at later levels the pet dies to a single AoE and can never overcome resistances or immunity to non-magical weapons. You can argue that it can be very helpful with scouting and the like, but the wizard's familiar can do that and he can see and hear what it can and he can poof it into a pocket dimension to keep it safe.
>Wot4E
I agree that that one's pretty poor, but people generally seem to enjoy the other two. The other anon seemed to imply that there were problems with all monks.
>>47024185
>The background mechanics in 5e are used in basically every non-D&D game in one form or another.
Lol
Not in GURPS
Not in Savage Worlds
Not in HERO system
Maybe because it's a shitty idea? Or are you talking about only fantasy RPGs, which are the pleb-tier gentre anyway?
>>47024340
>I agree that that one's pretty poor, but people generally seem to enjoy the other two. The other anon seemed to imply that there were problems with all monks.
That's a remnant of older editions of DnD, I would argue, primarily 3.5.
>>47024410
>GURPS
>Savage Worlds
Both of those use similar (within their own mechanical constraints) to 5e backgrounds, I don't know what games you've played.
>>47024083
>Comic book stories
>4e
>3.pf
>Implying 3e and 4e run remotely similar kinds of games.
I mean, you might be able to categorize them both as "comic book stories" but that's intentionally deceptive. They are on about as opposite ends of the spectrum as you can get.
>>47022190
I really enjoy it, and so does my DM. The biggest pro in my opinion could be a con to many people: There aren't too many source books out with a large variety of rules and additional features. You can find some things here and there, and go to their website and search for Unearthed Arcana articles for their extra content. They also realeased a pdf players guide for princes of the apocolypse with more races and spells.
My biggest con is that it seems the majority of books released for it are going to be adventures and modules, with little stuff added for players. (it does seem they're just adding that to their website for free though.)
>>47023295
>Casters are hard to handle in this which is why you just need to adapt as a DM to them. Force them out of position with tactics otherwise they'll mop you up.
I'm in this situation now, I think, what kind of tactics would you suggest? I'm thinking goblin archers and shit like that.
>>47025446
Archers, introduce magical barriers that can disrupt spells, have creatures ambush them, uneven and shaky terrain. all but option 2 effect the entire party
>>47023825
>Vancian casting is still a piece of crap and leads to annoying bookkeeping.
5e doesn't use Vancian casting, does it? It uses spell slots instead, you consume those instead of spells.
>>47025498
Spell slots per day IS Vancian spellcasting.
It's just that at some point around 3.5 retards decided it was the core reason everything about wizards was wrong (because muh 5 minute workday theorymancy).
5e has hybrid vancian; either you're a spontaneous caster or you have a list of prepared spells out of the full list of spells you actually have access to (Ranger this edition is unexplainably spontaneous). You blow spell slots to cast shit you prepared, you don't get them back without a full rest, and you're not allowed to take more than one long rest a day.
>>47024461
GURPS is just straight-out point buy, what sort of mechanic are you referring to?
As someone who is sick of 3.X after years of mastering the system, I am even more sick of 5e after only a short campaign. At least 3.X gives you options, even if they can be deceptively bad ones at times. However 5 is such a homogenized experience that I'm not sure how you could really enjoy it if you've played other fantasy systems or other versions of DnD.
They almost had it right but they made a fatal flaw of all but ignoring 4th's existence in the creation of this new edition. I feel like a meld of 3.X and 4 could have been a really good and straightforward game which is what they tried with 5 but they missed the mark by many accounts.
>>47022733
>It is basically 3.5 but with the skill system cut out
this argument makes my autism stir
5e has a skill system it's just been "hidden". Every class has "skill points", they're just listed as "pick x number of these skills:" where x is the number of skill points.
You can EASILY mandate that the LISTED skills your class is given are your class skills and apply a full prof bonus, while all other skills are "cross class" skills and get half proficiency bonus. Similarly, you can invest more of such "skill points" into any given skill for a higher bonus (2 points gives you double proficiency bonus in a skill).
Jesus it riles me up something fierce
>>47026855
>Similarly, you can invest more of such "skill points" into any given skill for a higher bonus (2 points gives you double proficiency bonus in a skill).
Is that in RAW or did you make it up?
>>47022592
What's a danny's?
>>47023804
>DW
>Good
Son, no. DW is the worst of the two genres it's trying to emmulate.
>>47022190
I don't think many people are mad. 5e is like sex, only better.
It cuts out a lot of the bloat of 3.5 and pathfinder. So if you wana make a half-shadow-lizard-demon-dragon-devil-elemental sorcerer/wizard/arcanist/rogue/investigator with the mary sue trait, you will probably be bummed out to hear your DM say 'Yeah we can re-skin the dragonborn and you can play a sorcerer'
>>47030707
>5e is like sex, only better.
But sex is the most overrated thing in history.
>>47030707
>I don't think many people are mad. 5e is like sex, only better.
5e is more like a stoplight handjob: incredibly fast, unimpressive, and straightforward, but nothing to really complain about as long as you didn't spend any money.
4e is really good kinky sex: it takes a FUCKING LONG TIME to do it right, and you need to practice to even get it under 45 minutes, but DAMN if it isn't worth it once you do.
3e is a psychologically abusive partner who is so unpleasant in bed, that when you finally figure out how to push his/her buttons, it's all the more rewarding. Eventually you become addicted to that positive feedback, and other partners seem off because of how they are different from 3e.
2e is your first sexual experience: awkward, clunky, and not nearly as fun as you thought it was going to be, but damn if you don't remember it fondly.
>>47024597
Yes, they excel at nearly identical kinds of stories. Just because mechanically they are vastly different doesn't mean that you are playing a capes game in a fantasy world.
>>47029284
DW is fine. It's a middle of the road game to pick up and get going with nothing but a generic starting point. It suffers from not being great supporting campaigns of any long length, relies on good players that are invested, and needs a decent GM.
>>47031878
As someone who runs 4e, and played enough 3e when it came out to know why I hate it, that's just plain false.
4e excells at stories about fantasy novel/action-movie protagonists, with a capital P, and that P stands for "plot-shield." At every turn, it bends over backwards to emulate the fantasy action genre at the expense of "accuracy" in simulation. Similarly, there is a strong emphasis on a separation between mechanics and and fluff, decreasing the total number of available mechanical concepts, but increasing the number of viable fluff concepts available to players, while simultaneously leaving magic itself room to be strange and cinematic outside of the confines of a power.
3e, on the other hand, is much more world-focused, rather than protagonist focused. Just the existence of OHK attacks (not to mention the ubiquity of OHK attacks as the only viable means of combat past lvl 7,) makes it much less likely for a given character to last long enough for a narrative to develop around them, and therefore much more likely for the narrative to develop around the world/dungeon/city itself. Furthermore, the intentionally vast gap between mid-opp and high-opp makes it harder to emulate novel/movie parties, and easier to create "realistic" parties where not everyone contributes. In 3e, fluff and crunch are inseperable, which means while there are innumerable splat-book options available to players, the number of viable options within a specific tier-band is much smaller, and similarly, the fluff-crunch inseperability creates a number of assumptions about the world that all but have to be true, even if you're not running in [assumed forgotten realms] simply by virtue of the mechanics.
4e is gameist/narativist, with a focus on emulating action stories.
3e is a simulationist, with an emphasis on emulating a very specific setting with a number of automatic assumptions about the setting's metaphysics built into the system.
>>47031446
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of 5e, but
>2e is your first sexual experience: awkward, clunky, and not nearly as fun as you thought it was going to be, but damn if you don't remember it fondly.
This is true with how I feel about AD&D.God, but that I could relate this to actual sexual experience
