Goodman Games

Maybe you're right. I've been going over the rules as I can using the copies of the PH available at the games, but I don't think I'll ever understand the 5e system well enough to run it. Maybe I'll pick up one of these modules and see and donate it to the group to see if it makes the DM's job any easier.

Tortog wrote:Maybe you guys can explain to me what's so cool about 5e because I just don't get why people like it.

Well, some of my players love magic but dislike the whole corruption thing, so DCC doesn't have the vibe they like. So I ran some 5E for them and they liked it a lot more.

For me it's a combination of two things: (1) it's more DM-friendly than 3E or 4E, and (2) characters can do more than they could with previous old school editions of D&D.

(I discount 3E and 4E becasue I didn't like them. They were clearly "player's rules" and not "DM's rules." I tried running both of those sets and hated it, and my rule of thumb is that if I don't want to run a game you probably don't get to play that game.) 5E, to me, is a vast improvement over both 3E and 4E in that it takes some of the better features and makes them less amped up, and at the same time preserves (to me) a lot of the AD&D flavor I remember from the good old days.

I have a number of players who want to "play D&D" in my group, and they aren't interested in Pathfinder or C&C or something else without the D&D brand name. (Like it or not, brand name seems to matter to many folks.) While I can run lots of different rules systems, our local game store supports 5E and they want to play what everyone else is playing. (And the owner of my local store has suckered me into running some 5E games at the store. I hope I haven't over-extended. )

I think that 5E has a more "D&D feel" than anything we've seen from TSR/WotC in the past 14 years. The 5E rules have toned down a lot of the absurd stacking bonuses. It has skills and feats, but they are minimal and can be ignored at DM option. The cantrips that never run out seem to attract my player's attention, and the "one and done" spellcasting model for low-level casters in early D&D is a feature that they don't like.

That's a few things, I guess.

Tortog wrote:Maybe I'll pick up one of these modules and see and donate it to the group to see if it makes the DM's job any easier.

If you do, I'd suggest one of the Goodman ones and not WotC's Hoard of the Dragon Queen. While Hoard is a great adventure, I'm finding that it requires a different "detail oriented" DM style that I'm not comfortable with yet. The Goodman modules will run smoother, IMO.

I think finarvyn's description of D&D and why players prefer it over other systems is spot on.

My experiences and my group's preferences are similar:

OD&D, 1st, & 2nd editions: Too limiting and punishing to PC's. (Yes. Much of our group has been playing since the early '80s.)

3.x: Was great for 6 years, resulting in our most memorable and group-defining adventures, then the system at higher levels became too crushing for the DM to run.

4th Edition: Played for a year then realized it wasn't what we preferred; some of us even commented it didn't feel like D&D.

Castles & Crusades: Great old feel with newish sensibilities but like the early editions, was still too restrictive and was house ruled to death.

DCC RPG: See 'OD&D, 1st, & 2nd editions'

Pathfinder: See 3.X, though we didn't play it as long as 3.x.

Savage Worlds: Great! But not D&D.

5E: Have run it since playtest. Solves all of the above issues for our group.

That's why 5e is our system of choice.

magehammer wrote:OD&D, 1st, & 2nd editions: Too limiting...

DCC RPG: See 'OD&D, 1st, & 2nd editions'

I'm unclear on the meaning of the word 'limiting' in this context. I think of those systems mentioned as having great capacity to add what you need when you need it, and to let you invent what you want to invent, generally.

Unless you're talking about RAW armoring options, in which case I totally agree.

Our DM at the time was mostly RaW. He didn't use encumberance and finally caved on not having spell casters lose spells after unconsciousness and the ridiculous limits on magical healing and zero hit points. But stuck to most everything else.

Limiting in what low to middle level wizards could do. Characters Couldn't move after attacking. Thieves had low percentages to be truly effective. Clerics were band aids and little else. The 2nd edition specialty priests helped but didn't completely allows clerics to shine. Fighters 3/2 attacks. It just started to feel like the rules were the rules of "no" in the name of all mighty "game balance". When after a time, the rules sucked the fun out of it.

We had fun with 2.d edition but it started to wear away the fun after years. And for us, our other RPG options were limited, so we were stuck with D&D.

When I ran a campaign for my younger brother and his friends and then for my main group, I had a hard time adding house rules as I felt intimidated by changing anything with fear of over balancing the game into no fun. I am over that now, but back then, it stopped more from modifying too much in the 2nd edition. When we heard about 3.x, we were hopeful and it did address so much of what we found wrong in 2e.


For DCC RPG we became disillusioned with having to make for characters and pray you didn't get too attached before he or she died. the magic system seemed so fiddly and punishing, no one wanted to play a spell caster. We really only played three times and moved back to C&C.