It still baffles me that the 2014 5e system managed to sell the idea of “” as a feature for Dungeon Masters and players, instead of obviously lazy design, but the revised 2024 has no excuse for its half-finished rules a decade later. The philosophy presented at the time of 5e’s release was in line with an “” gaming sentiment that prioritized DM judgments over the system providing clearly laid out rules. By avoiding some of the legalistic “keyword-driven” language of 3e and 4e, new players and DMs found 5e approachable.
Keyword based systems typically define keywords, then refer back to those, while «naturalistic» systems use common language interpretations of words. The 5e DnD designed bizarrely mixed both in 2014, and continues to do so in 2024.
Many will point out how 5e was a massive commercial success, as 2020 was ’s best year financially, and it has reached such milestones multiple times since the edition’s release. The perfect storm of factors contributing to the game’s growth, like and, have been analyzed ad nauseam. A bigger question is how much 5e really did to add to that success. Having approachable, conversational language certainly made it feel welcoming to new players, but for new DMs, it’s hard to see the edition as anything but a problem, one the 2024 rules haven’t fixed yet.
When people discuss rules complexity, like whether 2e is easier than 5e to learn, there are some caveats that I don’t see addressed typically. To take a keyword-style approach, there is a distinction between “learn,” “play,” and “run.” Most people define “learning” a tabletop RPG as reading its rules and walking away with a feeling of general understanding of those rules. “Play” is actually using those rules as a player, and “run” is using those rules as a Game Master. A legalistic, keyword-based system like 2e is certainly harder to “learn,” but easier to “play” and “run.”
The truth is, nearly every DM will alter rules they do not like or home brew rules when they fit their
Read more on screenrant.com