[Sell Me] 5e. A game for a grognard?

[Knaight]

There is no way "I open a trade route" is a single, one-character action in any reasonable game. It's always going to be a long, drawn-out, multi-step action involving lots and lots of people over many occasions. And if you abstract it away to a single resolvable action...you're playing a very different game. Which does not resemble a single-character-focused, single-point-of-view system like D&D has ever been at all.

It depends on who these characters are, and the level of focus being put forth. If the PCs are all the rulers of nation states and the scope of the game is the process of years then it absolutely could be a single, one character action entirely reasonably, where they issue an order and it's done - and the focus of the game is put on the interesting stuff, like the political maneuvering that went into determining where that trade route goes.

Any action can be broken down into smaller actions, or abstracted into bigger actions. Where you draw the line depends on the focus of the game. In some, even featuring more normal characters, "I spend the next few weeks talking with various merchants to establish a trade route" is reasonable. In others you get to actually play out every conversation with every merchant involved, along with the acquisition of everything that you end up bargaining with them. Neither option is wrong, but some fit some campaigns much better than others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As the scale of the actions of the adventurers goes up it makes sense as long as it is not something that they could fail that the overall problem stays at a constant declaration complexity thus possibly making actions that would have been long to describe but with no or low chance of mistake into simple actions.

"As long as it's not something that they could fail..." is doing all the work here. Yes, if, for any step there's no chance of failure (or no interesting failure), you just narrate that part. That's what 5e tells you to do, by the way. But still, in opening a trade route you've got all the interesting, failable parts along the way. The negotiations. The clearing the route. The dealing with rivals. All of those are separable and failable. And failing one can influence the rest without causing the whole to fail. So abstracting those into a single roll is like abstracting an entire adventure into a single roll. Ie missing the entire point IMO.

Edit: Note the "single, single-character" thing. Even if you're a king, opening a trade route isn't something you can do alone. It's a series of actions, each of which could succeed or fail and each of which involves multiple parties with different attitudes. So neither are the roller's circumstances fixed, nor are the opponents' circumstances fixed.

[JoeJ]

There is no way "I open a trade route" is a single, one-character action in any reasonable game. It's always going to be a long, drawn-out, multi-step action involving lots and lots of people over many occasions. And if you abstract it away to a single resolvable action...you're playing a very different game. Which does not resemble a single-character-focused, single-point-of-view system like D&D has ever been at all.

It's a realm action in Birthright.

[MaxWilson]

"As long as it's not something that they could fail..." is doing all the work here. Yes, if, for any step there's no chance of failure (or no interesting failure), you just narrate that part. That's what 5e tells you to do, by the way. But still, in opening a trade route you've got all the interesting, failable parts along the way. The negotiations. The clearing the route. The dealing with rivals. All of those are separable and failable. And failing one can influence the rest without causing the whole to fail. So abstracting those into a single roll is like abstracting an entire adventure into a single roll. Ie missing the entire point IMO.

One of the things that's going on here is that you're confusing granularity of action declaration with granularity of action resolution. Simple example from a dungeon crawl game structure:

DM: You're in a room with exits to the north and east. What do you do?
Player A: We go east. [Action declaration]
DM: In that room there are two ghouls who leap to attack you. [Transition to combat game structure...] [...after combat] You find treasure on the ghouls' bodies. There's nothing else in the room, but there are doors to the west and the south. What do you do?

The action resolution doesn't have to be a "single roll", and it could consist of a transition to a completely different level of game structure--you'll note that the original example given was that the result of "We open a new trade route" was a whole dungeon, which would be played using traditional dungeon crawling procedures. Then you transition back to the Trade Routes game structure, claim your reward, and do something else which could be opening a new trade route or maybe something else like securing a dynastic alliance or responding to a random event like a hobgoblin invasion.

Game structures shape gameplay, and the more game structures (and especially scenario structures) you know, the more kinds of adventures/games you can run well.

Edit: incidentally, in 5E, nothing consists of a "single [die] roll." It's always stuff like "choose a DC in your head, communicate to the players what ability/skill influences success, ask for the roll, wait to see if anyone is going to use a Portent die on this roll, roll the dice, see if anyone is going to use Bardic Inspiration or Cutting Words to influence the roll and if so roll those dice, check if anyone is using Lucky dice, add modifiers, declare a success or failure, wait to see if anyone is going to use Indomitable or Shield to influence the outcome of that success or failure, etc." This is what makes even simple procedures complicated in the 5E ruleset.

With apologies to von Clauswitz: "In WotC games, everything is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult."

[Jophiel]

With apologies to von Clauswitz: "In WotC games, everything is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult."

Most of that stuff still happens swiftly and near-automatically (if no one declares they're using inspiration/Portent/etc then it's a half second pause). It's like overwrought descriptions of pouring a cup of coffee: "First you need to walk to the cupboard, then you need to see if there's a clean coffee cup, then you need to PICK a coffee cup unless they're all dirty, then you need to get a dirty cup and turn on the faucet, then you need to pick up a sponge..." when really it's a two second process.

Nothing is ever a single die roll in any version anyway. You're always comparing it to a number to be matched (be it a DM's DC or a chart), adding in any bonuses, etc. If you got hit by a lightning bolt in 1e, you're pulling out a saving throw chart, determining if the lighting was from a Spell, Wand/Staff, Dragon Breath, etc, cross referencing that against class and level, determining if they have a bonus due to any equipment or spell effects, and so on. But, again, just a second or two of real life energy.

[MaxWilson]

Most of that stuff still happens swiftly and near-automatically (if no one declares they're using inspiration/Portent/etc then it's a half second pause). It's like overwrought descriptions of pouring a cup of coffee: "First you need to walk to the cupboard, then you need to see if there's a clean coffee cup, then you need to PICK a coffee cup unless they're all dirty, then you need to get a dirty cup and turn on the faucet, then you need to pick up a sponge..." when really it's a two second process.

I don't really disagree--in practice you also figure out which abilities/interactions are likely to actually be present in your group, and ignore all the rest. E.g. if you have a Lucky PC in your group, the DM may adjust the way he rolls monster dice to give the Lucky guy more time to decide if he's using his luck.

It still illustrates the point about different kinds of complexity though. Looking up saving throws in the AD&D PHB is also something which quickly becomes automatic (you just write them on your character sheet), and which doesn't require the DM to adjust his DMing procedures. Different, but both complex in their own ways.

Nothing is ever a single die roll in any version anyway. You're always comparing it to a number to be matched (be it a DM's DC or a chart), adding in any bonuses, etc. If you got hit by a lightning bolt in 1e, you're pulling out a saving throw chart, determining if the lighting was from a Spell, Wand/Staff, Dragon Breath, etc, cross referencing that against class and level, determining if they have a bonus due to any equipment or spell effects, and so on. But, again, just a second or two of real life energy.

Yeah, the total effort is similar in both cases. Just like how people like to rag on THAC0 and negative AC, but it's not actually more complex than 5E's way--THAC0 works better for large homogenous groups (rolling attacks for 12 orcs at once) and 5E's way works better for small groups, which might be one reason why 5E combats tend to be small.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a realm action in Birthright.

Which is not a single, one-character action. So the point still stands.

Regardless, I've had 2 groups now create lasting alliances as part of their campaigns. Not because I planned for them--in fact, one did so against the natural inclinations of the parties involved. Nether one did so by declaring it as an action. Both took the steps to set one up over many sessions. Finding common ground. Fighting common enemies. Persuading reluctant participants. All things that have mechanics or are trivial to adjudicate. The final act didn't need a mechanic either--if they set the groundwork, it succeeded. Otherwise, it failed.

[JoeJ]

Which is not a single, one-character action. So the point still stands.

Actually, it is. Realm actions are single actions taken by a regent, who can be a PC or NPC, during a domain turn.

[Envyus]

Max you are coming across as very disingenuous and pedantic here.

The game is not very complex compared to its other editions.

[Theoboldi]

There is no way "I open a trade route" is a single, one-character action in any reasonable game. It's always going to be a long, drawn-out, multi-step action involving lots and lots of people over many occasions. And if you abstract it away to a single resolvable action...you're playing a very different game. Which does not resemble a single-character-focused, single-point-of-view system like D&D has ever been at all.

In addition to Birthright, which has already been named, Godbound, which is awesome and works quite well, also allows a single character to do this kind of stuff without much effort as a single action (That takes a week or so in-game, of course.).

Mind, this is because that game is about playing demigods who are above such lowly mortal challenges, and the mechanic is supposed to represent their ability to quickly reshape the world, without getting bogged down in the details every time you want to do something trivial but time-consuming. It stays single point of view the entire time, though. All that is represented by this mechanic is a greater deal competency on part of the characters.

Also, more impossible changes that would actually be a challenge for a good do explicitely require you to solve a number of problems determined by the GM, so that's closer to how you say you would run this.

I do recommend that you check those rules out, given that the game is free. It may give some perspective to your, in my opinion, rather broad claim.

[Malifice]

Well, yeah. 4E is more complex and widget-y. But the OP isn't coming from 4E, he's coming from TSR-era D&D, so 4E isn't a useful point of comparison for him.

5E is roughly equal in complexity to BECMI for mine (with all 5 boxed sets in pay).

It's less complex than AD&D 1E (Core books plus UA and the Wilderness/ Dungeon survival guide, and a Campaign boxed set/ book) and 2E (Presuming spat existence).

The 5E 'Core 3' are much less complex than the AD&D 1 and 2E Core 3. Both in terms of rules simplicity (no THACO, attack and save matrixes, weird rules, lack of a unifying mechanic, fiddly bonuses, varying stat mods, bolted on sub-systems like Psionics in 1E, vague rules wordings etc).

Id feel a lot more comfortable handing a newbe player a copy of the 5E PHB than I would handing them a copy of the AD&D 1E PHB.

[MaxWilson]

Max you are coming across as very disingenuous and pedantic here.

You might want to look up the definition of "disingenuous" before using it in conversation again.

[roryb]

Id feel a lot more comfortable handing a newbe player a copy of the 5E PHB than I would handing them a copy of the AD&D 1E PHB.

You’re not joking here (even though I’m still reading up in the 5e basic rules on classes). My experience was BECMI then onto 2e. Recently a copy of the 1e players handbook came into my possession. I had played it a few times in the late 80’s but never owned nor read a copy.

Good lord, what a convoluted, indecipherable, unnecessarily obtuse hot mess!

[Malifice]

You’re not joking here (even though I’m still reading up in the 5e basic rules on classes). My experience was BECMI then onto 2e. Recently a copy of the 1e players handbook came into my possession. I had played it a few times in the late 80’s but never owned nor read a copy.

Good lord, what a convoluted, indecipherable, unnecessarily obtuse hot mess!

Oddly back in the day its arcane convoluted nature was a feature. Understanding how it all worked together was kind of part of the package of what made it what it was. Neckbeards that full grasped the rules were held in quite high regard.

The free online Basic 5E rules are easier to understand than the Red boxed set basic rulebook of BECMI for mine (without the extra crap from the Expert and Companion and Master sets). Rolling all those 4 boxed sets together, and you're basically at the same level as Core 5E + Xanathars/ SCAG splat.

Even then I'd still call 5E easier to understand due to its core unified mechanic (d20 + Prof + Stat +/- Adv/Disadv).

The trick to 5E rests with the DM. You (as DM) really need to understand the resource management aspect of the game (it's the games fundamental central mechanical underpinning) and understand how the 'X/ Short rest, X/ Long rest' abilities work together over the course of an 'adventuring day' featuring 1 or more encounters. These abilities are central to class power and balance in 5E (more so than fixed bonuses or static attributes like HP, to hit numbers, saves and so forth).

Once you get a good feel for how they all work together (and accept the game is best balanced around the 6 encounter/ 2ish short rest 'adeventuring day') your work is 90 percent done.

[noob]

"As long as it's not something that they could fail..." is doing all the work here. Yes, if, for any step there's no chance of failure (or no interesting failure), you just narrate that part. That's what 5e tells you to do, by the way. But still, in opening a trade route you've got all the interesting, failable parts along the way. The negotiations. The clearing the route. The dealing with rivals. All of those are separable and failable. And failing one can influence the rest without causing the whole to fail. So abstracting those into a single roll is like abstracting an entire adventure into a single roll. Ie missing the entire point IMO.

Edit: Note the "single, single-character" thing. Even if you're a king, opening a trade route isn't something you can do alone. It's a series of actions, each of which could succeed or fail and each of which involves multiple parties with different attitudes. So neither are the roller's circumstances fixed, nor are the opponents' circumstances fixed.

I am sorry but building my trading network is not 450 adventures but only one.
so for all the 450 trades routes and similar complexity actions I am not going to do each of them as an adventure or else the build the trading network adventure will never ever end.

[JAL_1138]

THAC0 works better for large homogenous groups (rolling attacks for 12 orcs at once) and 5E's way works better for small groups, which might be one reason why 5E combats tend to be small.

In both systems you’re taking twelve rolls, applying applicable modifiers, and sorting out whether each one hits somebody’s AC.

If the 2e Orc has a THAC0 of 19, you roll twelve dice, subtracting the roll from the THAC0 for each individual roll. Or if you’re working from a known AC, for example 5, figuring “to hit AC 5, they need to roll 14 or better.”

If the Orc has +5 to hit, you roll twelve dice, and add 5 to the result of each roll. Or if you’re working from a known AC, for example 19, you can simply figure up “To hit AC 19, they need to roll 14 or better.”

How is one method of calculating hits better for large groups than the other?

EDIT: The reasons you saw larger groups in AD&D than 5e is that the action economy tended to be simpler so larger combats went somewhat faster, AoE spells tended to scale much more with level, enemies (and PCs and their hirelings for that matter) tended to have lower HP and thus die more easily to those AoEs and so could be cleared faster, players were more likely to have groups of hirelings/henchmen with them who could also help counteract the larger enemy numbers, and suchlike. At least at higher levels; at lower levels, large groups of enemies could be quite fatal (heck, even a single ordinary squirrel could potentially be fatal to a low-level AD&D character who rolled low on HP), and also AD&D didn’t have encounter building guidelines that cared quite so much about whether a PC got fed through a Cuisinart and poured down the garbage disposal. Not because the to-hit method was simpler.

[Willie the Duck]

You might want to look up the definition of "disingenuous" before using it in conversation again.

<head-desks>
Well, you definitely showed the second part to be accurate.

[MaxWilson]

If the 2e Orc has a THAC0 of 19, you roll twelve dice, subtracting the roll from the THAC0 for each individual roll. Or if you’re working from a known AC, for example 5, figuring “to hit AC 5, they need to roll 14 or better.”

If the Orc has +5 to hit, you roll twelve dice, and add 5 to the result of each roll. Or if you’re working from a known AC, for example 19, you can simply figure up “To hit AC 19, they need to roll 14 or better.”

How is one method of calculating hits better for large groups than the other?

If there are twelve orcs, all attacking AC 5, you subtract 19-5=14, then roll twelve dice and count how many are at least 14. Instead of doing twelve additions you are doing only one subtraction.

Yes, the two methods are equivalent--you can convert one into the other seamlessly. If that's your point I agree. But when people criticize THAC0 they usually say something about how human brains prefer addition over subtraction, and I'm pointing out that subtraction is simpler for this case.

[Mith]

If there are twelve orcs, all attacking AC 5, you subtract 19-5=14, then roll twelve dice and count how many are at least 14. Instead of doing twelve additions you are doing only one subtraction.

Yes, the two methods are equivalent--you can convert one into the other seamlessly. If that's your point I agree. But when people criticize THAC0 they usually say something about how human brains prefer addition over subtraction, and I'm pointing out that subtraction is simpler for this case.

I just use the "attack matrix" and just roll and check my table. Means I'm not doing any maths during combat.

[Jophiel]

Not because the to-hit method was simpler.

In fact, between weapon speeds, space requirements and "Armor Type" modifiers, the to-hit method in 1e was much more bogged down to the point where those rules were frequently ignored.

[Pelle]

It may take you a couple of rereads to really grok it, but I cannot recommend this series of blog posts highly enough. It should be required reading for non-hack-and-slash DMs: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...ame-structures Posts 1-5 and #14 are especially good, and this follow-up post is useful too: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...party-planning

I.e. what you won't find is game structures.

I love those series of articles, game structures are cool. But I don't get your complaint, none of those are in conflict with 5e. Game structures are ways for the GM to organize what happens in the game, those are system independent, and don't belong in the 5e rule books IMO.

I don't want the rules to tell me that if I want to run a party, I need to include 10+ npcs, have 3-5 events etc. Sure, you can devote space to GM tips and best practice, but you can get that elsewhere.

In my current 5e game the players have a ship, and are sailing from port to port. I have made a simple framework for buying and selling trade goods. How that work is world building decisions, and as a DM, I want the system rules to stay away from those. The resolution mechanics are enough to get started.

[EggKookoo]

There's the disconnect--you don't know a game structure for trade routes, so you're treating "we open a trade route" as an invalid action declaration that has to be translated into a series of smaller action declarations instead of a valid action declaration which triggers known procedures. I know this is happening in your head because you say right here that you'd decline to let the players declare "we open a trade route," and you'd wind up asking them to rephrase their action at a different level of detail. This is like The Alexandrian's example of a player who tries to declare "we go to the inn" and the DM who only knowns dungeon crawling procedures and starts describing all of the streets in the town and asking "do you go north, south, east, or west?

I think the disconnect is over what different players consider rules, as compared to what they consider content. For me, content feels a lot like "this is what you're dealing with, what do you choose to do about it?" Whereas rules is more like "ok, you've decided to do that thing, let's see if you succeeded or failed and/or to what degree."

So in light of this, combat is both content and rules. The content aspect comprises things like: choosing to attack the goblins or not; working out tactics with other members of the party; should I hit that goblin or heal the fighter?; hey, that goblin ran off, let's go get him!; and anything else that basically comes down to a decision made by one or more players about how to proceed. The rules aspect is more straightforward: roll my d20 to see if my attack hit; force the goblins to make saving throws against my fireball; move X amount of my overall movement to better serve the tactical decision made back in the "content" phase; and other things that most of us think of as mechanical "rules" to the game. While there may be some overlap between them, most things fall pretty firmly into one aspect or the other.

When I hear "open a trade route" my mind immediately goes to that being a content-driven experience. It's going to be a series of decisions made by the PCs in response to the specific circumstances set up by their particular scenario (i.e. adventure, module). Each decision may spawn off more content-driven play, or may result in a rules-based step. Just like I wouldn't want a combat table that you roll on to determine the content-based elements (1-2: You attack nearest enemy, 3-4: You heal the fighter), I'd wouldn't want to resolve the trade route just by some table. Sure, I'd want a general structure for how to handle long-term fiscal/economic enterprises. Something that would cover any kind of business, which running a trade route would qualify as. And the 5e DMG has structure in place for that.

Yes, the two methods are equivalent--you can convert one into the other seamlessly. If that's your point I agree. But when people criticize THAC0 they usually say something about how human brains prefer addition over subtraction, and I'm pointing out that subtraction is simpler for this case.

It's not that for me. It's that in AD&D you subtract for some things, add for other things, and there's little rhyme or reason why. Initiative uses a d10 in 2e (a d6 in 1e). Rolling high for an attack is good, rolling high for a saving throw or initiative is bad. High hit points are good but high AC is bad. It's not the worst thing in the world as a DM to keep track of this, but it feels weak to explain it to players who make rolls, get excited because the result is high, only to remind them that, no, in this case they wanted low. It's distracting and feels cobbled together. It drives home the arbitrary nature of the rules.

With 3e and (almost!) everything becoming a d20 where higher is always better, we can all stop spending brain bookkeeping cycles on keeping up with the weird quirks and biases of the game designers and just get on with it. It's not that adding is easier than subtraction, it's that you no longer have to worry about which one you use in a given situation. Whenever I played 2e (or a lot of other games of the era, which suffered from a lot of similar weirdness), I often felt like I wanted to fix the rules. With 5e I feel like I want to extend the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I love those series of articles, game structures are cool. But I don't get your complaint, none of those are in conflict with 5e. Game structures are ways for the GM to organize what happens in the game, those are system independent, and don't belong in the 5e rule books IMO.

I don't want the rules to tell me that if I want to run a party, I need to include 10+ npcs, have 3-5 events etc. Sure, you can devote space to GM tips and best practice, but you can get that elsewhere.

In my current 5e game the players have a ship, and are sailing from port to port. I have made a simple framework for buying and selling trade goods. How that work is world building decisions, and as a DM, I want the system rules to stay away from those. The resolution mechanics are enough to get started.

Agreed, especially since matters of pacing, scope, and such vary wildly even within a single sub-genre, let alone between different sub-genres. What works for my Thursday "gather allies in a ruined city against a demon" campaign won't work on Friday with my "explore a cursed battlefield/prison and counter chaos cult machinations" game, both because the region is different and, more importantly, the players are different. One group loves combat; the other disfavors it, preferring sneaky or talky ways through. One group is pretty straightforward, the other group loves them some curveballs.

And all that is within a single setting and the same time format (1.5 hours/week after school).

I want the game to present a toolkit and advice on what to watch out for as I use the tools. I would love to see more discussion of the basic assumptions and philosophy behind the game. What the designers had in mind and what assumptions cause mass breakage if relaxed. Also I'd like to see more worked examples (for item or monster design especially). Especially helpful would be examples showing why certain things deviate from the guidelines.

I don't want the DMG to tell me how I have to play the game. The most freeing realization I made as an early DM (in 4e, by the by) was that the game rules exist solely to take a burden off the players. Freeform is the default, but freeform is exhausting (especially with more than two participants). Additional "rules" (resolution mechanics and packaged events/outcomes) are there to simplify the players' life and spread the load. That's it. They're not a binding contract, they're not the game. They're not restrictions on what can be done--they're merely there to cover common cases of what might be done. They're pre-built jigs, stencils. But the painting doesn't have to stick to stencils--I can paint outside the lines. With this realization, "Rule 0" isn't really a rule--it's just a statement of universal fact. The rules cannot constrain a table unless the table chooses to be constrained (which they might). The only real constraint on any player is the other players at the table, and everyone should use their words and advocate for themselves.

[MaxWilson]

It's not that for me. It's that in AD&D you subtract for some things, add for other things, and there's little rhyme or reason why. Initiative uses a d10 in 2e (a d6 in 1e). Rolling high for an attack is good, rolling high for a saving throw or initiative is bad.

Saving throws, like attack rolls, are a roll-over mechanic, so rolling high is good. Initiative is the only exception and frankly you can just as easily invert that if you care to: roll d10 and subtract your weapon speed instead of adding it, then count down from highest to lowest. (I don't personally think that's necessary because it makes sense that 1 (first) goes before 10 (tenth). Making 10 go first makes high rolls good, yes, but it makes 10th faster than 1st, which is weird.)

[Willie the Duck]

Saving throws, like attack rolls, are a roll-over mechanic, so rolling high is good. Initiative is the only exception and frankly you can just as easily invert that if you care to: roll d10 and subtract your weapon speed instead of adding it, then count down from highest to lowest. (I don't personally think that's necessary because it makes sense that 1 (first) goes before 10 (tenth). Making 10 go first makes high rolls good, yes, but it makes 10th faster than 1st, which is weird.)

Doesn't this fall into the category of sure-you-can-modify-it,-but-the-DMs-don't-need-to-do-useless-work?

for reference:

Sure, and that's my point: you can simplify any game. E.g. you can ignore the saving throw tables in AD&D and just make up numbers that sound pretty good, especially if the player rolls a high number which you're pretty sure would pass even if you did look it up). In AD&D or 5E, you can avoid assigning class levels to unimportant enemy wizards and just assign them HP and a few choice spells that they'll cast at first opportunity.

Once you account for the fact that DMs don't need to do useless work, every game gets pretty simple. But 5E starts at a relatively high level of complexity before you do that simplification, which is why WotC has an official "rules manager" with a Twitter account.

[MaxWilson]

Doesn't this fall into the category of sure-you-can-modify-it,-but-the-DMs-don't-need-to-do-useless-work?

I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase or elaborate? I don't understand how those two quotes are related to each other in your mind. One's about how AD&D initiative is fine already but easily modified; the other about skipping over details that don't matter. What's going on in your head that makes you juxtapose them, and what point are you trying to make?

[KorvinStarmast]

Oddly back in the day its arcane convoluted nature was a feature. Understanding how it all worked together was kind of part of the package of what made it what it was.

Even people without beards attained system mastery.

The free online Basic 5E rules are easier to understand than the Red boxed set basic rulebook of BECMI for mine (without the extra crap from the Expert and Companion and Master sets). Rolling all those 4 boxed sets together, and you're basically at the same level as Core 5E + Xanathars/ SCAG splat.

Concur.

Even then I'd still call 5E easier to understand due to its core unified mechanic (d20 + Prof + Stat +/- Adv/Disadv).

Also concur.

The trick to 5E rests with the DM. You (as DM) really need to understand the resource management aspect of the game (it's the games fundamental central mechanical underpinning) and understand how the 'X/ Short rest, X/ Long rest' abilities work together over the course of an 'adventuring day' featuring 1 or more encounters. These abilities are central to class power and balance in 5E

Bingo. It took me a while to begin to grok that.

AD&D didn’t have encounter building guidelines that cared quite so much about whether a PC got fed through a Cuisinart and poured down the garbage disposal.

*chortle*

In fact, between weapon speeds, space requirements and "Armor Type" modifiers, the to-hit method in 1e was much more bogged down to the point where those rules were frequently ignored.

Yes to both. The AC modifier began in Greyhawk. By the time I hit AD&D 1e as a DM, I had canned them as to much to bother with.

Game structures are ways for the GM to organize what happens in the game, those are system independent, and don't belong in the 5e rule books IMO. I have made a simple framework for buying and selling trade goods. How that work is world building decisions, and as a DM, I want the system rules to stay away from those. The resolution mechanics are enough to get started.

Tailored to the table.

Freeform is the default, but freeform is exhausting (especially with more than two participants).

Arneson would agree ... and that was "the spark" which comes with a caveat: his model hinged upon the "great man theory" in that what was in his little black notebook changed as he learned (IMO a good thing) and was not common knowledge. The ultimate in DM dependency as a game system. He was also a huge fan of genre fusion, as were all of the proto D&D and early D&D leads. (As was Barker with EPT). We have reached a point in time that there are so many RPGs out there serving so many genres, that D&D has (for IMO economic reasons and branding) chosen to settle into the high fantasy niche with some room for lower magic swords and sorcery. While it's still wide open in a lot of ways, the boundaries seem to me to have moved toward a given center.

And that, as well as the unified mechanic Malifice pointed to (concisely) lowers barriers to entry.

The KISS principle has man virtues; 5e has enough KISS to be accessible, and enough room for complexity to go that way if you want to. It's an interesting fusion.

[EggKookoo]

Saving throws, like attack rolls, are a roll-over mechanic, so rolling high is good. Initiative is the only exception and frankly you can just as easily invert that if you care to: roll d10 and subtract your weapon speed instead of adding it, then count down from highest to lowest. (I don't personally think that's necessary because it makes sense that 1 (first) goes before 10 (tenth). Making 10 go first makes high rolls good, yes, but it makes 10th faster than 1st, which is weird.)

Oh, right, it's the "DC" that goes down as you level up, and not even according to a formula as near as I can tell. So much more intuitive than just applying a math-derived bonus to your roll.

With 5e, if you tell me your Constitution ability score, your level, and whether or not you're proficient in Con saves, I can tell you the chance you making or failing a save against typical poison (usually DC 13 or so) without consulting anything in any manual. I can't do that in 2e without checking or memorizing tables. They're completely different cognitive experiences. To make things worse, in 5e once you understand that your ability bonus is just your ability score minus 10, halved, and rounded down, and your proficiency bonus is just your level divided by 4, rounded up, plus one, you can work out a huge chunk of mechanics. In 2e everything has its own special chart without any kind of consistent mathematical underpinning. You have to learn all these esoteric progressions, or at least be able to reference them quickly, to run a game.

I'm not really knocking 2e -- I've spent many years enjoying it. It's just not elegant. Well, except for the general approach to classes. I loved that there were four class archetypes and everything was based off those. I was sad to see that go in 3e and if there was something I wish 5e did, it would have been to go back to that.

[MaxWilson]

With 5e, if you tell me your Constitution ability score, your level, and whether or not you're proficient in Con saves, I can tell you the chance you making or failing a save against typical poison (usually DC 13 or so) without consulting anything in any manual. I can't do that in 2e without checking or memorizing tables. They're completely different cognitive experiences. To make things worse, in 5e once you understand that your ability bonus is just your ability score minus 10, halved, and rounded down, and your proficiency bonus is just your level divided by 4, rounded up, plus one, you can work out a huge chunk of mechanics. In 2e everything has its own special chart without any kind of consistent mathematical underpinning. You have to learn all these esoteric progressions, or at least be able to reference them quickly, to run a game.

Speaking of cognitive experiences... the game fiction is better in 2E. In 5E, if I'm going without water for three days, it matters enormously whether the DM calls for a "Constitution check" or a "Constitution save" (and 5E has contradictory rules calling for both), despite the fact that all you're really doing is modeling how well your body holds up to extended thirst. There's no fiction there to distinguish between them, but in one case the Fighter and the Sorcerer and the Barbarian get to add +Proficiency to their check, and in the other case the Bard can use Bardic Inspiration and Guidance can potentially grant +1d4 to the check.

In AD&D you'd probably just read the descriptions for all the saving throws and settle on it being a saving throw vs. paralyzation/poison/death magic, because it most closely matches that description.

This illustrates perfectly the difference between 5E complexity and AD&D complexity: AD&D has more tables and more emphasis on the game fiction, and more variety of mechanical resolutions (which helps it match certain fictions better). 5E has more math, a unified mechanic for most things, and more emphasis on build options. The 5E way is nice in the sense that it gives players lots of customization options (caters to Expression, in the language of the Eight Types of Fun) but it's definitely not simpler. It's complex in a different way.

At this point though the OP has long since made up their mind, and perhaps has even given 5E a shot and is now forming their own opinions, so hopefully they can decide for themselves if 5E is "a game for grognards."

[EggKookoo]

Speaking of cognitive experiences... the game fiction is better in 2E. In 5E, if I'm going without water for three days, it matters enormously whether the DM calls for a "Constitution check" or a "Constitution save" (and 5E has contradictory rules calling for both), despite the fact that all you're really doing is modeling how well your body holds up to extended thirst. There's no fiction there to distinguish between them, but in one case the Fighter and the Sorcerer and the Barbarian get to add +Proficiency to their check, and in the other case the Bard can use Bardic Inspiration and Guidance can potentially grant +1d4 to the check.

In AD&D you'd probably just read the descriptions for all the saving throws and settle on it being a saving throw vs. paralyzation/poison/death magic, because it most closely matches that description.

I do wish 5e was more clear on the difference between checks and saves. I know the shorthand is a check is for when you're trying to make something happen that otherwise wouldn't (and is therefore usually an action), whereas a save is for when you're trying to avoid or prevent something from happening. Walk across a tightrope is a Dex check. Not falling off the tightrope when it's shaken is a Dex save. But there are definitely places where it's unclear which should be used, and it does make a difference in the possible outcomes.

Regarding if going without water is a Con check or a Con save, the spirit of the rules is that it would be a save. That it says "check" in the Con description is almost certainly an oversight. I wish they'd address that in an errata.

At this point though the OP has long since made up their mind, and perhaps has even given 5E a shot and is now forming their own opinions, so hopefully they can decide for themselves if 5E is "a game for grognards."

I think it's pretty clear how edition argument threads go...