Thoughts on D&D 5th Edition

After playing quite a lot of D&D 5e recently, I have found quite a few issues I have with the system. There are a good number of design elements that have consistently caused issues at my tables, and reduced the enjoyment that my players and I got out of it. I don't believe 5e is a "broken system" or anything like that, but it definitely has its weaknesses.

Modern D&D (meaning 3e and newer), and many similar systems like Pathfinder, suffer mainly from their massive amount of content and rules that attempt to codify everything, to the point where we begin going back to the simulationist approach that early tabletops struggled with. For D&D, this comes from needing an overhaul every time they want to release a new system, while for Pathfinder it's actually the point of their game design paradigm. Regardless, there is an enormous amount of rules that a group will run into, even within a single session.

For some GM's this may not be a problem, though for many, especially less experienced ones, the sheer amount of rules can often get in the way of actually enjoying the game. Personally, I believe my experience is actually causing me issues since I have been playing/GM'ing since 2e and am currently mixing up my versions just about every session.

There's plenty of tips for GMs saying to not let the rules get in the way of the game, but that simply isn't always possible. If I make a mistake in my rulings, one of the players is certain to go looking it up and either we continue and have some retcon later or we wait for them or me to find the rule and move on. Either way, there's been a sizeable break in the flow of the game, taking people out of it. "That's an issue between you are your players" you might say, and you'd be right. But when that's an issue between many GMs and players, there might be an issue in the system.

Other than "rule breaks", there's another problem I've identified with over-simulating the world, which is that it impedes creative thought in the players. With so much of the world being broken into neat, little "Action", "Bonus Action", "Reaction", or whatever chunks, the players tend to forget they can do things that aren't listed there. If the character sheet or book doesn't explicitly say they can do a thing, they will never choose to do that thing. With so many options already listed why spend the time and mental power trying to come up with your own?

If you were given a menu at a restaurant that listed "Duck, Alligator, Goose, Deer, Squirrel, Elk, Horse, Beaver, Raccoon, Etc", would you ask the server what else there was? (Well perhaps if you wanted something a bit more standard, but you get the point.) Having simple lists of a few items is fine, but there is a point at which our human psychology tells us to ignore other options, we should have enough here without bothering to find out more.

But in OSR games, even without all the lists and explicit rules, the players somehow manage to explore and succeed within their world. Given a short list of examples or a bit of a tutorial, any player can understand that there is as many options at any given moment in the game as there are in the real world.

Which brings me to my last complaint about modern D&D, having so many rules and making the game more simulationist ironically makes it less realistic. Of course, simulationist rules make the game more realistic in the sense that players must deal with real-life things like how much their carrying or counting their supplies, but adding all the rules and metrics pushes the players to further levels of abstraction. Eventually, you end up with D&D 5e, where players treat it more like a video game, being given a set of options and choosing one on their turn.

I have a player who is entirely new to tabletop role-playing, and for nearly every session he has been tuned out, on his phone, and barely paying attention. The only times he's enjoyed himself was during combat. There is nothing wrong with that. If you play D&D for the combat, power to you. But, the problem is that he is completely lost when outside of combat. Combat allows him to use those little blocks on his character sheet that tell him exactly what happens. Everything else appears to be shrouded in mystery, and he is left behind as not knowing what he can or can't do.

This player isn't unusual, and I believe a remedy would be to play an OSR-style game with him, probably a B/X-derivative. Without all the "answers" given to him, this player would at first find himself even more lost than in 5e. But after a session or two, he could easily understand that the fantasy we're creating is very similar to the real world, and can be moved around and interacted with in the same ways, plus a handful more. This immersion is what makes OSR games more "realistic" while being the opposite of simulationist.

I understand the shift towards simulationist and explicit systems, and the need to define rules for as much as the author's can think of (this style of game design peaked with D&D 3.5), but I do not think 5e works for everyone, or even for most people, at least for a consistent, long-term campaign. While I believe it is a step up in quite a few ways, it feels like a step down (or at least to the side) in others. I likely will be playing this system for quite a few more years, though I do hope my players eventually come around to the idea of playing other systems.