I can respect where you are coming from, Tuypo1. There was a time when I liked the way 3.0 and other systems with lots of modifiers worked. I enjoyed detail, more realism (even though these games have a fantasy premise to begin).

Now I am more of a fan of simple that mostly makes sense . . . To me at least. There is enough class and race variation to satisfy me.  

Of course your perspective is valid.

Quote from: tuypo1;818408i have seen 1 person who praised the lack of monster character rules but the mans a bit of an idiot anyway.

I bet he knows how to use a shift key...

When we playtested D&D 5e, we had a similarly positive experience: Pretty much all involved players liked the system quite well, and enjoyed it much more than the other versions we had played in that constelation of players (4e and Pathfinder). However, after playing it for roughly two months (weekly sessions), the overall feeling became, "okay, and what now?" and the system became less and less enthralling (I think we played to level 5). Basically, ther conclusion was that the system was a little bit too light-weight for our tastes and that the typical D&D-isms that are not to everyone's taste were still quite present (which is not a bad thing! After all, D&D should include D&D-isms more than any other RPG system), so we returned to Midgard and BRP.
So, at least for me and my typical players, it is great game for a brief campaign, but not so good for a longer one.

Quote from: tuypo1;818408oddly enough most of the things that i dislike about 5e are what so many people say is whats great about it.

• advantage
• magic item restrictions
• skill system changes
• bounded accuracy

I agree with you. I don't like any of those things either. Well, the way they do skills isn't bad so I'd swap that for Inspiration and Backgrounds in my list of things I dislike.

Quote from: Beagle;818451When we playtested D&D 5e, we had a similarly positive experience: Pretty much all involved players liked the system quite well, and enjoyed it much more than the other versions we had played in that constelation of players (4e and Pathfinder). However, after playing it for roughly two months (weekly sessions), the overall feeling became, "okay, and what now?" and the system became less and less enthralling (I think we played to level 5). Basically, ther conclusion was that the system was a little bit too light-weight for our tastes and that the typical D&D-isms that are not to everyone's taste were still quite present (which is not a bad thing! After all, D&D should include D&D-isms more than any other RPG system), so we returned to Midgard and BRP.
So, at least for me and my typical players, it is great game for a brief campaign, but not so good for a longer one.

I enjoy lighter weight rules systems so I am of the opposite opinion. I can deal with heavy crunchy rules systems for short campaigns but it is exhausting to run a long one.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;818561I enjoy lighter weight rules systems so I am of the opposite opinion. I can deal with heavy crunchy rules systems for short campaigns but it is exhausting to run a long one.

Yep.  Same here.  Especially if it's a game you only play a couple times a month.  The less to keep track of, the better.

Yeah, we try to play two or three times a month, but, due mostly to weather conditions that played havoc with our attendance, we were only able to play one session in the past 5 weeks. We got it going again on Saturday and it picked up just fine.