D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[gorice]

I just had this discussion with a buddy of mine who's been playing D&D nearly as long as I have. We, and my wife for that matter, disagree. While the details may have changed the actual gameplay feels like older editions, something I can't say about 4E.

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.

It’s ok for things to just work. You don’t need to make a meal of the small stuff… and those issues are small stuff. They’re minor details, and not clear cut by any stretch of the imagination. Plenty of folks would disagree about level of problem with sorcerer and ranger. Or judge by different metrics than power.

Ultimately designers have to make decisions. It isn’t design by committee. Playtests are just that… tests. They aren’t a manifesto commitment or a pledge.

Those were just examples. Giving a full list would take me a long time. The short version is: 5e doesn't just work, but it's vague enough that people have convinced themselves it does.

Also, I want to reiterate, I never said anything about the ranger or druid being underpowered. I'm saying that they don't make sense as fantasies, unless the fantasy is 'D&D ranger and druid'. It's all self-referential.

 

[Shardstone]

Was it rushed? Compared to previous editions they put as much or more work into it. They did what was, at the time, the largest public playtest ever. As far as arbitrary components, doesn't that describe pretty much every game ever invented?

The obvious steps to me are to make minor modifications because no one knows what went into the secret sauce of making 5E as popular as it is.

Mearls said on his patreon that they were rushes and had to leave some things, like multiclassing, in less then ideal states.

 

[Oofta]

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.


Those were just examples. Giving a full list would take me a long time. The short version is: 5e doesn't just work, but it's vague enough that people have convinced themselves it does.

Also, I want to reiterate, I never said anything about the ranger or druid being underpowered. I'm saying that they don't make sense as fantasies, unless the fantasy is 'D&D ranger and druid'. It's all self-referential.

Fighters attack creatures with sharp pointy things and can do it all day long. Wizards cast a limited list of spells, clerics heal, rogues rogue. We have ability scores, saving throws, roll a D20 against an AC. Most of the gameplay outside of combat is pretty free-form (I know there were alternatives here and there, we never used them). You're less likely to die because of a single bad roll, but we house-ruled or ignored most of those.

I gotta say "I don't think you like 5e" is one of the weirdest most overblown statement I've ever seen on this forum. I can't even say I'm offended because it's just ... a bizarre statement to make. You don't get to tell me or the people I play with what we think, what we like or why.

 

[Oofta]

Mearls said on his patreon that they were rushes and had to leave some things, like multiclassing, in less then ideal states.

As a (software) developer I always felt rushed as well no matter how much time we had. That's why I said in comparison to the previous editions. We know they hadn't even finished class design for 4E yet as one example, the amount of errata needed was also a big indication of being pushed too far too fast.

 

[Oofta]

You personally not liking something they ended up including is no reflection on what the majority thought.

The people who made the final call were the ones that know what the numbers were. There's no logical reason to believe they looked at the results, decided they were too popular and decided to cut them from the final release.

 

[Parmandur]

And yes, I said just that. Just as I said that ST wasn't the only factor, just possibly the largest single, identifiable one. But I agree that we cannot know that with any degree of certainty.

Again, we have a different view on this - on the influence of ST on 5E's popularity. I know you're trying to make a point, but muddies it a bit when you say that you could "just as easily say that restoration of US diplomatic relations with Cuba"...that's clearly nonsense. And "correlation doesn't show causation" is an overused rhetorical point that obfuscates that correlation can be related to causation. In other words, some correlations do have a causative influence.

I will say again that I may be overstating ST's importance, but to say that it wasn't--at the least--a significant factor is kind of, ahem, strange (imo). But again, we can agree to disagree on this.

But the problem with correlation is...which caused which? DidStranger Thigns cause D&D to be popular, or did the popularity of things like D&D help spur Stranger Things? Probably both, and who knows how much which way?

 

[Oofta]

But the problem with correlation is...which caused which? DidStranger Thigns cause D&D to be popular, or did the popularity of things like D&D help spur Stranger Things? Probably both, and who knows how much which way?

Did Stranger Things contribute 1%? 5%? 50%? We simply have no way of knowing, I suspect it's lower on the scale. It had already started being mentioned in mainstream media and was becoming more widely accepted. All we do know is that the rate of growth was consistent before and after the release of the show. As you pointed out, 5E had already sold more than the previous WotC editions by 2016 when Stranger Things came out. You don't get that kind of sales with "only gamers buying it". You don't get people like my sister joining our family game because of a show she never watched.

 

[TheSword]

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.

Those were just examples. Giving a full list would take me a long time. The short version is: 5e doesn't just work, but it's vague enough that people have convinced themselves it does.

Both statements are pretty condescending to be honest. I have trouble with any argument that proceeds under the assumption that the public are deluded or don’t know their own minds. You know the truth though right? If we only listened to you we’d all be better of yeah? Do we also need to hand you our worldly goods and commit to the new way with an open heart?

Occam’s Razor. Which is simpler - millions of people are suffering from a mass hallucination that D&D is a great game or that you are wrong?

Also, I want to reiterate, I never said anything about the ranger or druid being underpowered. I'm saying that they don't make sense as fantasies, unless the fantasy is 'D&D ranger and druid'. It's all self-referential.

I have no problem with self reference. 50 years on I think there is plenty of space for a bit of self-reference.

 

[TheSword]

Did Stranger Things contribute 1%? 5%? 50%? We simply have no way of knowing, I suspect it's lower on the scale. It had already started being mentioned in mainstream media and was becoming more widely accepted. All we do know is that the rate of growth was consistent before and after the release of the show. As you pointed out, 5E had already sold more than the previous WotC editions by 2016 when Stranger Things came out. You don't get that kind of sales with "only gamers buying it". You don't get people like my sister joining our family game because of a show she never watched.

Stranger Things probably helped put the name on peoples lips and with brand recognition but let’s be honest D&D was already fairly well known - that was never a problem. It was the reputation. I’m not sure ST portrayed it as cool.

I still think the rise of fantasy in TV and film combined with the explosion of board games and Console gaming meant that the right kind of D&D was always going to fall on fertile soil.

I was very surprised to find people I wouldn’t have expected to be playing. Folks that never would have in the 80’s and 90’s. What’s more they didn’t just give it a go, they kept playing it - and were willing to talk about how they like it. That for me is the difference with the current edition and why it’s growing.

I still can’t get my partner to give it a go though despite me having 5 campaigns on the go. One day lol

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip. Misread something. Sorry. Go along. Nothing to see here.