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

[DEFCON 1]

It is true when people here say that "popular" does not equal "good". Because the former is a calculable number, and the latter is not. We can calculate approximately the number of D&D players who like 5E14 and the number of players who do not (through surveys and the like as necessary). But whether something is "good" is subjective. Everyone will have a differing opinion. Rotten Tomatoes does not tell us whether a movie is objectively "good" or not... they tell us whether the people in the survey think it is good or not for them in their opinion. So "popularity" is a measurement of how many people think it's "good" or not.

So what does "popularity" actually tell us? It tells us how likely something is to be changed. The more popular something is... the more people like it... the less likely WotC has the need to change it to something else. Even if someone tries to create some sort of "objective" measurement that says it is "bad"... like the Fireball spell being "overpowered" for a 3rd level spell... if it remains popular regardless of that supposed "objective fact"... WotC has little reason to change it and probably won't.

Thus when people say that some part of D&D 5E is popular and thus good... what they are really saying is that it is popular and thus less likely to be changed into something else. And if a person doesn't like that thing but they find themselves in the minority about it... with most other people either liking the thing or not having an opinion on it one way or the other... they will not see the thing they don't like get changed into something they possibly might.

It's only when WotC sees a predominant number of people actively disliking something will they consider changing it-- like the 5E14 Beast Master Ranger, the Great Weapon Master feat, the 4 Elements Monk... then they will consider amending the rules to "fix" it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is true when people here say that "popular" does not equal "good". Because the former is a calculable number, and the latter is not. We can calculate approximately the number of D&D players who like 5E14 and the number of players who do not (through surveys and the like as necessary). But whether something is "good" is subjective. Everyone will have a differing opinion. Rotten Tomatoes does not tell us whether a movie is objectively "good" or not... they tell us whether the people in the survey think it is good or not for them in their opinion. So "popularity" is a measurement of how many people think it's "good" or not.

So what does "popularity" actually tell us? It tells us how likely something is to be changed. The more popular something is... the more people like it... the less likely WotC has the need to change it to something else. Even if someone tries to create some sort of "objective" measurement that says it is "bad"... like the Fireball spell being "overpowered" for a 3rd level spell... if it remains popular regardless of that supposed "objective fact"... WotC has little reason to change it and probably won't.

Thus when people say that some part of D&D 5E is popular and thus good... what they are really saying is that it is popular and thus less likely to be changed into something else. And if a person doesn't like that thing but they find themselves in the minority about it... with most other people either liking the thing or not having an opinion on it one way or the other... they will not see the thing they don't like get changed into something they possibly might.

It's only when WotC sees a predominant number of people actively disliking something will they consider changing it-- like the 5E14 Beast Master Ranger, the Great Weapon Master feat, the 4 Elements Monk... then they will consider amending the rules to "fix" it.

Truth. Now if only people knew that's what popularity actually means.

Everyone on this forum should read this.

 

[OB1]

You seem to assume that people care all that much about rule details. Which is a refrain I hear, that game X has more "elegant" rules system. Thing is that the vast majority of players are quite casual about it, what's important to them is the connection to their character and the fantasy it evokes along with a connection with other people around the table. The rules? The rules just have to provide a solid foundation for the game. D&D 5E does that for me, it provides me structure support for sharing stories with my group in a structured way without, for lack of a better term, getting in the way of that shared story telling. Something I couldn't say about 4E which doubled down and then some on 3E's one way to play and was too tightly structured for me. On the other hand, I looked into PbtA games and those are too free form, too demanding of players improv abilities. It was too "loose". D&D hits that sweet spot of not too crunchy, not to reliant on extemporization.

This describes how both I and the people I play with feel about 5e so perfectly. And to add one more piece, it's also because the rules are set in a way that don't require a lot of out of game time to enjoy playing the game. I play with a bunch of people with busy lives, most of who don't think about D&D outside of our weekly session. It's casual, but also interesting enough to have kept us playing weekly for 9 years, with no end in sight. In my mind, that's an elegant game, even if the individual pieces are put together in a clunky way.

For the people I play with, it's the 'just right' amount of structure (to give direction) and freedom (to do what you want), combined with a casual approach to play, that makes 5e sing.

And I think that speaks also to why we have 3 separate classes for Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks. The mechanical differences aren't the important piece, it's the story differences. Choosing to play a caster who get's their power through study, or making a deal with the devil, or because of some random event lead to very different types of characters. It provides a solid foundation for role playing.

Now, the mechanics need to properly support the story, and in the 2014 rules, they didn't all that well for Rangers, Monks and Sorcerers, and thus those classes are getting the biggest overhaul in 2024 (with Barbarians not far behind). The UA has brought the mechanics in line with the fantasy of being those classes.

 

[Cadence]

RE: "Discusses new books" and new edition of books vs. new edition of a game

There are various threads out there on the 5e books, such as "No one reads the 5e DMG". When the new books come out, that feels kind of feels like an obviously inappropriate thread to discuss whether the 2024 version of the 5e DMG is something no one reads. On the other hand the new book will still be a 5e DMG, so it isn't technically wrong. And even more, if people actually distinguished between the books it seems an obvious place to have discussion about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Truth. Now if only people knew that's what popularity actually means.

What do you want to say with that statement?

 

[Oofta]

What do you want to say with that statement?

Always strike me as "I don't personally like it, so the judgement of others is irrelevant."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Always strike me as "I don't personally like it, so the judgement of others is irrelevant."

More like, "how many people currently hold a preference says absolutely nothing about the validity of that preference, but rather just how easy to it to find others who share it, and potentially how much money can be made from it".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

More like, "how many people currently hold a preference says absolutely nothing about the validity of that preference, but rather just how easy to it to find others who share it, and potentially how much money can be made from it".

Yeah, that makes sense. Not everyone has to like mainstream.

But that also does not mean that being in the minority validates THAT preference.

It is just preferences. And some designs (in music, game design, books, etc) are easier to get into and thus more probable to become popular.

In music there is something called pop music. Wonder what that pop stands for... that does not necessarily make it good though.

 

[Oofta]

More like, "how many people currently hold a preference says absolutely nothing about the validity of that preference, but rather just how easy to it to find others who share it, and potentially how much money can be made from it".

The goal of WotC is to sell games. The way they do that is by making a game fun to play. So the market has spoken as far as I'm concerned that many people enjoy the game. Are there other games that they could also enjoy? Of course. It's not a reflection on those games one way or another.

All we know is that D&D works reasonably well for a lot of people which is why the prefer it.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, that makes sense. Not everyone has to like mainstream.

But that also does not mean that being in the minority validates THAT preference.

It is just preferences. And some designs (in music, game design, books, etc) are easier to get into and thus more probable to become popular.

In music there is something called pop music. Wonder what that pop stands for... that does not necessarily make it good though.

Good music, like beauty, or value of a game is in the eye of the beholder and depends on what you're measuring. Opera would bore me to tears, I don't care for most classical music. I have ... double checking ... Imagine Dragons playing on spotify at the moment. I happen to like their music which for makes it better for me than Tchaikovsky.