D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
- Status
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
But nobody claimed the level of inclusiveness was the same. The argument was that there is a trend towards more inclusiveness, and that Pathfinder (which came out 7 years ago or so but is still carried heavily in stores) was one data point along that trend line which currently is at 5e. Nobody claimed an inability to differentiate between two companies for active players of those games - the claim was about how potential new buyers/players might perceive the issue of diversity in what they see as "D&D".
The numbers we're talking about for the 5e PHB so far exceed the numbers for 3.0, 3.5e, Pathfinder, and 4e, that it can't be about purely existing players. And Both Mearls and Crawford have also said as much - this version of D&D is getting a large increase in NEW players, and in long LAPSED players of AD&D - a lot of people who didn't play Pathfinder or 3e or 4e. So the question was why? I gave a list of ten things I thought influence that increase the most. Some others raised the issue of inclusiveness as one reason for the increased number of players. But none of that was about existing players not being able to tell the difference between Pathfinder and D&D 5e. I think all existing players know the difference (though some existing players still consider Pathfinder to be "D&D"). The context here was all, from the beginning, about mostly new players and the question as to why this version of D&D seems to be getting so many of them.
So yeah, of course you can differentiate between Pathfinder and 5e, and of course so can the rest of your players. But...why would you take it as if people were saying you couldn't given the context?
Imaro
Legend
Exactly what argument are you talking about? The argument I responded to wasn't in the context of Pathfinder being a data point on general inclusiveness in the subjective individuals D&D... can you show me the post where I responded to anything like this?
The argument I responded to was that when looking at inclusiveness for D&D... that Pathfinder non-white iconics somehow count when D&D non-white iconics were specifically asked for... I said they didn't answer the question because they weren't D&D iconics and that Pathfinder inclusiveness does not in fact count towards inclusiveness of D&D since they are different games, by different companies with different levels of inclusiveness... you and @Shasarak proceeded to argue that Pathfinder was viewed as D&D so no distinction should be made between Pathfinder iconics and D&D iconics or inclusiveness... I explained this earlier.
Jester David
Hero
no. Is playing a cleric essential? Are you still playing D&D if no one is a cleric. Does that mean Dark Sun isn't D&D?
I gave no idea
Yes.
All three of the Star Wars games were compatible with 3e. More that Pathfinder arguably.
As are dozens of other OGL games. Castles & Crusades, Dragonstar, Midnight, Iron Heroes, etc. Is every game published that was compatible with the d20 rule set the "D&D"? Or just the ones that also have clerics?
Hussar
Legend
Wow. Pedant much?
Look the whole point of my pretty throw away line was that up until very recently DND has not been inclusive. Or at least not very.
Not that they deliberately excluded anyone, they just didn't bother showing anyone else very much.
Recent DND (however you want to define DND) has been much better at being inclusive and that's a good thing.
I'm still rather baffled how this spawned such a ludicrous fitshorm. [MENTION=3987]Bagpuss[/MENTION] mentioned way upthread that DND was Mexer exclusionary. That was the point I was countering.
Last edited:
The main problem for me is: people claim that inclusivity is a big part of 5e's success. Then other people point to the fact that 3e was more inclusive that it's predecessors, PF is waaaay more inclusive (and a lot of people considers PF in the D&D family) and other games, like the WW ones were always more inclusive than D&D.
So, if inclusivity is a big part of the success, but 5e doesn't really made anything new on this front, then there is an inconsequence of why it is a big success in contrast to the other games because of this.
Note, i think it is a part of the success, but other parts, like the cultural backdrop, or the easiness of the rules are more important. People notice because of this. That more people notice from the LGBTQ+ comm, because of the inclusivity and start playing is an important part, but a fairly low percentage I think. That doesn't mean I think the inclusivity is bad and catering to the above community is a bad thing, or an innecessary thing, nor I think the members of that community are insignificant. The inclusivity is definitely a good thing, i liked it in PF, i liked it in WoD. I just don't thing it is the main reason of the success.
Remathilis
Legend
I could probably go off on a deep rant about how Dark Sun (as presented in the 2e box sets) is about as close to D&D as Star Wars d20 was, but this thread has diverged enough.
Suffice to say, there are things called D&D that probably don't qualify as D&D...
Hussar
Legend
Thing is @pmark, look at all the examples you brought up. Every one of those was spectacularly successful.
Are there any examples of games that have made the attempt to be more inclusive than what was out at the time that have failed?
Has inclusiveness ever contributed to a lack of success?
I'd certainly say that a lack of inclusiveness has certainly not helped a product. Would 2e been more successful at the time had it gone the same route as World of Darkness? We won't ever know.
But we do know that RPGs that have gone out of their way to be inclusive have generally met with a greater degree of success.
Now correlation does not equal causation. Pathfinder 's success is far more than simply being inclusive would help. Obviously. 5e's success isn't simply because they have more inclusive art and text. Again obviously.
But being inclusive certainly doesn't seem to hurt.
Are there any examples of games that have made the attempt to be more inclusive than what was out at the time that have failed?
Has inclusiveness ever contributed to a lack of success?
I'd certainly say that a lack of inclusiveness has certainly not helped a product. Would 2e been more successful at the time had it gone the same route as World of Darkness? We won't ever know.
But we do know that RPGs that have gone out of their way to be inclusive have generally met with a greater degree of success.
Now correlation does not equal causation. Pathfinder 's success is far more than simply being inclusive would help. Obviously. 5e's success isn't simply because they have more inclusive art and text. Again obviously.
But being inclusive certainly doesn't seem to hurt.
Yes, and i explicitely said that inclusivity matters and is a good thing. But, when speaking about why 5e is more successful than PF, or other games nowadays, I think inclusivity is not the main reason.
I think inclusivity is contributing more to the diversification of the community and to a lesser extent to the overall size of the community, but it's contributing to that too.
I think inclusivity is contributing more to the diversification of the community and to a lesser extent to the overall size of the community, but it's contributing to that too.
Last edited:
evileeyore
Mrrrph
D&D is a brand the way Frisbee is a brand. If I point to a pile of circular plastic throwing disks and say "Grab a frisbee, let's play!" are you really going to quibble that nothing in the pile is actually made by Wham-O?
And then's there are people like me who see "D&D" not just as a brand, or a rule set, but as a playstyle...
Because the narrative!
- Status
Similar Threads
