D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[Jester David]

To me considering the number of viewers Luke Cage a handful of people on Twitter dos not make "a lot of people". The fact Netflix crashed due to people watching Luke Cage, now that, that sounds like a lot of people.

Correlation does not equal causation. And there's no Netflix confirmation, just some meme marketing.
If Marvel fans could crash Netflix, I imagine is wound gave also happened after Daredevil.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We're discussing inclusiveness in D&D... not in the hobby. There's no arbitrary distinction (if anything there's arbitrary inclusion going on) Pathfinder isn't D&D (in the same way 13th Age isn't D&D, CnC isn't D&D, DCC isn't D&D, Earthdawn isn't D&D and so on) it's Pathfinder.

D&D isn't a hobby?

But, yeah, there is an arbitrary distinction. The conclusion is that D&D has not been historically inclusive enough. To support this distinction against counterclaims, the definition of D&D has been narrowed to: only branded products, only iconic characters in those branded products, and only officially printed materials by the owner of the brand. You've kicked out all 3rd party supplements (of which Pathfinder certainly qualifies as a 3rd party supplement to 3.x), and dismissed characters on books (and why are novels allowed but not Pathfinder, again?) Because they're not sufficiently important enough, another arbitrary distinction. You're attempting to narrow the available material down until it fits your conclusion.

Which is a silly thing to do because, even if you include everything, it's pretty obvious that the arc over time is increasingly bending towards more inclusiveness, which is a good thing. This makes me think all of this "only branded D&D counts" stuff is less about making a point on inclusiveness and more about not being wrong on the internet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Halfling art has been bad for a long time, but I like my halflings to be hobbits rather than kender, tiny elves, or the monstrosities in the 5e PH. But in my 5e game halflings look like Bilbo.

I skipped 4e so I have no opinion on its artwork but in general I'm enjoying 5e artwork a lot. 3e style was not my thing so for me its the best art since the 2e era. I didn't care about iconics in 3e and don't now.

Lol man, I don't even like hobbits as hobbits. 4e Halflings were the best. They had a distinctive look, weren't hairy footed frickin hobbits, and had adult proportions for goodness sake.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

D&D isn't a hobby?

But, yeah, there is an arbitrary distinction. The conclusion is that D&D has not been historically inclusive enough. To support this distinction against counterclaims, the definition of D&D has been narrowed to: only branded products, only iconic characters in those branded products, and only officially printed materials by the owner of the brand. You've kicked out all 3rd party supplements (of which Pathfinder certainly qualifies as a 3rd party supplement to 3.x), and dismissed characters on books (and why are novels allowed but not Pathfinder, again?) Because they're not sufficiently important enough, another arbitrary distinction. You're attempting to narrow the available material down until it fits your conclusion.

Which is a silly thing to do because, even if you include everything, it's pretty obvious that the arc over time is increasingly bending towards more inclusiveness, which is a good thing. This makes me think all of this "only branded D&D counts" stuff is less about making a point on inclusiveness and more about not being wrong on the internet.

that's backwards. It's less about being wrong on the internet and more, by which I mean entirely, about suing a sensible usage of the term DnD. Third party products aren't relevant, except tangentially. They certainly aren't relevant as a counter to the point that DnD hasn't done well at representation until fairly recently.

 

[Parmandur]

The Halfling art examples in the PHB aren't great in particular, but Ibappreciate that a Halfling can be identified without scale now, as a Halfling.

As to "Iconics," they do actually have characters who appear throughout the Core books, and I presume they named them and developed little stories, but they did not repeat the 3.x marketing mistake of thinking much of anybody would care.

 

[Imaro]

D&D isn't a hobby?

Playing D&D is... or is that what you meant? Are we through being unnecessarily pedantic?

But, yeah, there is an arbitrary distinction. The conclusion is that D&D has not been historically inclusive enough. To support this distinction against counterclaims, the definition of D&D has been narrowed to: only branded products, only iconic characters in those branded products, and only officially printed materials by the owner of the brand. You've kicked out all 3rd party supplements (of which Pathfinder certainly qualifies as a 3rd party supplement to 3.x), and dismissed characters on books (and why are novels allowed but not Pathfinder, again?) Because they're not sufficiently important enough, another arbitrary distinction. You're attempting to narrow the available material down until it fits your conclusion.

What conclusion is that... none, because I haven't made one. I've only made the point that when discussing D&D and what it does or doesn't include... we should speak to D&D not Pathfinder which is a different game. I also haven't commented on 3rd party publishers for D&D. I have specifically commented on a different game... Pathfinder... and the fact that Pathfinder is not D&D.

Which is a silly thing to do because, even if you include everything, it's pretty obvious that the arc over time is increasingly bending towards more inclusiveness, which is a good thing. This makes me think all of this "only branded D&D counts" stuff is less about making a point on inclusiveness and more about not being wrong on the internet.

Wrong about what? The way I see it you seem to want to have a discussion about the inclusiveness of the entire hobby... which is a different discussion from that of D&D. I'm open to that but that's not what I and other posters in this thread are discussing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

that's backwards. It's less about being wrong on the internet and more, by which I mean entirely, about suing a sensible usage of the term DnD. Third party products aren't relevant, except tangentially. They certainly aren't relevant as a counter to the point that DnD hasn't done well at representation until fairly recently.

Your sensible usage is oddly useful in confirming your conclusion -- your intentionally and narrowly excluding any sources that don't conform to your conclusion's needs. Which, as I note, is silly because you get the same conclusion, if a bit less severe, if you don't exclude Pathfinder.

And, again, why are the novels, which are less more unlike the game, okay points while Pathfinder isn't?

You're exclusion of Pathfinder doesn't materially aid your argument -- the trend remains if it's in or out -- but it does alienate people that do think that Pathfinder is more D&D than 4e. Which, again, seems more like wanting to be right than actual discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Playing D&D is... or is that what you meant? Are we through being unnecessarily pedantic?



What conclusion is that... none, because I haven't made one. I've only made the point that when discussing D&D and what it does or doesn't include... we should speak to D&D not Pathfinder which is a different game. I also haven't commented on 3rd party publishers for D&D. I have specifically commented on a different game... Pathfinder... and the fact that Pathfinder is not D&D.



Wrong about what? The way I see it you seem to want to have a discussion about the inclusiveness of the entire hobby... which is a different discussion from that of D&D. I'm open to that but that's not what I and other posters in this thread are discussing.

I like this. This goes, in response to my arguments:

1) yeah, but I didn't make the arguments you responded to, so...
2) the points you made are invalid because they don't apply to me, specifically.

Everything I said has been floated in the conversation. You may not have said them, but you stepped up to defend the premise of them. So, maybe, you could point out where you disagree and where you agree? Cause I have "Pathfinder isn't D&D for arbitrary readons" and "there's a discussion about inclusivity in D&D, if which Pathfinder doesn't count because reasons and branding." It's just not much to go on.

 

[Imaro]

I like this. This goes, in response to my arguments:

1) yeah, but I didn't make the arguments you responded to, so...
2) the points you made are invalid because they don't apply to me, specifically.

Everything I said has been floated in the conversation. You may not have said them, but you stepped up to defend the premise of them. So, maybe, you could point out where you disagree and where you agree? Cause I have "Pathfinder isn't D&D for arbitrary readons" and "there's a discussion about inclusivity in D&D, if which Pathfinder doesn't count because reasons and branding." It's just not much to go on.

You keep using arbitrary incorrectly. Arbitrary means based on personal choice or personal whim, that would be choosing to claim one game (named something else, produced by another company, holding none of the IP rights and so on) is, because of your personal choice actually a different game.

It's a fact that Pathfinder is not D&D... Pathfinder is not D&D thus whether it is/has or is not/hasn't been inclusive... does not reflect on whether D&D is or is not inclusive, only on whether Pathfinder is. That should sum it up.

 

[Sadras]

Akabar Bel Akash who comes from the novel Azure Bonds published in 1988.

That name brings back some good memories. Awesome character. I can never forget the time he cast Identify on Alias's runes.