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

[doctorbadwolf]

I have seen zero evidence of this. Do either of you have anything to support that claim, aside from an anecdote?

Pessimism?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I have seen zero evidence of this. Do either of you have anything to support that claim, aside from an anecdote?

Just reading stuff, here and blogs talking about it. I shouldn't say mostly empty theatres though, that's a bit strong. But the impression I got from reading was there were a lot of small crowds, but that may well be wrong as I wasn't interested in the issue enough to dig into it.

 

[Hussar]

No one is claiming that increased inclusivity is the sole or even primary reason 5e is doing well. That would be completely unprovable.

It's also a red herring. It doesn't MATTER if 5e is doing well because of increased inclusivity. Increasing inclusivity is a goal in and of itself. It's a good thing. It's irrelevant if no one else is doing it. It's irrelevant if it has any impact on sales. It's irrelevant what other companies are doing.

Again, it's the right thing to do.

Can anyone actually claim otherwise? Is anyone, with a straight face, going to try to claim that D&D should be less inclusive? We should make the art and the text more exclusive? Go back to using nothing but male pronouns? Chainmail bikinis and nothing but muscly white dudes? Is that really what some are arguing for?

If you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[evileeyore]

In my opinion, Acquisitions Incorporated has done more to increase sales of the 5e PHB 2 years into the game, than anything discussed in the 477 posts of this topic so far. Anyone disagree?

I agree.

They make playing D&D actually look fun.

No. I'd say that most people who watch that horrible program are people who play D&D anyway and who have been playing for a long time. I think the show has little to no impact 5th edition D&D as a whole. I would say 5th edition would be exactly where it is now had the show never existed.

Likewise the 'inclusivity paragraph" has had no influence on an increased D&D playerbase. Anyone that would feel more included by the paragraph were people already playing D&D.

I would say 5th edition would be exactly where it is now had the paragraph never existed.

No one is claiming that increased inclusivity is the sole or even primary reason 5e is doing well. That would be completely unprovable.

We've been reading different versions of this thread haven't we?

Increasing inclusivity is a goal in and of itself.

And I disagree as to whether it's a 'good goal'. It's a goal... but I'm not sold on it. So far I'm not against it, however as I've seen in this thread it certainly appears as though some people think that paragraph means I have to change the game I play or the characters I allow at my table because it's 'in the rules'.

I am against enforced inclusivity, though so far that isn't at hand here.

 

[Hussar]

What "enforced inclusivity" are you talking about. It's a long thread and I apparently missed something.

And, who has claimed that increased inclusivity is the primary reason for the success of 5e? Or even a major reason? It might be a reason on an anecdotal level, but, it would be impossible for any of us to prove on anything higher level.

Finally, SERIOUSLY? Inclusivity isn't a good goal in and of itself? Are you kidding me? Good grief.

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, we DO still have a ways to go.

Look at Acquisitions Inc. Sure, it's a fantastic outreach to gamers. You're showing people playing the game and having a blast. Great stuff.

But, at the end of the day it's still five or six white dudes sitting around a table. If the purpose of these programs is to attract new gamers, then a tiny bit of inclusivity would not be remiss. They can't find a woman to play at the table? They can't get Shelly Mazzanoble to sit at the table for a session or three? It's impossible to have a POC sit at the table once in a while? I mean, if this is supposed to be the face of the game, shouldn't we put the best face forward?

Seriously, why is this even an issue? Shouldn't this be assumed by now?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Acquisitions Inc has had a pretty big impact on the game. And yeah, it's a bunch of white guys playing (the horror!)...but their popularity has reached a variety of people. They've exposed new folks to the game. Do we have a pie graph for the racial identities of those who have watched the AI shows? Nope...but do we need one?

And isn't it very possible...and arguably at this point even very likely...that the popularity of AI...and of similar programs like Critical Role...have opened the doors to other such programs....Force Grey and Dice, Camera, Action coming to mind. Many more women in those shows, and folks representing other groups as well. And I'm sure we'll see more streaming shows crop up over time, and the folks who take part in them will be more and more diverse as time goes on.

So chances are that yes, given some time, AI will also play a role in increasing diversity, even if it "lacks diversity" itself. I'd argue that it's already doing much more in that respect than most would think.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thing is, we DO still have a ways to go.

Look at Acquisitions Inc. Sure, it's a fantastic outreach to gamers. You're showing people playing the game and having a blast. Great stuff.

But, at the end of the day it's still five or six white dudes sitting around a table. If the purpose of these programs is to attract new gamers, then a tiny bit of inclusivity would not be remiss. They can't find a woman to play at the table? They can't get Shelly Mazzanoble to sit at the table for a session or three? It's impossible to have a POC sit at the table once in a while? I mean, if this is supposed to be the face of the game, shouldn't we put the best face forward?

Seriously, why is this even an issue? Shouldn't this be assumed by now?

So we've moved from the argument that more inclusivity is a good thing for the hobby as a whole to the argument that each representation should also show the right amount(tm) of inclusivity?

 

[Umbran]

I go to the theater and a preview starts, and it's showing the Great Wall, and...####ing Matt Damon!? Seriously? Matt Damon is the hero of the story about fighting dragons on The Great Wall of China!? Really!? Apparently what the wall should have been built to keep out was ####ing white people!

We have language rules on EN World: Keep it clean.

Hash signs or not, everyone here can tell what you meant, and it isn't appropriate. And everyone *knows* it is inappropriate. Knowingly using inappropriate language tells us that your judgement on this matter is no longer reliable.

Don't post in this thread again, doctorbadwolf.

 

[Shasarak]

Ha, that is funny. The Great Wall of China built to keep out White People.

That is not very inclusive, how can they be successful with that kind of attitude!