D&D (2024) 6E When?

[Oofta]

Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.
So the reflexive apologist tack of "well it's successful, so this specific detail must have been the only right choice," doesn't fly, even though it gets launched constantly when the game is doing well (or even when it was doing very badly, but still better than all other RPGs).

I probably shouldn't always be rowing against such an overwhelming current. I should just head for shore and leave this hobby to those who deserve it, since I, clearly, as one not keeping the faith, do not.

Well, you are pushing "We should have a PHB 2 because that's what we did for the previous 2 editions." Yet you can't really explain why it's such a big deal.

There are several things I dislike about 5E, but a design decision on what to name books that is clearer for the majority of people is a strange hill to die on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, you are pushing "We should have a PHB 2 because that's what we did for the previous 2 editions."

No, I'm not. Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.

I do have some skepticism. So I say "that's odd..." and, the apologists rush to point out that the overall result is commercially successful, so it must be perfect in each and every isolated detail.
And I can't just quietly let that go, because I'm just too pedantic and cynical.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

But pretty sure that not liking the name "PHB2" isn't a real article of faith; more just ... um, taste. Good taste.

It's fairly arbitrary.
It's interesting - odd - only that it was a non-issue in 2006, then called out as a huge mistake just a few years later.

But, actually, there have been two explanations offered that make a little sense:

1) In both cases, it was against 'tradition' to label a supplement that way.
2) In 2010 there may have been more brand-new players engaging with the game than in 2006.

So, not completely futile.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm not. Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.

I do have some skepticism. So I say "that's odd..." and, the apologists rush to point out that the overall result is commercially successful, so it must be perfect in each and every isolated detail.
And I can't just quietly let that go, because I'm just too pedantic and cynical.

Huh? Then I'll go back to ... what the heck are you talking about?

Nobody has said that 5E is perfect. Just that the decision to not have a PHB 2 was based on market research. As they've explained in interviews and articles that some people see PHB 2 and think it's a revised edition and the one they need.

Very few people seem to be confused about XGTE.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one. 5e's unparalleled success is likely the result of an unusual confluence of factors, including (but not limited to) the following:

1. Decent economy.
2. Cultural zeitgeist (desire to play more boardgames, social games, etc.).
3. "Return to the roost," nostalgia, players who grew up playing 1e and 2e wanting to play again and/or teach their kids.
4. Successful, simple, limited rollout schedule.
5. Success at new media (such as twitch and youtube) in promoting the product.


...and so on. But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.

These are all important factors and I won't downplay them. But I am one who believe's the team behind 5e has facilitated a marketing/product strategy designed to capitalize on these positives, instead of work against them.

5e's biggest strength is arguably it's ease of entry. It's a really easy system to learn, being largely; you roll a high number, you succeed. Low number you fail. If your good at something, you add more more. Bad you add less, nothing, or negative. Higher level you get, more stuff you can do, more likely you can hit, mire hit points you have.

That's largely it. Super simple to explain, super simple to do. The details are more complicated, as are specific spells, but that's 5e.

Add that to a drip-drip feed of mostly-quality books, and you have a game system that's extremely easy to become novice at, and sell supplementary books to as they master it.

Replace that strategy with one with a high volume of books released and a more complicated game, and I'm doubtful the game would be in quite as good a position as it it now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Huh? Then I'll go back to ... what the heck are you talking about?

I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then. Which struck me as "odd."

The explanation quoted from MM didn't seem consistent with some of the other things that'd been said over the years. One of them was the PH2/Essentials circumlocution (though, of course, it didn't exactly make sense at the time, either).

Nobody has said that 5E is perfect.

Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though. Not perfect, then, just never odd?

Very few people seem to be confused about XGTE.

I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Um, how do you know it wasn't an issue in 2006?

Absolutely no one made an issue of it. WotC didn't throw it under the bus.

What I recall about the release of the 3.5 PH2 is that the Scout went over rather well, the Knight not s'much. Zero controversy or confusion over the title.

But, actually, there have been two explanations offered that make a little sense:

 

[Oofta]

I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then. Which struck me as "odd."

The explanation quoted from MM didn't seem consistent with some of the other things that'd been said over the years. One of them was the PH2/Essentials circumlocution (though, of course, it didn't exactly make sense at the time, either).

Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though. Not perfect, then, just never odd?

I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.

The rules for the board game were quite simplified from 4E from what I remember (we played a few games at a friend's house). There's just not enough reason to redo the rules and if they can sell them for a profit, why not?

I don't find a company selling a game that only costs them manufacturing costs as particularly "odd". More "what HASBRO does with all the rest of their board games". If people are willing to buy it, why change?