D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough

[Aldarc]

If D&D was peoples second favourite rpg, you would expect it’s core book, the PHB to have a low rating. Or at least a lower rating than other games core books.

Is that what has you worked up here? Are you really that personally slighted about a light-hearted, pithy quip about 5e being everyone's second favorite edition of D&D* that you went to Amazon reviews to defend its "besmirched" honor? It's not the insult that you have determined it to be. First, the quip is not that it's everyone's second favorite RPG, but, rather, everyone's second favorite edition of D&D. Second the quip mainly serves as a compliment to the comparative strengths of 5e in the lineage of D&D editions, much in the same vein as @Snarf Zagyg's Cheesecake Factory theory as "good enough."

I had joked before about you jumping in the line of fire for D&D at the faintest hint of sneeze, but that didn't mean you were somehow obligated to do so for less. It seems absurd to think that the King Kong in the room needs such a vigilant and zealous defense from such light-hearted quips.

 

[clearstream]

No you wouldn't. Most people would be expected to give their second favourite 4 or 5 stars; unless there was a huge gulf between the first two. If it's everyone's second favourite, then it's almost certain to have a high rating.

Your thesis is that most people don't give their highest ratings to their favourite things? Through my work I regularly read detailed player ratings of games, and I do not see the behaviour that you are imagining. Things people feel 'meh' about, they normally give 'meh' ratings. Players typically have to feel very satisfied to give a game a strong positive rating.

On the other hand, if something is my favourite, but lots of other people hate it, it's aggregate rating will be low.

Most people won't even bother rating a thing they hate (it's true that if someone has a really bad experience, that might motivate them to give a negative rating). When a game is niche, you more often see a small number of very positive ratings so the aggregate rating is high: the only people playing it, tend to be those who love it. You probably know this already but - the smaller the number of ratings, the greater the volatility in the ratings. That is why the 5E ratings are so meaningful: they represent a very strong positive sentiment.

Is that what has you worked up here? Are you really that personally slighted about a light-hearted, pithy quip about 5e being everyone's second favorite edition of D&D* that you went to Amazon reviews to defend its "besmirched" honor? It's not the insult that you have determined it to be. First, the quip is not that it's everyone's second favorite RPG, but, rather, everyone's second favorite edition of D&D. Second the quip mainly serves as a compliment to the comparative strengths of 5e in the lineage of D&D editions, much in the same vein as @Snarf Zagyg's Cheesecake Factory theory as "good enough."

The OP outlines "The Cheesecake Factory Theory of TTRPGs" - not of "D&D versions" - based on their words, their aim is not simply to place D&D among previous versions of D&D (although who knows, maybe they just obscured their intent). The OP puts it that "I would argue that there are other, better TTRPGs out there for many uses" and that broad argument is followed up by many other posters to this thread. So far as I can find, the OP does not even reference another version of D&D in their first post. There is no reason to dislike evidence that the OP might be mistaken.

I had joked before about you jumping in the line of fire for D&D at the faintest hint of sneeze, but that didn't mean you were somehow obligated to do so for less. It seems absurd to think that the King Kong in the room needs such a vigilant and zealous defense from such light-hearted quips.

For me, you are wrong to suppose I am defending D&D because it needs defending. I am refuting the OP because they are mistaken: their theory is facile. They say that "5e isn't a great game in any given aspect" and this is simply mistaken: there are many aspects in which 5E is a great game.

 

[Aldarc]

The OP outlines "The Cheesecake Factory Theory of TTRPGs" - not of "D&D versions" - based on their words, their aim is not simply to place D&D among previous versions of D&D (although who knows, maybe they just obscured their intent). The OP puts it that "I would argue that there are other, better TTRPGs out there for many uses" and that broad argument is followed up by many other posters to this thread. So far as I can find, the OP does not even reference another version of D&D in their first post. There is no reason to dislike evidence that the OP might be mistaken.

Regardless of whether I agree or not, I think you are leaving a number of key points and details out of what @Snarf Zagyg is arguing in your summation, but you would likely be better taking it up with him than me on those points of disagreement.

For me, you are wrong to suppose I am defending D&D because it needs defending. I am refuting the OP because they are mistaken: their theory is facile. They say that "5e isn't a great game in any given aspect" and this is simply mistaken: there are many aspects in which 5E is a great game.

You do understand that I was not addressing any of what you quoted to you, right? So I'm personally puzzled as to why I would be wrong about something that I have not even speculated on about you.

 

[clearstream]

Seriously? Are you spoiling for a fight?

Now, if you would like to get into giant INTERNETZ FIGHT, feel free, but I need to go yell at some clouds. Take care!

I just wanted to respond to this as it might be help mutual understanding. I took your OP to be purposefully provocative. To me, your wording of your comments and arguments frequently have that feel - of purposeful provocation. There's nothing too wrong about that - it can foster lively debate - although it is not to everyone's liking.

However, it might be I am mistaken. In which case, it is hard for me to understand why you would word things as you do? If you are not comfortable with a robust response, why write provocatively? Why the choice of language and lay out? I don't mind a fight of words, but not if it feels bad to the person I am fighting!

 

[TheSword]

Is that what has you worked up here? Are you really that personally slighted about a light-hearted, pithy quip about 5e being everyone's second favorite edition of D&D* that you went to Amazon reviews to defend its "besmirched" honor?

I had joked before about you jumping in the line of fire for D&D at the faintest hint of sneeze, but that didn't mean you were somehow obligated to do so for less. It seems absurd to think that the King Kong in the room needs such a vigilant and zealous defense from such light-hearted quips.

Yet again you dial up the condescension meter. I wasn’t talking to you in that fashion. Please don’t.

While I have no doubt Snarf meant it light heartedly. However, the theme has been picked up and repeated over and over again, that D&D isn’t very good and is popular for other reasons. Said with absolute seriousness. There is nothing in the thread to suggest Snarf’s players are only picking between versions of D&D.

You honestly expect that won’t get a response. Please stop mocking me and getting personal. While I may disagree totally with others including @Ovinomancer they are polite about it at least.

 

[TheSword]

No you wouldn't. Most people would be expected to give their second favourite 4 or 5 stars; unless there was a huge gulf between the first two. If it's everyone's second favourite, then it's almost certain to have a high rating.

On the other hand, if something is my favourite, but lots of other people hate it, it's aggregate rating will be low.

That's the whole point of the thread.

Okay, but the mode isn’t either 4 or 5, it is 5 by a landslide. They overwhelmingly rate it the highest ranking they can give it. 89% that is a massive vote of confidence. Dungeon World has 80% of people giving it 5 stars by comparison.

 

[Aldarc]

While I have no doubt Snarf meant it light heartedly. The theme has been picked up and repeated over and over again, that D&D isn’t very good and is popular for other reasons. Said with absolute seriousness.

There are obviously a wide slew of factors at play that don't necessarily involve the quality of the product itself. Even if we say, for example, that Coca-Cola tastes great and is a great product, that alone can't explain its popularity, which also has to do with timing, market/business choices, potentially shady under-dealings (e.g., assassination of Columbian union leaders), brand recognition, nostalgia, etc. It's incredibly important, IMHO, to recognize that ad populum is not indicative of product quality. If you like the product, then great, but it's important sometimes to be thankful that the product had the history, luck, and other factors that it did to get it to (and keep it at) the top spot for so long.

I think that D&D 5e is a great sufficiently good enough game. It's oriented towards a certain type of play (2e-3e-PF1 adventure path play with a focus on tactical skirmishing combat), which is great for that, which you have indicated is your primary mode of play, but it's mostly "okay" to "poor" for others (e.g., old school skilled play, wilderness/exploration-based hex crawling, gold with a purpose, PC protagonist-driven play, etc.). To be clear, it's not necessarily a matter of whether you could do these things with 5e, but also how well and actively these other types of game play are supported.

As a lot of mainstream play has moved away from Old School play towards more GM/Publisher curated adventures and styles of play, 5e delivers that quite marvelously. As 5e serves your purposes exceedingly well, I think you may have a potential blind spot about some of its rough spots or its lack of support in other areas of the game. There are a number of people on this forum, for example, who have not played pre-2e editions of D&D who are only now playing Old School Essentials and other OSR games that provide a different gaming experience than what 5e D&D provides. 5e doesn't have to be a great game at everything in order to be a great overall product.

Okay, but the mode isn’t either 4 or 5, it is 5 by a landslide. They overwhelmingly rate it the highest ranking they can give it. 89% that is a massive vote of confidence. Dungeon World has 80% of people giving it 5 stars by comparison.

Friendly word of advice: Don't make this into a pissing contest.

 

[TheSword]

There are obviously a wide slew of factors at play that don't necessarily involve the quality of the product itself. Even if we say, for example, that Coca-Cola tastes great and is a great product, that alone can't explain its popularity, which also has to do with timing, market/business choices, potentially shady under-dealings (e.g., assassination of Columbian union leaders), brand recognition, nostalgia, etc. It's incredibly important, IMHO, to recognize that ad populum is not indicative of product quality. If you like the product, then great, but it's important sometimes to be thankful that the product had the history, luck, and other factors that it did to get it to (and keep it at) the top spot for so long.

This is why I raised the reviews. So instead of looking at what people were playing we can see what they thought about it. Luck has very little to do with it I believe.

Just out of interest I looked through some of the ‘expert’ reviews on some of the rpg sites. Overwhelming glowing reviews. No doubt also contributing to popularity.

Coca Cola isn’t a very good example in this regard. It has a net promoter score of between 0 and 37 (depending on the site) with most in the middle of that range. That means it’s advocates outweigh its detractors but not by very much. Coca Cola doesn’t have a large percentage of advocates. In terms of market share and market cap It’s also paired by its massive competitor Pepsi. I’m certainly not aware of any assassination of RPG union leaders.

 

[clearstream]

Friendly word of advice: Don't make this into a pissing contest.

It might be just that your words here are easy to misconstrue. This thread is overtly about how different TTRPGs compare - how players would rate them - and @TheSword posted evidence apposite to that question. If by "pissing contest" you mean to provocatively describe a comparison between some set of things, then isn't that exactly what we are here for? Why the threatening overtone?

 

[Aldarc]

It might be just that your words here are easy to misconstrue. This thread is overtly about how different TTRPGs compare - how players would rate them - and @TheSword posted evidence apposite to that question. If by "pissing contest" you mean to provocatively describe a comparison between some set of things, then isn't that exactly what we are here for? Why the threatening overtone?

You do seem keen to misconstrue my words. I'm again puzzled. What threatening overtone?