D&D 5E Asking for a bit of recent D&D history

[TwoSix]

I think people forget that PF first achieved parity with WotC the very same time that some of the 4e Essentials were coming out. That's in 2010, just 2 years into 4e's lifespan. It's not just a late 4e phenomenon.

I don't wish to relitigate any part of the edition war, but I do think the release of Essentials in 2010 was somewhat enervating to the dedicated 4e fanbase (including myself) and may have contributed to the decline. I know I bought less books after Essentials released.

The worst part about trying to talk about 5e from a historical perspective is that 4e always gets dragged into the conversation.

 

[Mercurius]

It probably should be mentioned that 5E's popularity was greatly enhanced by Critical Role (starting in March of 2015) and other online/youtube games, as well as exposure and advocacy from minor celebrities and quasi-celebrities.

The main and notable difference between 5E and the past couple editions is the huge number of new players brought into the fold, mainly younger folks. 3E and 4E brought in new players, but the bulk of the player base remained long-time players. With 5E, it seems as if the majority are new to the game.

 

[Flamestrike]

The worst part about trying to talk about 5e from a historical perspective is that 4e always gets dragged into the conversation.

Considering 5E is the predecessor of 4E, the impact of 4E in fracturing the base (like it or loathe it) and the stated goal of 5E to reunite that base, it's largely inevitable that it gets discussed in that context.

4E is also notable as being the most radically different edition. 1, 2 and 3 were evolutions of the same game. 4E was effectively a completely different game, before 5E went back to the same feel of 1, 2 and 3E.

 

[TwoSix]

4E is also notable as being the most radically different edition. 1, 2 and 3 were evolutions of the same game. 4E was effectively a completely different game, before 5E went back to the same feel of 1, 2 and 3E.

As I said, I have no desire to engage in Edition War discussion, so I'll leave that alone.

 

[Flamestrike]

As I said, I have no desire to engage in Edition War discussion, so I'll leave that alone.

But that's not edition wars. 2E and AD&D were remarkably similar, and 3E was a natural flow on from the Player Option books, with major changes being Feats and a unified D20 mechanic.

4E went a completely new direction, that hasnt been seen before (or notably, since). Both mechanically and fluff wise (rewriting the Planes, key settings via the Spellplague etc).

Im making no assertion as to if it was a good game, or a bad game or if it was better or worse than 3E before it. Only noting the obvious - that it was a radically different game to what had come before it, that was openly seeking to address the busted mess of 3.5.

It achieved that goal mostly, but in the process pushed the optimizers and many Grognards over to the Pathfinder wagon, fracturing the fan base.

5e then retconned the retcon and plays like a successor to 3.5 rather than a successor to 4E. It's largely reunited everyone, while also drawing in a whole swathe of new players of non traditional gaming backgrounds.

That's not edition warring. Thats just edition history.

 

[Guest 6948803]

Thanks for all the replies.
I am in little different situation, because where I live, D&D was never big, and WFRP occupied place of being "rpg everyone starts with". It leads to several fun side effects (like, dungeons are particularly unpopular play style, and mystery/investigation is actually default I think). Anyway, for me, moving from quickly bloating 3 edition was a necessity (I think half of my players would pass of another 3rd ed campaign) and 4th ed was never an option (to be honest, I think those who say 'with better digital support it would fare better' or "it was released too early" deceive themselves a bit - for a lot of people /myself included/ 4th edition was too far removed from our typical rpg to even consider.) However, maybe because I started with mix od 1st and 2nd edition, and enjoyed 2nd edition for a quite few years, 5e was a hit for me - super easy to run, well supported game with huge sentimental value.

 

[billd91]

I don't wish to relitigate any part of the edition war, but I do think the release of Essentials in 2010 was somewhat enervating to the dedicated 4e fanbase (including myself) and may have contributed to the decline. I know I bought less books after Essentials released.

The worst part about trying to talk about 5e from a historical perspective is that 4e always gets dragged into the conversation.

It is kind of hard to talk about the success of 5e from a historical perspective without 4e being part of the conversation. It's an inherent factor in the edition shift.

That said, had 4e been Essentials from the get go, I might have actually liked the edition enough to keep playing it. So we are apparently on different sides of the coin.

 

[billd91]

However, maybe because I started with mix od 1st and 2nd edition, and enjoyed 2nd edition for a quite few years, 5e was a hit for me - super easy to run, well supported game with huge sentimental value.

I'm pretty sure this is a significant factor in the 5e success mix as well. It's definitely one of the reasons I like 5e as much as I do after years of playing 3e/PF variations. There's a lot less up-front, structural "fuss" and what structure there is easy to manage without getting bogged down.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't wish to relitigate any part of the edition war, but I do think the release of Essentials in 2010 was somewhat enervating to the dedicated 4e fanbase (including myself) and may have contributed to the decline. I know I bought less books after Essentials released.

The worst part about trying to talk about 5e from a historical perspective is that 4e always gets dragged into the conversation.

Yeah, it's difficult. For my part I had started to get book fatigue before Essentials came out, and Essentials somewhat reinvigorated my interest.

 

[Flamestrike]

It is kind of hard to talk about the success of 5e from a historical perspective without 4e being part of the conversation. It's an inherent factor in the edition shift.

That said, had 4e been Essentials from the get go, I might have actually liked the edition enough to keep playing it. So we are apparently on different sides of the coin.

Tome of Battle (and SWSE) had me really excited for what 4E was going to be. I kept hearing from the devs that they were the basis for the new edition, and I loved both of those games/ sourcebooks and the 'per encounter' manouver system.

Then 4E came out, and it just was miles off what I was expecting. Too radically different, too samey and the even more radical fluff changes were just too much.

I appreciate what they were trying to do, and if it was its own game (and not DnD) I might have appreciated it more.

I guess I was thrown (as a guy who's been playing since 1980) by the fact that DnD was always the 'old faithful fallback' you could play other systems around. It just didnt feel like DnD anymore.

Of course, I was still caught up in the optimisation minigame of 3.P so Pathfinder instantly appealed as well (I shudder at that verson of me as a player).

That was just my personal take, and everyone is different I guess.