D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[MerricB]

I'm not sure about that period, but the earlier period in which D&D wasn't doing all that well, the late 90s, was one of the most fertile and creative times in the history of rpgs, with many games released then which are still around in some form to this day: Deadlands, Seventh Sea, Legend of the Five Rings all the White Wolf games etc.

The White Wolf games are early 90s, (Vampire is 91), so shortly after AD&D 2E was released and was still doing well.
Deadlands - 1996 - within the period where TSR starts struggling
Seventh Sea - 1999 - within the period (but barely, because 2000 is 3E)
Legend of the Five Rings - 1997 - within the period (though I'm not sure how popular the RPG was, compared to the CCG).

Of those games, I tend to see the White Wolf ones as the big, important games which got a lot of people into roleplaying - but they were also at a time when D&D was with a new edition. (I was running games at university at the time, and I remember the buzz for Vampire, though I didn't play it). Vampire was very important as it reached a segment of the market that wasn't served well by the D&D of the era.

Cheers!

 

[Aldarc]

The negative reaction to 4e formatting is a real thing, but it absolutely baffles me. As I've often posted, I love immersion in the fiction and inhabitation of the character - but the rules text is not part of this. It's a means for establishing the fiction, not the fiction per se, and the crisper the better.

I can only imagine that those who rely on the rules text to be part of their understanding of the fiction are approaching RPGing with a very different mindset from my own.

I also find it puzzling, because I prefer clarity, clear terminology, and quick reference over hunting key info in a garbled soup of "natural language."

No one likes anchovies. Not even other anchovies like anchovies.

Anchovies are a fantastic cooking ingredient that adds a wonderful umami flavor to a number of dishes (e.g., Caesar salad dressing, Pasta Puttanesca, etc.).

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, that takes me to a different point: anyone who finds long entries in spell lists, monster manuals etc fun to read has a very different approach to reading fiction from my own.

My exposure was 1E MM and FF, OA, DMG and UA.

No PHB. First D&D red box set (in 1993).

 

[Zardnaar]

Which takes me to a third point:

What I enjoy about RPGing is the fiction. What makes different character different is the fiction. I don't understand the notion that characters need to rely on different mechanical subsystems to be different - ie that character differentiation is a property of the PC build and action resolution rules, rather than the fiction.

Pretty much it's what sets your imagination on fire.

 

[loverdrive]

I also find it puzzling, because I prefer clarity, clear terminology, and quick reference over hunting key info in a garbled soup of "natural language."

Meanwhile, "natural language": melee attack with a weapon isn't the same as melee weapon attack!

 

[pemerton]

My exposure was 1E MM and FF, OA, DMG and UA.

No PHB. First D&D red box set (in 1993).

The AD&D MM and FF don't have long fiction entries like those found in the 4e MM3 and MV, and which I think are also found in 5e monster entries.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, that takes me to a different point: anyone who finds long entries in spell lists, monster manuals etc fun to read has a very different approach to reading fiction from my own.

That extremely fair: I enjoy reading Gygaxian prose, and eating anchovies. Neither is a universally, "objectively superior" experience in a vacuum, it's all to taste.

5E books were, quite literally, carefully engineered to be fun in a certain way. That turned out to be more popular than WotC anticipated.

 

[pemerton]

Pretty much it's what sets your imagination on fire.

What sets my imagination on fire is envisaging the fiction that will result from using particular rules. When I read 4e power entries or monster entries they make me imagine thinks that might happen in play.

 

[Parmandur]

The AD&D MM and FF don't have long fiction entries like those found in the 4e MM3 and MV, and which I think are also found in 5e monster entries.

The 2E Monster material did.

 

[pemerton]

That extremely fair: I enjoy reading Gygaxian prose, and eating anchovies. Neither is a universally, "objectively superior" experience in a vacuum, it's all to taste.

5E books were, quite literally, carefully engineered to be fun in a certain way. That turned out to be more popular than WotC anticipated.

My impression of 5e books - based on what I've seen extracted online - is that they are closer to late 4e style (eg the MM3 and MV) rather than Gygax.