D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Minigiant]

It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base.

Blizzard ran a whole video game company bases on being first to make a good enough version of a game genre and marketing it.

Make a B- minus game before anyone else and get super popular before an A- or A+ game can fight sunken cost fallacy.

 

[Jaeger]

While being first and good enough ARE important, I don't think that's fully it. There was a thread on this issue a while back. Best answer (other than, of course, it's now by far the biggest player in the market) a combination of the leveling system and the huge amount of adventures available for the levels as characters progress.

Which is why in the very post you quote I said: "It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base."

Which is why in a few cases in other countries home grown systems became ascendant over D&D.

Now I'm confused. You quoted my previuos post. Was it unclear?

I don't really understand why you are repeating your first post in different words. I thought I had clarified that I wasn't having this particular argument?

Except you said no such thing in your last post. (I checked).

I critiqued D&D, and said that its magic system is whack because of : A.

You said one of the reasons for D&D's popularity is because of: A.

I said I disagree, A has nothing to do with it; it is all about : X,Y, and Z.

You said nope, Its still: A, and I'm throwing in: B, and C. Never once addressing my points of X,Y and Z.

So I said nope, you refute nothing by citing A, B, and C. Its still all about : X,Y, and Z.

Now, you explicitly say that: "you're not having this particular argument."

So I'll say: "OK".

 

[Oofta]

Blizzard ran a whole video game company bases on being first to make a good enough version of a game genre and marketing it.

Make a B- minus game before anyone else and get super popular before an A- or A+ game can fight sunken cost fallacy.

So because people actually enjoy playing D&D we're just doing it because it's a sunk cost? That's ... an odd thing to say considering the incredible growth D&D has seen since the release of 5E. If there were a better game for the masses (not just your personal preference) there was plenty of opportunity for it to compete. That didn't happen.

The Toyota Camry is a boring car in my opinion. It's also well built and does what people need it to do. Same with D&D IMHO.

 

[Mordhau]

Except you said no such thing in your last post. (I checked).

I critiqued D&D, and said that its magic system is whack because of : A.

You said one of the reasons for D&D's popularity is because of: A.

I said I disagree, A has nothing to do with it; it is all about : X,Y, and Z.

You said nope, Its still: A, and I'm throwing in: B, and C.

You gave me no overall reason to change my mind. Being first mover is obviously important, perhaps the most important thing, but it's somewhat absurd to say the qualities of a particular game system play no part whatsover. If you want to argue that the magic system of D&D does not play any part than you need to address the points I made, not argue that other points are also important (or even more important).

Never once addressing my points of X,Y and Z.

I did though. I conceded that they're important. I clarified that I phrased myself a little too strongly.

So I said nope, you refute nothing by citing A, B, and C. Its still all about : X,Y, and Z.

I didn't refute points I had no reason to and you repeated earlier points for no clear reason I could see.

Now, you explicitly say that: "you're not having this particular argument."

Indeed. Is that now clear? Or will you continue to just assume bad faith on my part?

 

[Mordhau]

If the D&D magic system is popular with many players, and D&D is also the most popular game in English speaking countries it does not follow logically that either the magic system is the reason that D&D is the most popular game, or that a D&D style magic system is an essential condition of being the most popular game in a given country.

 

[Minigiant]

So because people actually enjoy playing D&D we're just doing it because it's a sunk cost? That's ... an odd thing to say considering the incredible growth D&D has seen since the release of 5E. If there were a better game for the masses (not just your personal preference) there was plenty of opportunity for it to compete. That didn't happen.

The Toyota Camry is a boring car in my opinion. It's also well built and does what people need it to do. Same with D&D IMHO.

I'm saying D&D is HUGE and people are playing D&D because it's popular that's what everyone knows. so you don't have to teach the majority of fans a new system and you can weave in homebrew and houserules easier.

It's sunken cost.

I mean many fans literally rather play a copycat system in PF than learn 4e or give it a chance.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm saying D&D is HUGE and people are playing D&D because it's popular that's what everyone knows. so you don't have to teach the majority of fans a new system and you can weave in homebrew and houserules easier.

It's sunken cost.

I mean many fans literally rather play a copycat system in PF than learn 4e or give it a chance.

Why doesn't that argument apply to 4e D&D?

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me the issue is less the guarantees or the effects and more the levels you get them. A lot of bonkers effects are low level so if you can mitigate using slots

Why doesn't that argument apply to 4e D&D?

4e was a different game. Pathfinder was more or less the same game.

 

[Minigiant]

Why doesn't that argument apply to 4e D&D?

It does,

4e "failed" because it changed too much too quick in order to "fix" it. And you litterally had to buy more books and learn new ideas. Hell it was too much for even the designers and they didn't have enough time to design it full before getting it out.

However 4e was a better level based, class based, team based dungeon crawling simulator with dragon enemies than any other edition. However it came too late and was too different for its ideas to either take over as or became the skeleton of D&D.

 

[Scars Unseen]

However 4e was a better level based, class based, team based dungeon crawling simulator with dragon enemies than any other edition.

Ehh... It's definitely a better balanced game than any other edition. But I'd not put it in as being a great simulator any more than any edition was, and being actually better in any of the categories you listed is highly subjective. Personally, I think there are things in D&D that could stand to change, but I would not change them in the same direction 4E did.