D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Reynard]

This is a question about the popularity of D&D right now, more than being a question about any specific element of 5E.

It boils down to this: if it wasn't 5E (pick a different edition, it doesn't matter) but all the other circumstances were the same -- a new edition in 2014, references in the media, Critical Role and streaming in general, etc... -- would D&D still be having a major pop-cultural moment?

In other words: is there something special about 5E that created this moment, or does it "just happen to be" that 5E is the current edition?

 

[payn]

I think its both. The system is very causal friendly and is inoffensive to folks who prefer past editions. A lot of people don't love it, but nobody seems to outright hate it. Combine that with all the media stuff going on and it was a recipe for success.

To compare it to past editions, I think the others were too specific and crunchy for the experience they wanted to provide. Good for the hardcore and initiated, but bad for the causal and new comer. That doesn't mean 5E is the best game, but it is the best for the average gamer.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

5E is special solely for one reason - accessibility.

And that seems like it was more a desperation move to get people back and to help differentiate it from Pathfinder 1E than a really well-considered decision (esp. as 5E is inconsistently accessible - it's less accessible as a DM than 4E, I'd suggest, for example, and that didn't have to be the case).

If we consider say, a reprinted 2E, a continuing 4E (which wasn't very different), or indeed Pathfinder 1E (or 3.XE), yeah none of those would have done as well, because none of them are as accessible. Would they have done better? Yeah, if for some reason 4E kept going (which would have changed it from one of the shortest to the longest-lived edition), would D&D have a lot more players than it did? Sure. But if 5E has 30m active players/DMs (which seems to be the WotC figure), I feel like 4E would have been lucky to break 10m to 15m, because of people bouncing off the system. Pathfinder/3.XE would have done even worse, because they're distinctly less newbie-friendly and videogamer-friendly than 4E was (at least based on direct experience of introducing new players). Ironically 2E might have done a bit better than those, but still nowhere near 5E's numbers.

 

[Nikosandros]

Personally, I think that the external circumstances are fundamental to the success of 5e, but so is its structure: very playable, easy to learn and hackable.

 

[Maxperson]

I think any edition would have done well and seen a large increase, with things like Critical Role, Stranger Things and The Big Bang Theory propelling D&D into the mainstream. However, I think 5e being simpler than prior editions helped push it even further.

 

[dave2008]

I guess I am the fifth to say the same thing: it was both. The confluence of the times and the design of 5e that has led to is amazing success.

 

[overgeeked]

if it wasn't 5E (pick a different edition, it doesn't matter) but all the other circumstances were the same -- a new edition in 2014, references in the media, Critical Role and streaming in general, etc... -- would D&D still be having a major pop-cultural moment?

Mostly, yes.

is there something special about 5E that created this moment, or does it "just happen to be" that 5E is the current edition?

No. There's nothing "special" about 5E in that regard. I think most of the editions would have the same or quite similar pop culture moments if they were the new edition then. Any non-Holmes iteration of Basic, AD&D, 2E, or 3X...wouldn't matter. The others are too "incomplete" or too focused in their design.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Pretty much agree with most of the above positions. There isn't anything magical about the core game engine (side: there isn't anything magical about D&D), but it hits the right notes and excludes the right trip-ups.

3e and 4e (and PF) have some decided advantages, but they also seem like they were built as someone's 2nd+ TTRPG. 3E in particular was a 'here's your old D&D game, but we've cleaned it up by _______.' You can learn to game starting with it, you can even do so not being taught by someone who already knows RPGs, but none of them are natural fits for that role.

TSR-era D&D, especially the ones designed for accessibility (BX. BECMI, arguably 2E) have a lot going for them. They have a certain form of simplicity that could make them work for this role. However, they have a bunch of trip-ups as well. Race as class and racial class and level limits; highly lethal early levels; assumption of kicking around dungeons for treasure -- again things you can learn how to game while dealing with (plenty of us did), but also something which will self-select down to a certain subset of potential gamers who don't shy away from those things.

In both cases, 5e kinda dodges the pitfalls, while still being playable enough.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not really.

It was there and fairly accessible at the absolute perfect time.

People finally got to see it demonstrated by people who weren't condescending to them about how they didn't know what a d20 was, finally had the free time to play a fairly time consuming game, and had the tools to do it from home. Perfect storm.

 

[commandercrud]

It's just the current edition that was out at the time when things like Stranger Things and Critical Role got popular.