D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Oofta]

Nobody's saying that, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Instead, what people are saying is, "You cannot reason from '5e is doing well' to 'therefore, 5e is very nearly perfect.'" Which someone here explicitly has done, and considered "98% perfect" a form of walking back, a compromise position.

Do you see the difference? I, and others, are saying that there's stuff in 5e that either didn't do anything positive or negative for it, or that (in some cases) may even have held it back. That's not a particularly damning analysis, and it certainly isn't "it's practically a minor miracle 5e is successful." Yet we're going up against people who, very explicitly, think 5e is literally actually perfect, or "98% perfect." I hope you can see which of these two positions is extreme and which is fairly moderate, albeit more critical than the average D&D fan at the moment.

I never said 5e was perfect. But according to some, practically any version of the game would have had as much success. I disagree.

The original versions of the game came closest, but RPGs were in their infancy. 3.5 was too complex for a lot of people, and so on.

Yes, cultural shifts helped. It also needed a game that was approachable with mass appeal.

 

[Ogre Mage]

It's just as speculative to assume that it must be an inherent quality of 5e's rules, as it is to assume that it must be purely due to favorable circumstances.

If people are going to demand data proving that new fans stick around in large part because 5e got a lucky break, I don't see why the converse—that it apparently has "98% perfect" design—bears absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever. Because that's a pretty friggin' wild claim.

Well, for instance there is a reason why Critical Role switched from Pathfinder to 5E. According to the Critical Role wiki, they felt it was a more streamlined system which would be easier for all involved. Would the show have been as big a hit if they stuck with Pathfinder? We'll never know but that decision was made for a reason.

 

[Oofta]

Did you reply to the wrong person, perhaps?

Texting while road tripping, so probably. All of my responses are probably 50% random right now. Maybe more, because 50% could just be my baseline.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, for instance there is a reason why Critical Role switched from Pathfinder to 5E. According to the Critical Role wiki, they felt it was a more streamlined system which would be easier for all involved. Would the show have been as big a hit if they stuck with Pathfinder? We'll never know but that decision was made for a reason.

Critical Role did a Pathfinder one shot early on. It is shockingly painful to watch, particuknowing that Mercer had experience streaming by then, amd 15 years of DMing 3.x under his belt. The game just doesn't flow well on screen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Texting while road tripping, so probably. All of my responses are probably 50% random right now. Maybe more, because 50% could just be my baseline.

Yeah I’ve been replying to the other poster basically saying the same things you said in reply to me!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's cool. Doesn't change the fact that a 20th level Champion is less competent than a 1st level 4e fighter with no powers.

Ähm. No.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's just as speculative to assume that it must be an inherent quality of 5e's rules, as it is to assume that it must be purely due to favorable circumstances.

If people are going to demand data proving that new fans stick around in large part because 5e got a lucky break, I don't see why the converse—that it apparently has "98% perfect" design—bears absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever. Because that's a pretty friggin' wild claim.

Exactly. You are the first one to notice and get the price.
We don't have enough data to claim anything. It is all speculative.
So I just thought I throw a wild number in the room, considering that 86.5% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's... nose... anyway.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It’s been an interesting discussion in this thread. It’s made me think about my playstyle and what my group does that seems “normal” but is clearly not universal.

I have also asserted that if the game has issues for “you” it’s a real issue. Not for me, but that does not de legitimize the other opinions.

However, a lot of statements about the game and martials are presented as universal truths.

Hopefully the individuals asserting this are coming to the realization that their problems are not…universal.

 

[carmachu]

I think if you gave 1st edition some of the same advantages like dmsguild and OGL and support from streamers and pop culture and CR it would have been wildly popular more so then it was and as popular or more then 5e

3.x would suffer a bit from crunch that it was. But would have gotten a bump in popularity from streamers. 2nd and 4th would not. That’s my 2 cents

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think if you gave 1st edition some of the same advantages like dmsguild and OGL and support from streamers and pop culture and CR it would have been wildly popular more so then it was and as popular or more then 5e

3.x would suffer a bit from crunch that it was. But would have gotten a bump in popularity from streamers. 2nd and 4th would not. That’s my 2 cents

I would not bet on it, but I would not bet against it either.