D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[EzekielRaiden]

The question was would another addition be as popular if it had the same support 5e has. Yes it was the first of its kind, but imagine if you had the internet with all its benefits. Social media with all its benefits. OGL and dmsguild for 3rd party with all the benefits

It’s not about the rules of the edition or how they played. It’s about access and benefits applied to it- it’s why I think 1st would have soared. It was popular without all those things. All the benefits of today used? Yes

If you had the internet and all of its benefits, you'd also have the internet and all of its problems, and I think the latter would have done a great deal of damage to 1e. It's just so full of weird esoteric cruft and unnecessary overcomplication. You cannot just ask for the good side without also having the bad side. WotC D&D is Internet native, and we saw just how viciously people laid into 3e and 4e during the edition wars. It's a real issue.

Further...1e had things that would have set social media on fire. Racist and sexist tropes. Deeply unfortunate implications or even overtly disturbing direct statements like the stuff about half-orcs. Social media would have ripped 1e up one side and down the other and called for deplatforming and ostracizing it.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

An excellent discussion of how a game can succeed despite some of its characteristics and not because of the whole set thereof. Indeed, one could argue the same thing happened to 3rd edition: the first 6ish levels were playtested and reasonably balanced, but after that it goes pretty quickly off the rails. Yet people loved (and in many cases still love) 3.x, its enormous mechanical variety, its nooks and crannies, sometimes even the ridiculous gonzo you could produce within its rules. They got hooked by the initial onboarding and were more willing to try to fix it than to move on to something better-designed, in many cases despite explicitly knowing and recognizing the many issues it has. That is quite literally why PF1e exists, and why PF2e wasn't an absolute knockout when it launched. People in this thread generally agree about how flawed and problematic 3.x/PF1e were, yet that edition family remains fairly popular (albeit much more niche than before.)

Even in this thread, we've had pro-5e folks admit that high-level 5e isn't great, that there are classes and subclasses that aren't well-made, that the DMG is below the standard it should have met as perhaps the most important book for D&D's long-term health, that they see certain default rules as seriously flawed and in actual need of replacement with official options or homebrew, etc. If we all had the ability to make choices in a perfectly logical context with no sunk-cost thinking and no emotional attachment, there's no guarantee at all that these issues wouldn't be enough to drive some folks (surely not all, but surely not none either) into seeking other games. And things like Level Up exist, and have rather significant popularity, because people recognize that 5e as it exists is incomplete, lacking support for some archetypes and making a poor showing for some of the archetypes it does claim to support.

And that hits on a key sticking point. How much change can you make and still call it “5e?” If you houserule half the core systems and use Level Up and rewrite several classes and all spell lists, as we know at least one person on this forum has done (well, maybe not the LU part, but DND_Reborn has not been remotely shy about discussing the dramatic and radical rewrites they've made), are you still playing “5e,” or are you playing your own OGL homebrew system which happens to resemble 5e in some ways?

I know this is a Ship of Theseus/sorites paradox situation, there are no clean answers. But the point stands that even among people who love 5e and have been there from the beginning, there is already some disagreement as to what 5e is or should be. To extrapolate from 5e's success to the idea that all of its systems are "near-perfect" or that it was truly, uniquely special in a way that is more important than the context in which it appeared...it just isn't justified.

The whole thing is exacerbated by the fact that 5e is the 'blue ocean' game, which means that it's creating new TTRPGs players, which further complicates things because most of the people playing it didn't have a point of comparison until they try something else. But that naturally means that 5e is going to have a majority of players, without it necessarily being the right game for the preferences of all those players as they discover what they like about TTRPGs.

Hence, r/Pathfinder2e running polls and finding out its own community is over 60% former 5e players and growing, and Level Up chugging along with its (growing? I don't keep up with it) playerbase. I think indie games are experiencing a similar surge as some 5e players look for games that are less combat and char op oriented in terms of fundamental mechanics. Its not the majority of the fanbase, but at the same time, that's largely not how fanbases work, people have brand investment, and because it was the introduction, people are likely more willing to compromise on it even if half of them would prefer a more tactical game, and others would prefer a more story-centric experience. Some people aren't invested enough to look for competing products, they'll just treat the foibles of DND as the foibles of TTRPG as a whole, and some will likely put the game down well before they run into pain points. Plenty more will try and make it work for them to varying degrees of success.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? You think people would have flocked to that horrible descending armor class system that was clumsy and almost insultingly anti-intuitive? You think they would be happy wanting to play a wizard, but then doing nothing but throwing darts every single turn except one?

Listen, the early 80s was my era of D&D, and I remember it very fondly. But there was lots in the game that is obviously dumb in the light of modern game philosophies. There's no way 5e would be so popular if it had those millstones of bad game design around its neck.

Do I think that a game that 12 year olds could figure out would do well in a world of streaming? Yes.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Not going to disagree with sunk costs and brand loyalty. Those things can happen for any edition and do not mean 5e is ‘special’ alone.

What I am almost sure we will find is that there will be folks fixing most editions including 6e or 5.5 or whatever. But at first all the shiny is pretty intoxicating.

All of that said, the question is really one of preferences and how many people end up preferring something.

I don’t think it’s 5e per se that is so special but rather some of its features. Some of these are probably going to be around for a bit.

That 5e hit well for so many suggests it has some elements that resonate and that there are enough of them to get a wide audience.

What would prove that? I am not sure. If they drop the new game with similar elements and it does not have huge drop off it would be somewhat convincing with me.

The only real way to know would be to create another condition. If the game got really different and stayed popular we would suspect brand loyalty. If it does not change much and loses favor we would think “regression to the mean” after the blitzkrieg of special conditions—-critical role, the play test pandemic, a cohort effect all in combination?

Brand loyalty did not save 4e. So I don’t think it made 5e. It was a precondition but was not sufficient.

My assertion (just opinion after all) is that it was the right game at the right time. All the warts were not just “overlooked” but rather were not that “warty” to all but a subset who use the game differently.

I think if 5e was just obscuring so many problems that there are enough discerning players that would have moved on. They did from 4e, from some D&D competitors too.

I think 5e had a lot of the right stuff such that for most folks the good far outweighs the bad and that it’s enduring appeal to a big cross section of players is a testament to its formula. For sure hat reason I will say it is special.

The only real way to know is to make New Coke and see if people clamor for Coca Cola.

But this does not mean it’s a perfect game. If they reduced spell slots or added some maneuvers for fighters, I don’t think there will be a mass exodus.

Heh, I'm more cynical, I think that the narrative can complexify, people do have brand loyalty to DND, but the 'new coke' branding of 4e actually triggered a backlash due to that sense of loyalty, 'fixing the problems of 3.5' was understood as an attack on people who enjoyed 3.5. I actually think the narrative of 5e as a return to form was more powerful than how much people actually liked or disliked the mechanics. Everyone who left because of how they perceived 4e wanted to try it because 'real DND is finally back' and you had the 4e base, which was actually still bigger than the leavers because 4e brought in plenty of new people, there was no competing 4e clone this time to seduce them away (13th age is sufficiently different from 4e to preclude that) so 5e ended up with a massive amount of momentum as the 4e and 3.5 playerbases reunited, add the geek chic, streaming take off, and the accompanying wave of nostalgia getting some people to pick it back up who hadn't played since college, and the momentum only accelerates.

I'd even go so far as to say that 5e is less popular than it could be because of all the things it's not, and those things are going to probably cause a lot of players to leak away over time, both from the hobby as a whole, or from WOTC specifically. I think other RPGs are getting a bigger share of 5e's 'new' players than they would have if 5e had been less conflicted about story vs. mechanics, or had just finessed the design better, and given players better post PHB support (and built a game that enabled that.) I can't know that, but I don't think its an unfair assesment.

Edit: 'leak away over time' EVEN IF they manage to bring in more new people than they lose current players, in other words I'm expecting the ratio to be smaller in DND's favor than it would have been with a better core system and all its existing advantages, while still expecting it to continue to be the best selling game by a longshot.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think the issue is, nothing is universal, there are people who swear by every edition of DND-- so the presence of people who either don't have, don't notice, or don't mind the problems is neither here nor there if you do have issues with it, and their issues with it are neither here nor there for the people that do enjoy it unless they come up later for those people. The push and pull becomes about whether the problem can be fixed via a change of frame or whether the people who enjoy it now would enjoy it even more changed, or if they'd enjoy it this amount regardless because the issues are just orthogonal to where they get their fun from so itd be better to fix it for the people who need it fixed.

I'm sort of the opinion that a lot of 5e's success is momentum and back loading of its pain points, people are heavily invested in the system by the time they would start having issues, and new players especially might not take the idea of other options seriously and assume they already have the best option because it's the most popular. So I see a route where the game has issues for a significant portion of participants, but they're too invested to leave, so they develop a massive culture of homebrew and advice to paper over the many flaws they've variously found and an entire sub-industry of homebrewers and youtube content creators takes shape.

I already responded but continued to think about what you wrote here.

I think the question is whether the game is special which of course does not mean everyone will like it.

After 8 years?! of playing the idea that the game was a really good Trojan Horse for its faults…does not seem credible to me.

The only data I know we have is that it has remained popular over a lot of years and that not all editions of D&D have done this.

But it’s only my opinion. I don’t think it’s complete magical formula is required. I think you can make improvements without it falling all to heck with the public. But there simply has to be enough good there for enough people to suggest it hit on something.

I don’t think it’s badness was just hidden by the cult of the new or lack of perceptiveness by the gaming public. That just does not make sense to me.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I already responded but continued to think about what you wrote here.

I think the question is whether the game is special which of course does not mean everyone will like it.

After 8 years?! of playing the idea that the game was a really good Trojan Horse for its faults…does not seem credible to me.

The only data I know we have is that it has remained popular over a lot of years and that not all editions of D&D have done this.

But it’s only my opinion. I don’t think it’s complete magical formula is required. I think you can make improvements without it falling all to heck with the public. But there simply has to be enough good there for enough people to suggest it hit on something.

I don’t think it’s badness was just hidden by the cult of the new or lack of perceptiveness by the gaming public. That just does not make sense to me.

I think part of what I refer to as backloading are things that let the core DND experience shine through, by moving away from the upfront tactical presentation of 4e they made players less likely to see it as a complex tactics game for nerds, you can more or less ignore magic items and multiclassing and feats and game it is more lightweight than prior editions, advantage is easier to explain than the bonuses of previous editions if actually mechanically problematic. More people got exposed through CR and other Actual Plays which really front loaded the storytelling aspect of the game, which got people to approach learning the game with an 'eyes on the prize' mentality.

Branding is a powerful thing, people will get angry if they try pepsi and coke in a blind taste test and discover they prefer pepsi or can't tell the difference. DND has a lot of history as a household name, and a lot of people want to like it that's a big deal.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think part of what I refer to as backloading are things that let the core DND experience shine through, by moving away from the upfront tactical presentation of 4e they made players less likely to see it as a complex tactics game for nerds, you can more or less ignore magic items and multiclassing and feats and game it is more lightweight than prior editions, advantage is easier to explain than the bonuses of previous editions if actually mechanically problematic. More people got exposed through CR and other Actual Plays which really front loaded the storytelling aspect of the game, which got people to approach learning the game with an 'eyes on the prize' mentality.

Branding is a powerful thing, people will get angry if they try pepsi and coke in a blind taste test and discover they prefer pepsi or can't tell the difference. DND has a lot of history as a household name, and a lot of people want to like it that's a big deal.

Well you’re not wrong—-in that a lighter experience has broad appeal. I personally like war games and tactical stuff. But last night we played and granted it was long term friends and their son…but we were howling with laughter. And the truth is that half of us are closer to grogs. The other half less so by many many degrees. But we had the best damn time!

My friend put a big TV in his table so we had nice big play mats for the battles. Fun.

I was helping folks calculate their bonuses at times. But had it been 4e…I just don’t think it would have been the party it was with the cross section of people there was.

It felt like the rules did not get in the way for the most part. I remember the days of the five foot step and the different attacks getting different bonuses—-each succeeding attack on the scale getting lower.

Or 4e with its clean and hard coded symmetry. I think the craziness of the casters made for part of the comedy last night and the tactical excitement as we took on the minions of Iuz the old!

I think there is a market for the hard core gamer but it’s just not the size of 5e. Does it have a place? Well you have some here talking about level up, pathfinder and so forth. Yeah, it’s there is an audience.

There is also an audience for old school BECMI level stuff too!

I think 5e has effectively straddled the lot and has enough from each pool that it’s formula venture into “special” if that means broad appeal.

You could go one way or another on the spectrum and still probably be good but they are pretty dialed in this time.

Are they in the “absolute sweet spot?” I dunno. And it’s probably too late to know. But they’re close I believe. Would it have more fans with a little more complexity or simplicity?

I don’t know but if you gain some here you probably shed some there. Imperfect but close enough for hand grenades I think.

Another factor that can be at play is the release schedule and some broader things like that which would not have to be unique to 5e. How much variance does that account for, I don’t know that either!

But I think you are right—-as was my experience last night with a diverse group. The rules don’t trip up the roleplay And freewheeling adventuring that probably is the most attractive part of rpg in a world of tactical stuff

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well you’re not wrong—-in that a lighter experience has broad appeal. I personally like war games and tactical stuff. But last night we played and granted it was long term friends and their son…but we were howling with laughter. And the truth is that half of us are closer to grogs. The other half less so by many many degrees. But we had the best damn time!

My friend put a big TV in his table so we had nice big play mats for the battles. Fun.

I was helping folks calculate their bonuses at times. But had it been 4e…I just don’t think it would have been the party it was with the cross section of people there was.

It felt like the rules did not get in the way for the most part. I remember the days of the five foot step and the different attacks getting different bonuses—-each succeeding attack on the scale getting lower.

Or 4e with its clean and hard coded symmetry. I think the craziness of the casters made for part of the comedy last night and the tactical excitement as we took on the minions of Iuz the old!

I think there is a market for the hard core gamer but it’s just not the size of 5e. Does it have a place? Well you have some here talking about level up, pathfinder and so forth. Yeah, it’s there is an audience.

There is also an audience for old school BECMI level stuff too!

I think 5e has effectively straddled the lot and has enough from each pool that it’s formula venture into “special” if that means broad appeal.

You could go one way or another on the spectrum and still probably be good but they are pretty dialed in this time.

Are they in the “absolute sweet spot?” I dunno. And it’s probably too late to know. But they’re close I believe. Would it have more fans with a little more complexity or simplicity?

I don’t know but if you gain some here you probably shed some there. Imperfect but close enough for hand grenades I think.

Another factor that can be at play is the release schedule and some broader things like that which would not have to be unique to 5e. How much variance does that account for, I don’t know.

I think there are four markets that all compromise on DND:

- Story centric players who don't like the war game elements who would be better off with indie PBTA style games.

- Mechanically invested people who like character building and mechanical texture and game balance and would be better off with Pathfinder 2e.

- People who want shenanigans and crazy plans who want neither 'love affairs and blood feuds' nor psuedo wargames and would orovably be better off with Old School Essentials or something.

- That person who just kinda does whatever everyone else is for the social good times.

The game mostly works because hoing any further in any of these directions alienates the others, imo.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think there are four markets that all compromise on DND:

- Story centric players who don't like the war game elements who would be better off with indie PBTA style games.

- Mechanically invested people who like character building and mechanical texture and game balance and would be better off with Pathfinder 2e.

- People who want shenanigans and crazy plans who want neither 'love affairs and blood feuds' nor psuedo wargames and would orovably be better off with Old School Essentials or something.

- That person who just kinda does whatever everyone else is for the social good times.

The game mostly works because hoing any further in any of these directions alienates the others, imo.

In a group of 7 last night, I suspect all of these were represented!

 

[Nightfly]

Do I think that a game that 12 year olds could figure out would do well in a world of streaming? Yes.

I was about 12 then and I figured it out, yeah. But I had friends who didn't. My now-wife tells me how she wanted to play as a kid but had trouble wrapping her mind around it (and now she's a doctor with an Ivy League degree).

Worse, I knew people who were excited about playing a mighty wizard, went though a session where they cast no spells then died the first time they were touched, then quit and never came back. Hard to blame them, honestly. That isn't fun.

People are looking at Basic with rose-colored lenses. Some of those people weren't even alive then, oddly enough. I was, so let me tell you: 5e is vastly friendlier to new players. VASTLY.