D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Minigiant]

It came.pretty close, and it was the 4E team that made it.

Sure the 4e made it. But it wasn't "4e with a few rules changes".

13A changed the skeleton.

 

[Oofta]

Okay, let's put some guesstimate numbers. I think 5e's success is probably 80% due to the design.

 

[Nightfly]

PF only overtook 4e when 4e stopped putting out as many new books. It only really overtook things when 4e pretty much stopped printing anything at all; keep in mind, 4e basically stopped publishing well before the D&D Next playtest was announced. Almost all of 4e's library was published between 2008 and 2010: only four books were published in 2011, and only two in 2012. Now, obviously there are major differences between 4e and 5e in terms of publications, both number and intended impact (only people who wanted to play Divine characters wanted Divine Power, for example), but the point stands, PF overtook 4e because the latter stopped making books. It's pretty easy to beat the sales of something that isn't making new product, and PF1e launched in 2009...and took 2-3 years to overtake 4e. Imagine that.

These are all good points/facts, but keeping them in mind, you should really appreciate the fact that the 5e Player's Handbook is in the top 55 bestselling books on Amazon right now. Literally today. That's not game books, it's all books. It's been out a good bit longer than the 4e PH had been at the point you're trying to shrug off the fact that it (possibly) wasn't even the best-selling basic rulebook for a D&D game.

You're correct that 4e was not some kind of disaster, even though a lot of people are under the impression that it was. I remember packed rooms of people playing 4e. It did fine, and brought in a lot of new players. That said, 5e is in an entirely different weight class of success, and it's been sustained success. At some point, a person has to give it credit for doing something right.

 

[payn]

Okay, let's put some guesstimate numbers. I think 5e's success is probably 80% due to the design.

Easy now, this might end up one of @el-remmen's true false polls!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, let's put some guesstimate numbers. I think 5e's success is probably 80% due to the design.

I’d say 70/30, but I wouldn’t discount the possibility.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, let's put some guesstimate numbers. I think 5e's success is probably 80% due to the design.

50/50

CR, working VTT, DNDBB, and higher respect for nerd culture and geek culture were big.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think thats a rather uncharitable view of PF1. Sure, many folks were there because they didn't want to play 4E, that doesn't mean they only played it because of spite. Admittedly, the gunslinger and summoner were bad, but the witch, oracle, cavalier, inquisitor, and others were pretty great. They also dropped some of the absolute best adventures during this time so it wasn't only system splats folks hung out for (even though folks did like epic play and unchained). It had a pretty great community too, despite you making them all seem like bored trolls.

I don't see how my characterization is incorrect. I didn't think what I said made them "bored trolls." I think it demonstrated that the 3.x fans were very conservative--they wanted nothing to change. And the problem is, they got more or less what they wanted, and over time even most of them had to recognize, "okay, yeah, there are some serious problems here."

 

[Eric V]

I'm starting to get the impression you think anything that's too complicated for 8 year olds shouldn't be in the game.

Which I guess is a take.

It's helpful, though; if people really believe the ceiling of complexity for a game should be what an 8 year old can understand, then I know we have virtually nothing in common as far as gaming is concerned, and it saves arguments. I admit it's weird to say that's why the game is so popular, though...makes for some weird conclusions to be drawn.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That said, 5e is in an entirely different weight class of success, and it's been sustained success. At some point, a person has to give it credit for doing something right.

But I've already said that. Repeatedly. I even put it in bold recently (within the past 40 posts, this thread moves very fast.) This is why I said what I said earlier: it feels like you cannot have a critical opinion of 5e. You have to love it, because any time you express a critical opinion, you're a hater trying to tear it down and prove that it's objectively wrong and awful. Anything less than outright praise is categorized as an active attack.

Okay, let's put some guesstimate numbers. I think 5e's success is probably 80% due to the design.

60% circumstance, 40% design, maybe a little more toward circumstance. Design cannot be neglected by any means, but circumstance was the primary factor. I definitely wouldn't say anything worse than 2/3 circumstance, 1/3 design, that would be unfair (and kind of hypocritical, since 5e does have some 4e design in it, however mangled or intentionally distorted.)

Edit: Conversely, I could probably be sold on 50/50--extremely favorable circumstances paired with just enough of the right stuff, so neither one is particularly more or less influential.

 

[Oofta]

It's helpful, though; if people really believe the ceiling of complexity for a game should be what an 8 year old can understand, then I know we have virtually nothing in common as far as gaming is concerned, and it saves arguments. I admit it's weird to say that's why the game is so popular, though...makes for some weird conclusions to be drawn.

I taught nieces and nephews how to play 3.5, and yes some were as young as 8. I did give them simple pregens, but they grasped the concepts of the game.

Teaching 5e would be easier, I'm not sure I would have tried that with 4e.