D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

Okay, I can actually see that!

So yeah, I agree. That is something I was missing. All four of those games have rules that, moment-to-moment, resolve pretty quickly and smoothly, without a lot of checking books or details or so on. The level of crunch and complexity varies a lot, but in all cases the momentary resolution is relatively quick.

This isn't true of a lot of other games - Cyberpunk 2020 often didn't resolve that quickly, nor does Shadowrun in any recent edition. 3E/PF1 would be right out (the sheer modifier math alone can make things take a very long time). 4E would be less successful on this basis but nowhere near as bad as 3E/PF1. Hmmm it feels like there's something more.

Oh I think that's the other thing - none of these games is likely to cause analysis paralysis when you're taking a turn, as your real options at any moment, tend to be quite limited. Combine that with the smooth resolution and you get these more fun-to-play games. I think this holds back Savage Worlds and PF2, both of which are well-designed, better designed than most of the above, mechanically, but easily create situations where you as a player can suffer from analysis paralysis, and where you do sometimes have to go back and forth checking stuff. PF2 for example has this very clever "3 action" system, but means that your choices at any given time, of what you COULD do, are much wider than D&D, which obviously good on one level, but can easily cause people to take a lot longer to decide what to do, as well (system expertise can help with this of course - but you show how WoD, for example, worked well without system expertise!).

Another factor I think is that of multiple actions generally - games which have multiple actions as a routine thing (Shadowrun, Champions, etc.) pretty much never run that smoothly without serious system expertise/player experience.

Yes, I think that you are very right about the lack of analysis paralysis, as all of those games, regardless of their many differences, provide a pretty clear narrative structure in which a player can move. "What would Conan the Barbarian do...?"

5E stands out for having room for some old time wargame tactics, in fairly small doses.

 

[Parmandur]

Pathfinder used it to its IMO best effect; as a sometimes food game change and luck mechanic instead of the smothering blanket that ate any other design.

The more the merrier.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's probably the best idea in D&D since ascending AC...and probably before.

I don’t know about that, but I do like it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Tsk - you really can't call out circular arguments and then drop this in...

...except the argument you're talking about isn't circular.

A circular argument assumes the conclusion, and then uses that to prove the conclusion. I did not do so.

Restated: because it is intrinsically like those others, something extrinsic must account for it's success. The argument over-simplifies. It groups objects by qualities they putatively all possess ("quick-run" and "light") and claims that those vague qualities make the objects intrinsically similar in every way that could possibly matter to their success (and thus it must be down to extrinsic qualities).

An over-simplification is not the same as a circular argument. Whether it is correct or not has nothing to do with the syntactic structure (which is the case with a formal fallacy like circularity.)

Where it to my mind begs the question is that if I make the similar argument with in mind that it is some differentiating intrinsic qualities of 5e that account for its success, then that works equally well. We both say exactly the same thing: quick-runness and lightness alone are insufficient. Then in order to make the argument you put, I just have to already have in mind that no other intrinsic quality of 5e could account for its success (either 5e has no other intrinsic qualities - tenuous - or it does, but they don't matter.) So your implied conclusion is the one you have already in mind.

The intrinsic qualities people have repeatedly argued were relevant to 5e's success were quickness, lightness, being traditional, etc. I specifically cited all of those things. People haven't brought up any other intrinsic qualities, or I would have attempted to address them as well.

If the problem is that I'm failing to consider relevant intrinsic qualities, maybe the people arguing that the intrinsic qualities matter should be talking about the relevant ones, and not irrelevant ones! Or, if you feel like it, instead of just saying "you clearly assumed something wrong! Assume better things!", tell me what qualities I should have considered, rather than just making an airy allusion to some other, unstated qualities that apparently make all the difference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A wild comparison. Gamma World is a very specifically focused game. I love it, but it isn’t a game that is going to meaningfully compare to the generic fantasy game.

Most TTRPGs don’t combine simplicity with OC builder chargen, and a generic set of setting assumptions and game type.

A game that is purpose built to tell one kind of story will not blow up like 5e has.

People have specifically and repeatedly claimed that it is the lightness and quickness of 5e that made a huge difference. I cited a game that is light and quick. If that's a bad citation, people should be mentioning those other qualities too.

It's not my fault people have given a bad explanation.

Furthermore: (1) I cited several other things which were (or are) not "specifically focused game(s)." Dismissing the whole argument because one example (among several) has one off-putting characteristic is bad-faith argumentation at best. (2) I specifically have been saying that familiarity is one of the things that helped 5e succeed. I, personally, consider that at least partially a situational thing. Particularly since (as many on this forum have mentioned, whether to praise or to condemn!), 5e is clearly moving away from a lot of traditional elements as it grows, indicating that while familiarity might have been useful in its initial context, it could in fact be holding the game back now...which is something I've repeatedly argued, that certain aspects of the game could actually be limiting its growth whether or not they were useful before.

 

[teitan]

Well, again, this seems like a circular argument: you are justifying that it was special by pointing to this unique behavior, but that doesn't distinguish special circumstances from special nature.

Did it stay afloat because it was special, something totally unheard-of or nigh-unique in the gaming space, or did it stay afloat because its circumstances were special?

Part of the reason I just can't see it as being particularly special is that...it's not like there haven't been quick-run, "light" versions of games, nor of D&D specifically. 4e had GW7e, which even sold in stores as a boxed set thing. Shadowrun 5th Edition had Shadowrun: Anarchy. D&D had Basic. Etc., etc. There have been attempts in that direction, and none of them took off even remotely like this has.

Conversely, 5e isn't that simple by tabletop standards. It's absolutely not the simplest version of D&D ever made (which, again, would either be some early-edition thing or GW7e.) It has a whole bunch of weird legacy holdovers, like the claimed but generally invisible difference between "divine" magic and "arcane" magic, or saving throws as opposed to static defenses, or ability scores that are never used except at character creation (or for half-feats, I guess?) It's guilty of quite a lot of semantic overloading, particularly the terms "level," "action," and "check." It's absolutely nothing like the simplicity of ultralight games, particularly with à la carte multiclassing and the tracking of how levels in various (sub)classes stack together for that purpose.

So...it's not that having a particularly simple system option makes that big a difference. 3.0 was quite a bit simpler than 2.0, but it didn't have the staying power that 5e has, and other, even-simpler systems (like various extensions of Basic) did not capture that lightning in a bottle the way 5e has. What gives?

My only conclusion is that the special circumstances--which I don't think anyone here denies that those circumstances were special--played an enormous role in permitting this to happen. The rules were not irrelevant. But whatever 5e was, it couldn't have succeeded as much as it has without those special circumstances--because previous efforts in that direction, which didn't have those circumstances, weren't any different from other examples.

Hence why I said 60% (or a little higher) was circumstance, 40% (or a little lower) was innate character. The special circumstances made all the difference, and in their absence, it doesn't matter what kind of game 5e was, it wouldn't have succeeded the way it has. With their presence, even a game that differed moderately to significantly from 5e (such as 4e*) would still have done well, though I freely grant that it might not have done as well. But, as I said, I could be argued down to a 50/50--that it was equal parts being the game for the time, and being the time for a game, whatever that game happened to be. I absolutely would not go any further than 50/50 though.

*Though honestly it's really funny. People--some of them the very people who are participating in this thread--have previously tried to convince me that no, there's actually plenty of 4e in 5e, that there's such strong similarities that it's difficult to understand how someone couldn't see them. Yet now, when it's important that 5e be different from 4e? The two couldn't be more dissimilar. Funny that similarity is only present when it's useful and absolutely denied when it isn't...

Edit: Hey, magic post 1234! Just something funny I noticed

I didn’t say it was special. I said it was simple and like B1E, it was easy to pick up and just play it unlike later editions that are more complicated. My answer was simple and not circular at all. The core of the game is an uncomplicated adventure game that is easy to understand and play. Like the original version/s. The thing that makes it “special” is that it has maintained interest for going on ten years and has grown every year for ten years. Has little to do with the game and everything to do with the marketing and the spirit of the times. Bing bang boom, poke your nose, Bob’s your uncle. No more complicated than that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I didn’t say it was special.

You talked about how it did well...in a thread titled "Is 5e Special"...and specifically cited how a certain characteristic (quickness of play) was, in your opinion, important for why 5e avoided the "crater[ing]" other editions experienced. You may not have used the word "special," but what else were you trying to say?

Has little to do with the game and everything to do with the marketing and the spirit of the times. Bing bang boom, poke your nose, Bob’s your uncle. No more complicated than that.

Well then, I guess we agree? I'm still confused as to why you said what you said, but if what was meant was "5e had tons of marketing (some of it provided for free by others) and an advantageous climate," then that's all I've really argued for.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People have specifically and repeatedly claimed that it is the lightness and quickness of 5e that made a huge difference. I cited a game that is light and quick. If that's a bad citation, people should be mentioning those other qualities too.

It's not my fault people have given a bad explanation.

Yeah this screams “trying to win points in an argument”, which I don’t engage with if I can help it.

Furthermore: (1) I cited several other things which were (or are) not "specifically focused game(s)." Dismissing the whole argument because one example (among several) has one off-putting characteristic is bad-faith argumentation at best.

I didn’t engage with the argument at all. I challenged one example, because it’s a bad example.

(2) I specifically have been saying that familiarity is one of the things that helped 5e succeed. I, personally, consider that at least partially a situational thing. Particularly since (as many on this forum have mentioned, whether to praise or to condemn!), 5e is clearly moving away from a lot of traditional elements as it grows, indicating that while familiarity might have been useful in its initial context, it could in fact be holding the game back now...which is something I've repeatedly argued, that certain aspects of the game could actually be limiting its growth whether or not they were useful before.

Familiarity only works as a major factor early on. Most players aren’t old enough for those things to be familiar from past editions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess what I struggle with is this.

Is it really hard to believe that most players find 5e easier to just sit down and play than nearly any other edition? That’s what’s really being discussed. Simplicity is just a shortcut to that.

If not, is it really hard to believe that ease of use is a significant factor in the popularity and growth into the mainstream of a game?

Like…we aren’t making wild claims, here. “Special” or not, 5e has a particular combination of traits in a good enough balance that it is suited to mass popularity. I really don’t see how that is controversial. I don’t give a half eaten fig whether those traits are particular to 5e, or whether you personally (you being any given reader) like the combination and balance of “flavors”, or whatever other nits anyone wants to pick about what “special” means and whether 5e “qualifies” for the term.

5e runs out of the box (no seriously. Overthink it all you want, it’s very easy to sit down and play. Like IMO the popularity of the game and its growth into the mainstream literally proves that this is true) quite easily.

5e allows players to build an evocative OC without overwhelming them with options or requiring homework to understand what all the terms mean in order to even understand what they’re building.

5e’s mechanics and math are straightforward and while there is some depth to master, the learning curve is very gentle to get basic proficiency.

Like I’m sure a couple posters will find some word they think I misused that “disproves” my whole argument or whatever, but the above just isn’t a set of remotely wild claims. Each of the above, IMO contributes significantly to 5e’s continued success, completely breaking the mold of all previous versions of D&D.

 

[teitan]

You talked about how it did well...in a thread titled "Is 5e Special"...and specifically cited how a certain characteristic (quickness of play) was, in your opinion, important for why 5e avoided the "crater[ing]" other editions experienced. You may not have used the word "special," but what else were you trying to say?


Well then, I guess we agree? I'm still confused as to why you said what you said, but if what was meant was "5e had tons of marketing (some of it provided for free by others) and an advantageous climate," then that's all I've really argued for.

Considering my comment originally was my ruminations on the idea of 5e being special and essentially saying “right idea, right time like the early years” then your comment was a bunch of hot air to refute me because you thought I was calling it special. The misunderstanding is on you to figure out here because your brain is the one that inserted the word “special” into my post. My only “failure” could be wading into a 60 page post and not being buggered enough to read the whole blamed thing to know what you’re arguing with everyone about at this juncture.