Unpopular opinions go here

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ok. What exactly are they doing, creatively to make the game more popular?

Jeez. Where would you start?

To begin with, the entire design of 5e was predicated on two simple things-

First, ensure that elements from older editions were included. This is the whole bit about making sure that "legacy" issues were accommodated. In some cases, they included the legacy elements but largely decoupled them from the mechanics (such as the alignment system). In others, they chose to go with a legacy elements that were familiar ... such as the strong class-based system (albeit weakening niche protection). The reason for this from a design standpoint was simple- in order to ensure not only that the edition was "fresh" to new players, but also to attract back experienced and wayward players who hadn't played in a long time, or who had been playing other games but would feel some sense of familiarity with 5e.

Second, they made sure that the system was descriptive and not prescriptive. While 5e in its core books suffers from a deficit in teaching people how to play (you really need to use the Basic set, or starter sets, or youtube videos for that), the great advantage of not telling people how to play is that it allows a multiplicity of playing styles to coalesce under the 5e banner. The strength of a lot of great games is that the rules force you into a narrow range of prescribed playing, which is great, but also reduces the overall ability of the game to adapt to different playing styles. 5e, on the other hand, can be used in anything from a dungeon grinder to a light-hearted fey adventure, and there's no "you're doing it wrong."

These aren't mistakes; there are design choices. Moreover, even the slow pace of release of crunch is a deliberate choice; previously, editions quickly became saddled with too much crunch and too many options competing with one another (cough 3e cough). 5e has remained relatively clean over nearly 10 years. Tasha's changes, for the most part, were introduced and aimed at the newest generation of players- the younger players who had started in 2014 on who weren't as burdened by legacy expectations, and they all make sense from that perspective. Less race essentialism and a grab-bag of new feats and spells.

The whole enterprise seems set to continue ensuring that while there will still be more crunch on the character (and combat) side than many other TTRPGs, it will never approach the crunch of, say, 3e. And the focus, instead, will be on what people will do with the characters. This is more about stories (in the Critical Role sense) than it is about chargen and optimization.

IMO, YMMV. etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you mean ... the success of 5e compared to any other TTRPG published, ever.

That's the correct comparison.

Sure, it's not as successful as other incredibly successful forms of entertainment. You could add, for example, that D&D has yet to surpass the revenue of the NFL if you wanted. But that's not really the proper comparator, is it? Doing the best of any game in its field, in history, is probably sufficient to call it not just impressive, but an unparalleled success. Not to mention that 5e's peak has far surpassed the very limited boom years of the 80s fad, which only lasted from '80-'83.

I mean, an ad populum fallacy is an ad populum fallacy, either way, but even in schemas where popularity or commercial success are all that matter, things closely comparable to TTRPGs, like CRPGs, MMOs, CRPGs, and the like are much more popular & commercially successful than D&D. As successful as 5e/80s D&D has been compared to non-fad D&D, or the extremely niche rest of the TTRPG hobby that D&D accidentally created, and still utterly dominates, it (or TTRPGs generally) may not be as popular as they could have been, if D&D had not boxed itself into the narrow design parameters WotC is working with, today, or, indeed, if the hobby had been accidentally founded by some other nigh-RPG wargame (or actualy RPG), instead of D&D.

(And, like, the NFL, since you bring it up, is very popular, in America, but actual football (where the foot is applied to the ball most of the time, and the ball is actually ball-shaped) is far more popular, globally. Oddly, not because it causes less traumatic brain injury.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that they have sacrificed creativity and artistic expression on the altar of cash. I would rather they made a creative, artistic game that I didn't like than the next to nothing "update" coming next year.

Isn't there at least one OSR labour-of-love game doing that, like, any given year?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not saying that all RPGs are D&D. I'm saying that the claim that "a system can do X genre/setting" is a pretty low bar, as it's mostly about aesthetics at a fairly superficial level

Playing D&D as something other than self-referencial-D&D-fantasy-sub-genre is mostly superficial aesthetics. Heck, playing it as fantasy is prettymuch just that.

But, all TTRPGs are not running on name recognition and longtime dominance, and some resort to useful mechanics that model a genre or setting well, going deeper than the level of superficial aesthetics.
And some very frew TTRPGs pull that off accross multiple genres, or even approach doing so universally.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, an ad populum fallacy is an ad populum fallacy, either way, but even in schemas where popularity or commercial success are all that matter, things closely comparable to TTRPGs, like CRPGs, MMOs, CRPGs, and the like are much more popular & commercially successful than D&D. As successful as 5e/80s D&D has been compared to non-fad D&D, or the extremely niche rest of the TTRPG hobby that D&D accidentally created, and still utterly dominates, it (or TTRPGs generally) may not be as popular as they could have been, if D&D had not boxed itself into the narrow design parameters WotC is working with, today, or, indeed, if the hobby had been accidentally founded by some other nigh-RPG wargame (or actualy RPG), instead of D&D.

(And, like, the NFL, since you bring it up, is very popular, in America, but actual football (where the foot is applied to the ball most of the time, and the ball is actually ball-shaped) is far more popular, globally. Oddly, not because it causes less traumatic brain injury.)

Look, I understand that this is the internet, so people feel it is necessary to deploy things they have heard (or, perhaps, vaguely remember from a Logic 101 class) with the grace that others might throw a manhole cover ... "How dare you ad hominem the strawman with your ad verecundiam argument that is nothing more than a slightly veiled argument ad populum!!!1111!!!!!") .... but let's not.

Anyway, quick review-

The argumentum ad populum fallacy is an informal logical fallacy when you are appealing to to what most people believe. "You should watch Two and a Half Men because it was one of the most-watched sitcoms ever!"

However, it does not apply when you are using the popularity (the actual sales success) as proof of the matter asserted ... the actual sales success.

So, to recap- 5e is incredibly successful. How successful? It's the most successful TTRPG ever. I never said (or stated) that it was good because it was successful; instead, I continue to write that it was designed to be broadly popular. Which is different than designing for other reasons.

Q. To the E. To the D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If anything, it is much harder to design something that is broadly appealing that it is to design for a niche audience. Because you have a lot more interests to accommodate and design for.

I understand that you don't like 5e, but ... you are in the minority. And that's okay. Every game can't be everything to every person. But designing a game that is so broadly popular presents unique design challenges. Simply saying, "Whatever. Cash rules everything around me, CREAM get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all!" might be satisfying to you, but it abdicates any critical thinking about what they are actually doing to make the game popular.

well said

 

[overgeeked]

WotC should be held to a higher design standard than 3PP. Not the other way round.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Jeez. Where would you start?

To begin with, the entire design of 5e was predicated on two simple things-

First, ensure that elements from older editions were included. This is the whole bit about making sure that "legacy" issues were accommodated. In some cases, they included the legacy elements but largely decoupled them from the mechanics (such as the alignment system). In others, they chose to go with a legacy elements that were familiar ... such as the strong class-based system (albeit weakening niche protection). The reason for this from a design standpoint was simple- in order to ensure not only that the edition was "fresh" to new players, but also to attract back experienced and wayward players who hadn't played in a long time, or who had been playing other games but would feel some sense of familiarity with 5e.

Second, they made sure that the system was descriptive and not prescriptive. While 5e in its core books suffers from a deficit in teaching people how to play (you really need to use the Basic set, or starter sets, or youtube videos for that), the great advantage of not telling people how to play is that it allows a multiplicity of playing styles to coalesce under the 5e banner. The strength of a lot of great games is that the rules force you into a narrow range of prescribed playing, which is great, but also reduces the overall ability of the game to adapt to different playing styles. 5e, on the other hand, can be used in anything from a dungeon grinder to a light-hearted fey adventure, and there's no "you're doing it wrong."

These aren't mistakes; there are design choices. Moreover, even the slow pace of release of crunch is a deliberate choice; previously, editions quickly became saddled with too much crunch and too many options competing with one another (cough 3e cough). 5e has remained relatively clean over nearly 10 years. Tasha's changes, for the most part, were introduced and aimed at the newest generation of players- the younger players who had started in 2014 on who weren't as burdened by legacy expectations, and they all make sense from that perspective. Less race essentialism and a grab-bag of new feats and spells.

The whole enterprise seems set to continue ensuring that while there will still be more crunch on the character (and combat) side than many other TTRPGs, it will never approach the crunch of, say, 3e. And the focus, instead, will be on what people will do with the characters. This is more about stories (in the Critical Role sense) than it is about chargen and optimization.

IMO, YMMV. etc.

Yes, very much YMMV.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Look, I understand that this is the internet, so people feel it is necessary to deploy things they have heard (or, perhaps, vaguely remember from a Logic 101 class) with the grace that others might throw a manhole cover ...

Sorry I triggered you with that off-handed use of terminology, it's just it easy to sound like you're arguing D&D is good because it's popular, when you're actually arguing it's successful because it's popular.... But, y'know, ignore everything before the "but"

but even in schemas where popularity or commercial success are all that matter, things closely comparable to TTRPGs, like CRPGs, MMOs, CRPGs, and the like are much more popular & commercially successful than D&D. As successful as 5e/80s D&D has been compared to non-fad D&D, or the extremely niche rest of the TTRPG hobby that D&D accidentally created, and still utterly dominates, it (or TTRPGs generally) may not be as popular as they could have been, if D&D had not boxed itself into the narrow design parameters WotC is working with, today, or, indeed, if the hobby had been accidentally founded by some other nigh-RPG wargame (or actualy RPG), instead of D&D.

So, to recap- 5e is incredibly successful. How successful? It's the most successful TTRPG ever. I never said (or stated) that it was good because it was successful; instead, I continue to write that it was designed to be broadly popular. Which is different than designing for other reasons.

Can't argue with success, but I can quibble with how it was achieved. D&D is designed to be broadly popular, without outraging elements of its hardcore fanbase. That's necessarily less broadly popular than it might be without that restriction. It's a challenged faced by many IPs, especially older/nerdier IPs with a small, passionate fanbase. Transformers struggled with the same sort of issues for a while, for instance. The MCU navigated those sorts of hazards very adroitly.

(And, by the same token, D&D is necessarily less a lot of other things that it might have designed for, instead, like the artisitic integrity Micah seems to want from it, or whatever else might give it appeal in one niche or another...)

 

[Aldarc]

But, all TTRPGs are not running on name recognition and longtime dominance, and some resort to useful mechanics that model a genre or setting well, going deeper than the level of superficial aesthetics.
And some very frew TTRPGs pull that off accross multiple genres, or even approach doing so universally.

I'm genuinely shocked that you still can't recognize this as just more of the same "lipstick on the pig" arguments that I keep hearing about any given system. There are so many people out there who claim that there system can do any given genre/system. How is your argument here any different from what I was talking about?