D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think they were trying to fix leaks at all with 4e. I think they had decided what D&D should look like, and made it that way.

I'm pretty sure they were at least addressing problems part of the fan base had. You can distinctly question whether they overestimated how big that part was, but that's a different issue.

 

[payn]

I don't think they were trying to fix leaks at all with 4e. I think they had decided what D&D should look like, and made it that way.

They decided by listening to a lot of folks on the internet. They got New Coke 2: electric boogaloo out of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, because few (I make the qualification because the ones I game with effectively were for a long time) gaming groups are hermetically sealed structures. Someone else's problem is not unlikely to be your own at some point. A problem that isn't one for a long time because nobody engaged with it only isn't one until your new players do. So do you want to just ignore it until you can't?

I just figure you deal with an issue when it comes up for you, or it becomes apparent it will. Otherwise you're just being a busy body at best and pushing your desires on others at worst.

 

[James Gasik]

Let's try this one more time. Seriously, this has had to be repeated approximately one million times, but again-

People aren't saying that 5e is popular, therefore it cannot possibly be flawed.

Instead, there are people ... many people, including me ... who keep reiterating that commercial sales matter. That there is not some Holy Grail of "Perfect Design" for everyone that you can measure objectively.

So when people keep "white room theorizing" what they want to happen with 5e, it would help to start by thinking about why 5e is popular. Actually thinking about it; not just dismissing it as "stupid people don't know what they want," and "that's just an appeal to popularity (wrong)" and "popularity isn't the same as quality" (true, but actual sales are an objective measure, whereas "quality" is subjective and dependent on a number of things, including what you want to use it for).

Even the idea of adding a bunch of options misses the point; as it is, despite the fact that 5e is "easy" (compared to, say, 3e), it's still relatively difficult to understand compared to other RPGs. Adding additional points of complexity might not be what is best for a game that is not designed for niche audiences, but designed to be broadly appealing.

None of the people here are actually considering design in terms of tradeoffs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If a person were to design a game from scratch, without both the advantages and disadvantages of being "D&D," they could do all sorts of other things. But we aren't. Moreover, the constant complaints from a small number of people about the design of 5e, given that it is both the most popular edition of D&D ever, and the most popular RPG ever, seem to miss the point; first, you need to understand why it is successful before looking into what it should change. And there is a decided lack of reflection on why this version of D&D is successful. Just a lot of "Well, it might be the most successful ever, but it still sucks," assumptions.

So ok, let's say you're right, and the reason 5e is popular is because it is the way that it is. Maybe what we should be discussing then is why:

-More base classes would be bad for the game.

-More love given to non-magical (sub) classes would be bad for the game.

-Making sure that players can't optimize themselves out of being able to participate meaningfully in a social encounter would be bad for the game (I know this is hotly contested, but it's my experience that if you want something from an NPC, there's really only three ways to succeed- skill check, magic, and convince the DM, and that last one, of course, carries the most weight).

-Allowing all classes to be able to perform incredible feats, not just magic users would be bad for the game.

-Coming out and saying "yes, D&D worlds aren't real worlds, the laws of physics aren't our laws of physics, the humans are similar to but not exactly Earth humans, and by level X, it's assumed everyone can perform feats far beyond those of normal people even in their world" would be bad for the game (this one I know is even more fiercely contested, but most arguments against it come down to "that's not my preference", not whether or not it would be good for D&D).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Iceberg ripped the ship in half twenty years ago and we're still arguing on whether it even existed while making a tiny, struggling community on a North Atlantic island.

 

[payn]

Iceberg ripped the ship in half twenty years ago and we're still arguing on whether it even existed while making a tiny, struggling community on a North Atlantic island.

Best selling most popular edition to date. I guess D&D was meant to be a submarine!

 

[Oofta]

Sinking? No, it's obviously not sinking. But ignoring a leak because it's not currently sinking the ship seems a bit odd to me. Of course, the problem is, getting people to admit that the leaks even exist, because again, they've accepted them, or have adapted to them, by either houseruling them away, or playing the game in a manner where they aren't an issue.

Hypothetical Poster: "Wizards aren't a problem in my game because enemies will laser focus on them, I never let them find scrolls or capture spellbooks, and antimagic fields are common in my game world."

Left unsaid is "Wizards might be a problem if I wasn't doing that, which not all DM's will be." Now maybe, because there's a Perception filter on the pages of the DMG, I've failed to notice the big red sidebar that says "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give casters nothin'!", so I don't have a leg to stand on, lol. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

Now the 1e DMG certainly did, though there it was more "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give player characters nothin'!".

In order for there to identify a "leak" there would have to be evidence of said hypothetical leak. With fighters for example evidence could be that they spiked in popularity early on but are rarely played now. Except there is no such evidence. Fighters have always been and continue to be the single most popular class.

So just because you personally have an issue with fighters there is no reason to believe there is a "leak" or any need to make drastic changes. Honestly, I wouldn't know anyone has an issue with fighters if it weren't for forums, if you don't like the class there are plenty of other options.

Of course, much like the ongoing conversation gets the retort "just because they're popular doesn't mean people enjoy playing them" or the "they aren't perfect". The former is just nonsensical to me because there are plenty of other class options people could freely play, the latter is true because there is no such thing as perfection.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So ok, let's say you're right, and the reason 5e is popular is because it is the way that it is. Maybe what we should be discussing then is why:

-More base classes would be bad for the game.

-More love given to non-magical (sub) classes would be bad for the game.

-Making sure that players can't optimize themselves out of being able to participate meaningfully in a social encounter would be bad for the game (I know this is hotly contested, but it's my experience that if you want something from an NPC, there's really only three ways to succeed- skill check, magic, and convince the DM, and that last one, of course, carries the most weight).

-Allowing all classes to be able to perform incredible feats, not just magic users would be bad for the game.

-Coming out and saying "yes, D&D worlds aren't real worlds, the laws of physics aren't our laws of physics, the humans are similar to but not exactly Earth humans, and by level X, it's assumed everyone can perform feats far beyond those of normal people even in their world" would be bad for the game (this one I know is even more fiercely contested, but most arguments against it come down to "that's not my preference", not whether or not it would be good for D&D).

-taking a stand on literally any gaming issue is bad for the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They decided by listening to a lot of folks on the internet. They got New Coke 2: electric boogaloo out of it.

So a better product that was annihilated by marketing and the bad habits the corporation itself fostered? Yeah, pretty apt comparison.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Best selling most popular edition to date. I guess D&D was meant to be a submarine!

Money is not quality. You're not usually the one state that fallacy.