D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Swanosaurus]

One thing that strikes me funny is one of players prefers 5E over any other RPG, but can't remember half of what her character can do. I don't get it.

Which might be a case in point of how 5e manages to accomodate many levels of player engagement: As it seems, it's absolutely possible to play your character even if you can't remember half of her abilities; which could very well be considered a feature.

 

[TwoSix]

It's always going to be a balancing act. I played a one page game Honey Trap(?) with my brother in law and it was incredibly easy to pick up. It was also something I would never want to play for more than an afternoon's diversion. There's no such thing as perfect balance of course much like there is no such thing as perfect design.

Sure. There's always going to be tradeoffs; you need some level of granularity (and thus complexity) to enable both some tactical play and the ability to configure a character to match a chosen vision. But I don't think any game has quite hit the sweet spot of high upfront customizability along with ease of use in play yet. Not that some games don't do it well, but there's still definitely room for improvement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One thing that strikes me funny is one of players prefers 5E over any other RPG, but can't remember half of what her character can do. I don't get it.

There's a weird dynamic where people will perceive exception based designs as "simpler" that effect-based ones (or even partial moves in that direction) even though the former will often pretty quickly exceed the cognitive overhead of the latter in many cases. As I noted a long time ago, anyone who spends a lot of time playing spellcasters in the D&D-sphere really has a lot of nerve getting worked up at the complexity of the Hero System in regular play.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. There's always going to be tradeoffs; you need some level of granularity (and thus complexity) to enable both some tactical play and the ability to configure a character to match a chosen vision. But I don't think any game has quite hit the sweet spot of high upfront customizability along with ease of use in play yet. Not that some games don't do it well, but there's still definitely room for improvement.

If you measure hitting the sweet spot by success then 5E has certainly come close. It's a pretty nebulous thing though, with many other factors in play.

On the other hand, I occasionally (internally) groan when people who I've been playing with for years don't understand some of the basics. I recently had to explain multiple times to the same player that just because I told them could get sneak attack on a specific target they did not have advantage. Or having to explain how critical hit damage works. Again. I get that people are busy, but can't you take an hour to read up on the basics of how to play the game?

 

[Wolfpack48]

There's a weird dynamic where people will perceive exception based designs as "simpler" that effect-based ones (or even partial moves in that direction) even though the former will often pretty quickly exceed the cognitive overhead of the latter in many cases. As I noted a long time ago, anyone who spends a lot of time playing spellcasters in the D&D-sphere really has a lot of nerve getting worked up at the complexity of the Hero System in regular play.

There's also the number of players who are well familiar with earlier editions. The learning curve is a bit less steep, and they just need to learn what's changed or new. For new players, there's usually someone who can teach at the table.

 

[Swanosaurus]

You're right, I kind of missed/ignored the point about narrative-heavy or not. I was thinking more about the rules load. However, most of the games I mentioned aren't inherently narrative-heavy (though I guess pbtA is); you can sit down and play Troika or Warlock just as casually, with no great need for narrative investment. If we're talking about Fate and D&D, I agree: You can't really play Fate without having to think constantly about the interaction between metacurrency and narrative and what's on your character sheet. But with something like Warlock or Barbarians of Lemuria, or, I'd dare say, even Freeform Universal, you can show up, roll your attacks and do your occasional cool stunt just well as with D&D. And if you feel you don't need the slightly more complex bits from 5e, you might be just as well served with one of these games.

Quoting myself just because I'm kind of annoyed and it might prove a point about the communication about 5e:

That exchange started with me picking up on a comment to state (in an admittedly slighty sarcastic way) why I, personally, might prefer other RPGs to 5e.
I get a vaguely insulting response ("bias", "horribly blinkered"); I feel that maybe my response was a little too smartass and I should explain my point better and more polite.
I get another "you still don't get it" response.
I admit that I missed part of the other posters point and again explain what I meant to say in a polite manner.

None of this seems to warrant a more friendly, conciliatory reaction.

Things like this very much make me feel that, as someone who just might happen to prefer other systems to 5e, I'm not a fellow roleplayer, but somehow, "the enemy".

 

[Shardstone]

Quoting myself just because I'm kind of annoyed and it might prove a point about the communication about 5e:

That exchange started with me picking up on a comment to state (in an admittedly slighty sarcastic way) why I, personally, might prefer other RPGs to 5e.
I get a vaguely insulting response ("bias", "horribly blinkered"); I feel that maybe my response was a little too smartass and I should explain my point better and more polite.
I get another "you still don't get it" response.
I admit that I missed part of the other posters point and again explain what I meant to say in a polite manner.

None of this seems to warrant a more friendly, conciliatory reaction.

Things like this very much make me feel that, as someone who just might happen to prefer other systems to 5e, I'm not a fellow roleplayer, but somehow, "the enemy".

You arent the enemy and I apologize for my hostile tone.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Quoting myself just because I'm kind of annoyed and it might prove a point about the communication about 5e:

That exchange started with me picking up on a comment to state (in an admittedly slighty sarcastic way) why I, personally, might prefer other RPGs to 5e.
I get a vaguely insulting response ("bias", "horribly blinkered"); I feel that maybe my response was a little too smartass and I should explain my point better and more polite.
I get another "you still don't get it" response.
I admit that I missed part of the other posters point and again explain what I meant to say in a polite manner.

None of this seems to warrant a more friendly, conciliatory reaction.

Things like this very much make me feel that, as someone who just might happen to prefer other systems to 5e, I'm not a fellow roleplayer, but somehow, "the enemy".

I get that. I like D&D but also like other systems, some of them much more than D&D (BRP). We should all be able to get along!

 

[Swanosaurus]

You arent the enemy and I apologize for my hostile tone.

Thanks! Then I apologize for the sarcasm ... I hope that I got across where I agree with you and where I simply didn't consider part of your original post, because it was simply not what I was thinking about at that moment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thanks! Then I apologize for the sarcasm ... I hope that I got across where I agree with you and where I simply didn't consider part of your original post, because it was simply not what I was thinking about at that moment.

Now I’m offended that you would apologize for sarcasm. there’s just no winning.