D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Oofta]

Why don't you buy it???


Do you honestly NOT see the continued advertising, influencing, etc. that happens with every new product and such!?! It isn't like those things have exactly stopped, have they??

Not to mention 5E originating in the 40th anniversary and not 5E 2024 in the 50th!

These things absolutely had huge impact on the financial success of 5E and will continue to do so in all likelihood. Advertising, promoting, influencing are just good business practacies. And we know how well TSR ran it's business back then... ::shakes head in shame::

I'm not saying 5E doesn't have good design elements (some anyway), but the bulk of the design is based on prior editions and feedback gained from those editions.

I think D&D hits the target market and sells well because people enjoy the game. They obviously have built in advantages as well, but you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still not going to get invited to the big dance.

I assume other games could be just as successful with similar advantages, but the list of failed products is littered with products that had significant name recognition and advertising. Just look at some of the biggest movie flops of the past few years.

Advertising, name recognition does not guarantee anything other than perhaps an initial spike in sales.

 

[ezo]

I think D&D hits the target market and sells well because people enjoy the game.

And people abandon it often as well. I've had several people try 5E and not like it, either because they preferred older editions, it lacked a bit more crunchiness (like A5E), or whatever.

Many people aren't adopting 2024, for example, or buying new books. I haven't actually bought anything in 3 years at this point... The people who flock to buy everything new are the minority IME.

Advertising, name recognition does not guarantee anything other than perhaps an initial spike in sales.

It often does when there are always new targets growing up to join the consumer brigade.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Sorry, I don't buy it. No amount of advertising or brand recognition would see the kind of growth we saw with 5E. It gave a lot of previous editions a head start and initially good sales, but those sales always dropped off quickly because it just didn't expand the audience. With 5E they broke that tradition, the game kept growing by double digits for years on end.

The correct argument here is player retention. You can explain, in a hypothetical, that the gain in popularity is due to advertising and influencers. This is likely true, but is completely irrelevant to the discussion of 5e's design. A very well funded advertising campaign for a bad product does not lead to ~90% market share.

The reason for 5e's dominant market share, and why that market share is enduring, is because of player retention. 5e players, to many people's dismay, aren't swapping systems in droves. Even when presented with alternative options, people stay with 5e.

This is why I believe 5e's balance and design are "good enough." There is no other way to explain the retention of so many players over such long periods of time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is a very personal thing to say. You don't know me. My connection to D&D is tied to a very close friend who was like a brother to me for 25 years. His passing away a few years ago hurt me deeply, and I have a very hard time feeling as much joy as I used to engaging in activities, like playing D&D, that were important to us. I very rarely view movies in the theater for the same reason.

But before I met him I engaged in D&D by reading the books and exploring the worlds of the game, and I can still enjoy that. Every time they change what I used to love about it reminds me of what I lost. I have lots of other good things in my life now, and I'm generally a pretty happy guy, but it still hurts, and gaming is just too big a part of my life and identity to give up.

You've already told that to us on the boards before. So we do know about it. And our responses to you then have probably not changed since the last time you used it as an explanation as to why you believe WotC was wrong for moving their game on from what you wanted. But once again... WotC is under no obligation to put your wants and needs above their own or anyone else's. And why you still think it does is beyond me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You've already told that to us on the boards before. So we do know about it. And our responses to you then have probably not changed since the last time you used it as an explanation as to why you believe WotC was wrong for moving their game on from what you wanted. But once again... WotC is under no obligation to put your wants and needs above their own or anyone else's. And why you still think it does is beyond me.

You asked why I persist. That's why.

I never said it has that obligation. I'm just very sad about it.

 

[Oofta]

And people abandon it often as well. I've had several people try 5E and not like it, either because they preferred older editions, it lacked a bit more crunchiness (like A5E), or whatever.

Many people aren't adopting 2024, for example, or buying new books. I haven't actually bought anything in 3 years at this point... The people who flock to buy everything new are the minority IME.


It often does when there are always new targets growing up to join the consumer brigade.

It will take months if not a year or two to tell how well the 2024 version is going to do. The other reports that don't rely on your personal experience indicates that it's selling quite well.

As far as people moving on to other games they seem to be more than replaced by new gamers. Or it's just confirmation bias since the vast majority of people that play 5E stick with it in my experience.

On the other hand I don't really care. In your opinion D&D isn't a very good game
In my opinion and in the opinion of the couple dozen people I've played with recently, along with as far as I can tell, the opinions of millions of others it is a good game that people have fun playing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is why I believe 5e's balance and design are "good enough." There is no other way to explain the retention of so many players over such long periods of time.

Though I think there absolutely is a "close enough is good enough" factor present, I think it doesn't do to ignore the network factor; this has been a thing throughout D&D's history, and moreso than ever now.

That factor is that people will stay with D&D because they can find D&D games. Its a bit less of an issue than once was because of the growth of the VTT sector (though people tend to overstate that; yes you can theoretically find people all over the world to play with, but I think people ignore the impact of time zones on the practical options there), but in terms of retention, one has to keep in mind that all the following things have to occur: 1. They have to be exposed to another game; 2. They have to decide they like it better; 3. They have to either be able to sell their extent group on it or be willing and able to find another group that plays the game they've found they like better, whether in person or online (if they're even willing to do the latter).

I think the combination of those three latter factors has serious impact on people who are not actively put off by what D&D 5e brings to them, so while its not possible to directly assess how much of a factor they are, I don't think one can be dismissive of them while arguing in good faith.

 

[ezo]

On the other hand I don't really care. In your opinion D&D isn't a very good game

The fact you think this is true just makes me think you aren't even paying attention really. Like you are reading my posts with blinders on or something.

The reason for 5e's dominant market share, and why that market share is enduring, is because of player retention. 5e players, to many people's dismay, aren't swapping systems in droves. Even when presented with alternative options, people stay with 5e.

Because in many such cases the groups are majority rules. I would much rather play 2E than 5E, for example, but the new players I paly with buy 5E products because that is what is on the market and all they know about.

So, unless I convince them to try 2E, they stick with 5E. And if I want to play, I am "stuck" with 5E myself unless I want to find an older group.

I mean, for a decade now 5E has ruled the market because that is the only mass-marketed RPG out there. For some, it is the best as well, for others it is acceptable, and for others still they don't care for it at all. FWIW, I am in the second group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To quote the opening of Bill Nye, The Science Guy: 'Inertia is a Property of Matter'.

It's also a property of markets.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Because in many such cases the groups are majority rules. I would much rather play 2E than 5E, for example, but the new players I paly with buy 5E products because that is what is on the market and all they know about.

So, unless I convince them to try 2E, they stick with 5E. And if I want to play, I am "stuck" with 5E myself unless I want to find an older group.

I mean, for a decade now 5E has ruled the market because that is the only mass-marketed RPG out there. For some, it is the best as well, for others it is acceptable, and for others still they don't care for it at all. FWIW, I am in the second group.

What's the issue then?
If 2E truly is preferable to 5E, then it should be no problem to convince people to switch to it!
If 2E is truly your system, then switching groups should be but a small price to pay!