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

[ezo]

Because while marketing and influencers can help convince someone to try a new game, they won't get people to continue playing if the game isn't fun for them.

No, they might not... Or they might when new products for the same game keep coming out with continued advertising and influencing. Or they might when the group they play in want to play it and have no other viable option.

In the long run, if the game is really crap, people won't play it. That simple.

Sure, but that isn't the case here, and I don't know many who would argue it is (at least not here). You get those arguments enough on other forums.

Arguments of the form, "I am wise, and learned other games are better, and everyone who continues to play this are just sheep enthralled by marketing," are incredibly arrogant and rude positions to take.

Boy, it SURE is!!! I'm glad I never said that.

5E isn't the most popular due to its design. It is popular because of several factors, and design is not primary one IMO. Just how much design does contribute we can never truly know.

My point is that other factors, such as the powerful advertizing and influencing, the relaxed attitude towards RPGs and more common acceptance it has now, along with the power of the Internet, ease of acces to products in areas which never had them before, and many others all contribute to its popularity and success.

How much someone likes its design is entirely subjective. Overall, I personally put it in 2nd place behind 2nd Edition. Many people put it 1st, but many of those have never even been exposed to other editions of D&D, let alone played them! The very success of other RPGS, OSR material, A5E, etc. show there are indeed many people who don't find 5E to be the solution to what they want.

"That simple".

 

[Oofta]

No, they might not... Or they might when new products for the same game keep coming out with continued advertising and influencing. Or they might when the group they play in want to play it and have no other viable option.


Sure, but that isn't the case here, and I don't know many who would argue it is (at least not here). You get those arguments enough on other forums.


Boy, it SURE is!!! I'm glad I never said that.

5E isn't the most popular due to its design. It is popular because of several factors, and design is not primary one IMO. Just how much design does contribute we can never truly know.

My point is that other factors, such as the powerful advertizing and influencing, the relaxed attitude towards RPGs and more common acceptance it has now, along with the power of the Internet, ease of acces to products in areas which never had them before, and many others all contribute to its popularity and success.

How much someone likes its design is entirely subjective. Overall, I personally put it in 2nd place behind 2nd Edition. Many people put it 1st, but many of those have never even been exposed to other editions of D&D, let alone played them! The very success of other RPGS, OSR material, A5E, etc. show there are indeed many people who don't find 5E to be the solution to what they want.

"That simple".

We don't know for certain why 5E is the most popular. Obviously there are great games out there that never gained traction and D&D has a leg up. However, I remember the early days of 4E when I was running or helping to run a couple of game days. We were running out of tables and people were excited about the new version. They really wanted to like it ... but after a year or so attendance dropped off like a rock. Just before 5E was announced, almost everyone I knew was saying that maybe it was time to go back to 3.5 or try out PF once we finished the current campaigns.

Which was the same pattern we saw with 3.x and 2E before that. Those versions had all the same advertising or more, the same recognition, the same built in advantages. Yet with all those version? Early spike in sales that dropped off quickly. With 5E? Double digit growth that far, far exceeded expectations from the day of release and then continued double digit growth for years afterwards.

But I will agree that how much people enjoy playing a game is subjective. Millions of people have subjectively decided that D&D 5E works for them and they keep playing all while pulling in new players as well. Of course you can't please everyone, but one of the strengths of 5E is the relative ease of customization including ... wait for it ... add-ons like A5E. Meanwhile, we don't really know what percentage of the TTRPG goes to what company but on Fantasy Grounds, 5E is 71%, PF 1 and 2 are 13%, and then there's everything else. So yes, some people are going to other games, and good for them. Hope they find what they're looking for.

 

[TwoSix]

5E isn't the most popular due to its design. It is popular because of several factors, and design is not primary one IMO. Just how much design does contribute we can never truly know.

I don't think it's design, per se. It's that multiplayer games usually serve two roles; at one level as a challenge and the other as a participatory activity. And making any game a better challenge, a better game qua game, will often weaken its role as a participatory activity.

It's why the highest rated games on BoardGameGeek aren't generally the best-selling games people pull out for Family Game Night. It's why Mario Kart has the blue shell; it weakens Mario Kart as game (in terms of being a fair test of player skill) but strengthens it as an activity that many people can play together. Or why most Jackbox games are either based on voting or have heavy doses of randomness.

Making 5e a better game (in terms of measuring player skill) by making it harder, or balancing combat encounters more closely, or adding more features, wouldn't help its focus on imagery and concept embodiment; which are key to making it such a strong game to introduce people to the TTRPG space.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because while marketing and influencers can help convince someone to try a new game, they won't get people to continue playing if the game isn't fun for them. In the long run, if the game is really crap, people won't play it. That simple.

Arguments of the form, "I am wise, and learned other games are better, and everyone who continues to play this are just sheep enthralled by marketing," are incredibly arrogant and rude positions to take.

I think it'd be a big reach to suggest that D&D is flying entirely on its marketing and networking. That's why I've always qualified that it must, at the least, be acceptable to people.


The problem is the inverse position; that it's success says its not only acceptable and functional but actively good. That's a leap when there are so many other factors at play. It could well be correct, but its success doesn't actually tell you that in any meaningful way, and frequently seems pretty self-congratulatory and an excuse to make claims about relationships with other games that do not intrinsically follow.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know I complain about 5e quite a bit, but I still think it is easily the overall best iteration of D&D. On forums we often talk about the things we have issues with, rather than what works. But the truth of the matter is that most of it works pretty well. And I think that is required for continued success; the game doesn't need to be stellar, but it needs to be good enough. And to a lot of people it is.

And to make it clear, I have no issue with the last two sentences here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How much someone likes its design is entirely subjective.

I think you'd need to unpack what you mean by "entirely" there for that sentence to make sense. It seems like either a tautology or an overreach depending on how you're using it.

 

[ezo]

Which was the same pattern we saw with 3.x and 2E before that. Those versions had all the same advertising or more, the same recognition, the same built in advantages. Yet with all those version? Early spike in sales that dropped off quickly. With 5E? Double digit growth that far, far exceeded expectations from the day of release and then continued double digit growth for years afterwards.

That is my point, however, those versions didn't have the "same advertising or more,...". Each had more than the one before, I will grant you, and because of that 5E has the most yet!

Time were different then. D&D still had a much greater stigma than it does now. The Internet and its impact was non-existent or just beginning. Companies like Amazon didn't exist or were just starting--so product availability depended on game and hobby shops much more. And so on.

5E has A LOT MORE ADVANTAGES than 2E or 3E every had, so much so that we really cannot attribute the bulk of its success solely to design.

 

[Oofta]

That is my point, however, those versions didn't have the "same advertising or more,...". Each had more than the one before, I will grant you, and because of that 5E has the most yet!

Time were different then. D&D still had a much greater stigma than it does now. The Internet and its impact was non-existent or just beginning. Companies like Amazon didn't exist or were just starting--so product availability depended on game and hobby shops much more. And so on.

5E has A LOT MORE ADVANTAGES than 2E or 3E every had, so much so that we really cannot attribute the bulk of its success solely to design.

I disagree. D&D 5E was a Hail Mary, something they put together to keep the IP alive so they could sell video games and other non-game related stuff. I see no reason to believe that 5E had a higher advertising budget when they had such low expectations and advertising budget doesn't lead you year after year growth.

Amazon didn't exist and the internet was just starting when the other WotC versions were released?

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree. D&D 5E was a Hail Mary, something they put together to keep the IP alive so they could sell video games and other non-game related stuff. I see no reason to believe that 5E had a higher advertising budget when they had such low expectations and advertising budget doesn't lead you year after year growth.

Amazon didn't exist and the internet was just starting when the other WotC versions were released?

Amazon deep discounts probably had an effect. 5E phb at 1989 prices.

5E design is the primary cause imho. People won't stick around if it's bad.
Positive online reception in mature social media environment. 4E had negative reception dawn of social media. 3E social media as such didn't exist, Amazon technically existed but not remotely same extent.

 

[ezo]

Amazon didn't exist and the internet was just starting when the other WotC versions were released?

I'm getting a bit tired of you NOT actually reading my posts and reading your own words or whatever in mine. And D&D isn't just a WotC product, right?

The Internet and its impact was non-existent or just beginning. Companies like Amazon didn't exist or were just starting.

Read it all, ok? Thanks.

I disagree.

Yep, I know that.