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

[Vaalingrade]

Debatable/technically true. Very few people used them. They didn't have the reach of Twitter, youtube, Facebook etc.

But there were still social media and still had a big influence. There's not reason to discount them or act like they weren't there.

 

[Umbran]

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

You think so? That hundreds of thousands to millions of people are more impacted by marketing than the fun they are having at the table is the direct implication of what you are saying.

You want to be sarcastic about that to me? Fine. It was an opinion, not a moderator warning. If this blows up in a few pages because you've cheesed people off, though, you were informed beforehand.

 

[Zardnaar]

But there were still social media and still had a big influence. There's not reason to discount them or act like they weren't there.

When I mention Socia media I'm not thinking of forums. They didn't have nearly the same reach. Reddits more or less killed them.

Most people know what Facebook or YouTube is. Most people didn't use forums hell I suspect most didn't know they existed.

It's like television in the 40s. Technically they existed.

The scale is completely different.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But there were still social media and still had a big influence. There's not reason to discount them or act like they weren't there.

Forums are to TitTok as
1st Edition is to 5th Edition

 

[Umbran]

Social media was kinda new 4E.

Depends what you call "social media".

Reddit started in 2005
Facebook and Twitter can be called open for business in 2006.
4e came out in 2008.

So, sure, new-ish. Twitter had only about 6 million users in 2008. While Facebook had 100 million...

However, Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News opened in 1999, to eventually become EN World. RPGNet was out there back in 1996!

It would be reasonable to say that social media wasn't the massive marketing platform it is today, sure. But fans were talking about games online for a decade before 4e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When I mention Socia media I'm not thinking of forums.

You weren't thinking them, but they certainly had an impact on the game. Like the Sage was locked in eternal combat with the WotC boards like Popeye and Bluto.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends what you call "social media".

Reddit started in 2005
Facebook and Twitter can be called open for business in 2006.
4e came out in 2008.

So, sure, new-ish. Twitter had only about 6 million users in 2008. While Facebook had 100 million...

However, Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News opened in 1999, to eventually become EN World. RPGNet was out there back in 1996!

It would be reasonable to say that social media wasn't the massive marketing platform it is today, sure. But fans were talking about games online for a decade before 4e.

Aware they were around. I specifically said positive reception in a nature social media environment.

4E negative reception in very early mass social media age. Fairly confident most people weren't using forums in 2000.

The reach of twitter/youtube/Facebook etc was much greater in 2014 vs 2008 and in 2000 they didn't exist. Twitter wasn't a thing in 2008 neither was tik tok.

5Es positive online reception was mostly it's design imho, throw in networking effects, cheap Amazon plus social media and there you go.

 

[Umbran]

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 Cheesecake Factory analogy is likely a good one here.

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.

The inverse position is hard in the short term, sure. Short term popularity can be a fad independent of quality. However... 50 years? At this point, handed down through several generations. So, it is more than "success" or "popularity" when you add in "longevity".

but its success doesn't actually tell you that in any meaningful way, and frequently seems pretty self-congratulatory

Yeah, but when peeled down, measures of quality that are not connected to actual use are self-indulgent theorizing on the part of the critic.

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.

By all means, lay out the quality criteria that are not connected to success, popularity, or use, but are also not basically personal opinion.

We'll wait...

 

[Hussar]

Why are people so invested in "proving" that D&D isn't a great game or even a good game? That it's only popular because it's popular. It's baffling. Look there are things I don't like about 5e - the level of magic in the game is through the roof for me and I would very much like to strip out about 75% of the spells (which, incidentally, I did) - but, I've been playing it once or twice weekly for ten years. It's obviously something I enjoy doing. Not because of "marketing" or "influencers" but, shock and surprise, it's a pretty good game that runs pretty smoothly.

Funny thing is, I just tried Warhammer Fantasy for the first time recently. Now, I did not like it. I did not enjoy it at all. But, that in no way is a reflection of the quality of the game. That's just me.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Why are people so invested in "proving" that D&D isn't a great game or even a good game? That it's only popular because it's popular. It's baffling. Look there are things I don't like about 5e - the level of magic in the game is through the roof for me and I would very much like to strip out about 75% of the spells (which, incidentally, I did) - but, I've been playing it once or twice weekly for ten years. It's obviously something I enjoy doing. Not because of "marketing" or "influencers" but, shock and surprise, it's a pretty good game that runs pretty smoothly.

Funny thing is, I just tried Warhammer Fantasy for the first time recently. Now, I did not like it. I did not enjoy it at all. But, that in no way is a reflection of the quality of the game. That's just me.

In short, it's consensus bias. They believe their opinions are common. And when confronted with evidence that works against their belief, like player retention, they assume it's due to some kind of defect. This becomes evident if you look at some of the, in my opinion, absurd explanations for 5e's player retention over 10 years. This is just a quirk of the human brain, we all do it to some extent.

But that is just my opinion. 5e has it's flaws but the lengths people go through to try to dismiss it's popularity, and long term player retention, is kind of crazy to see. That said, I keep reading so I'm entertained at least.