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

[Oofta]

Your ergo is a false conclusion. To say one thing is not the primary cause of something does not imply other things listed ARE the primary cause--which I never stated. I have always attributed multiple factors to the success of 5E, only one of which is design, which I've acknowledged is decent. It is impossible to know just which factor is the primary reason, or even how "primary" such a factor might be. If we could see all the possible factors in a pie chart, there might be a few that are all about the same--contributing to the bulk of its success. Would any of those three be "primary" over the other two if they are so close? Not to me. Your definition of any margin necessary to be considered primary could easily be different from mine. But I care little for aruging somantics, and if it became a point of contention with another poster, all anyone need do is ask and I'll happily clarify to avoid issues. It would be better than them outright assuming they know what I mean if there is doubt.


But my thoughts to NOT include "inescapable logic". Going back to my original response to Oofta:

And my response...

I wrote it is popular due to branding (which includes the legacy factor) and influences, but also:
the onus is gone (or greatly lessened depending on your experiences),
...and in later responses I include other factors such as delivery of product being more available, etc.

And this is what I mean: I write one thing, which in no way implies something else, but people (for whatever reason) read that implication into it. I cannot help or know why someone would do this. It is not my responsibility for what they think or feel. I am clear in my writing (in general--we all make mistakes) and try to be compeletly direct. If someone has an issue they can ask for clarification--it would be better IMNSHO.

I've never said D&D (or 5E in particular) is "bad" design. In fact, in another post I said I am in the group that finds it acceptable. Could it be better (for my personal experience)? Certainly. It could be worse (like 2024 is worse for me) as well.


I have no idea what connection you are making to my response about this (restated in its entirety below):

Since we have no way of knowing definitively which is the actual truth, is is subject to our opinions. Popularity as a measure of success is subjective and since we cannot ask every single person in the target population, it is and will always remain an unknonw. The best we can do is express our opinions based on what we do know from the limited information gathered and our own experiences.


Of course it can! D&D rises when all RPGs rise. Because it has the lion's share of the market, it rises the most. This (to my knowledge--I could be wrong) was never about the popularity and/or success


Yeah, not weak. I am (and was) talking about the availability bottleneck that most certainly did exist back in the 80s and even to a lesser degree in the 90s. Prior editions did not enjoy the same degree of success and popularity 5E due to this as a contributing factor. With each release it became less and less of a factor.

Now, today?? I agree, hardly an impacting issue if any at all. I am sure someone somewhere might still have troubles with it... or don't doubt the possibility at least.

While White Wolf definitely started to see some loving, it really didn't retain players as much as D&D did IME. Some people really loved Vampire, or Shadowrun (both of which I played back then from time to time when I wanted a break from D&D). But even then, D&D had good design and widespread appeal for a number of factors--not primarily for the design--we all know a lot of design issues exist then!

Anyway, hopefully I've made myself and my position clear.

All you've made clear is that you ignore any and all contraindications that your conclusions have no basis. You're ignoring that all the advertising, legacy and tradition, D&D has certain built in advantages. Those advantages did not make the previous 3 versions successful after initial adoption. That many of the things you claim have made 5E successful also apply to every other TTRPG.

So yes, you've made your position clear. I just disagree and as far as I can tell so do millions of other people. I know everyone I currently play D&D with (close to 20) would disagree.

 

[TwoSix]

Then is there any value to a review at all, if no one's opinion is worth listening to?

Most people would agree that there are at least some objective standards of aesthetic worth for most produced works that aren't entirely utilitarian, although most everyone will disagree on the specifics.

There's generally an equilibrium reached between "taste is determined by a small cadre of elite evaluators" and "taste is determined by the acceptance of the masses" for pretty much everything, but it sloshes around all the time.

 

[ezo]

All you've made clear is that you ignore any and all contraindications that your conclusions have no basis.

You've made clear you really aren't reading my posts if that is what you continue to get from them. You might not agree with my basis, but to say my conclusions have no basis is incredibly insulting.

And I seem to see myself responding to remarks, not ignoring them. I can certainly disagree with them, which in some of these cases I do, and given responses such as this one I am tempted to walk away. I don't see your view point wavering any more than mine, but I don't say you have no basis--even if I don't agree with them.

You're ignoring that all the advertising, legacy and tradition, D&D has certain built in advantages.

Actually, I've been the one expounding on this points.

Those advantages did not make the previous 3 versions successful after initial adoption.

They helped 3E more than enough! It was wildly popular and successful and the first to truly benefit from the Internet explosioin (2E saw a little, but nothing widespread like 3E and later editions have had--growing more and more with each edition!).

4E I cannot say, I wasn't playing D&D then and never tried it. Judging from other peoples' posts, some loved it for whatever reasons, and other didn't. 4E seems to me a care of "poor" design leading to its poor performance in the long run. That said, I am sure there are many people who loved it, still love it, play it, and likely don't care much for 5E due to the shift in design from 4E.

That many of the things you claim have made 5E successful also apply to every other TTRPG.

LOL not at all. There are tons of TTPRGs out there gamers have never heard of, let alone seen in action or played. Those other TTRPGs do not have nearly the same clout of marketing, branding, or influencing 5E has.

So yes, you've made your position clear.

Great, I was clarifying it for someone else. I figured you understood it a while ago, but judging from some of your responses I wonder if you really did? (see above)

I just disagree and as far as I can tell so do millions of other people.

You have no idea what "millions of other people" do or don't agree with any more than I have. This is all about our personal opinions and insights--nothing more or less.

I know everyone I currently play D&D with (close to 20) would disagree.

Do you? You asked every one? Showed them the thread, my posts, and all of it? I highly doubt that.

Now, you might believe that, but frankly speaking it makes no difference to me really. They aren't here. Others here have agreed and disagreed with me. Which is cool. It's just a discussion and there is no way we will ever--ever--know the truth of the issue. And anyone who thinks they "know the truth" instead of just state their own views is a fool IMO.

 

[Oofta]

You've made clear you really aren't reading my posts if that is what you continue to get from them. You might not agree with my basis, but to say my conclusions have no basis is incredibly insulting.

And I seem to see myself responding to remarks, not ignoring them. I can certainly disagree with them, which in some of these cases I do, and given responses such as this one I am tempted to walk away. I don't see your view point wavering any more than mine, but I don't say you have no basis--even if I don't agree with them.


Actually, I've been the one expounding on this points.


They helped 3E more than enough! It was wildly popular and successful and the first to truly benefit from the Internet explosioin (2E saw a little, but nothing widespread like 3E and later editions have had--growing more and more with each edition!).

It was initially successful and then demand dropped off rapidly. Why do you think they came out with 3.5 and 4E? For that matter why do you think they replaced 4E quickly but have only done a minor update a decade after 5E came out?

But ... this is what I'm talking about. You posit something that simply is not true as support for your claims and then state that I'm not reading what you say. So ... yeah. Have fun!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes.

Measures of quality that are not based on popularity are just subjective garbage, they cherry pick which metrics to grade, excluding a ton of them and then ultimately treat the thing as if it’s not greater than the sum of its parts.

If you have a truly better product and it’s not selling then you either have it priced too high or it’s not clear to customers what’s truly better about it and so you have to spend alot of time and money educating them.

Or the market is already full and most people will never be exposed to it in enough numbers to make a difference. The world is literally full of okay products that continued for decades and decades because they already had market domination and were good enough. Good enough is all you ever need if you've got enough other advantages.

It’s kind of like a broom. At the end of the day you may have designed a better broom, but the brooms out there already work pretty well for most people. And since their time is valuable then trying to figure out why your broom is better before buying it just isn’t a priority for them. They have a broom that works. If you spend enough time and money more will get your message.

Which has been my argument.


Look, I've repeatedly said that D&D is not _"bad" in any general sense. What I've said is popularity doesn't say anything about its excellence. Because it doesn't need to be "good" just "good enough". Maybe there are other people out there arguing its terrible but gets by on other factors, but that's not me.

But I think if someone wants to argue beyond their personal taste or that "good enough" level they need to come up with something beyond its commercial success, because I can probably point at a hundred products that get by really well on "good enough" for other reasons.

*Assuming your broom is really better.


Why doesn’t any other knock off do better than actual differentiated competitors?

If similar products were in a vacuum then maybe, but what you want to do is not possible.

I disagree. I think you can look at items with similar levels of exposure and availability and do at least rough comparisons. And there are D&Doids out there that do okay; what they don't do is do any better than other types of design with the same level of exposure. That doesn't exactly seem to suggest that kind of design D&D and its kin have are an intrinsic significant advantage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

D&D continues to be popular because it's a pretty good game. A lot of people like it. Given that the popularity of D&D was waxed and waned over the years, I'm not convinced hype and name brand recognition are the secrets to its success. While D&D has pretty much been the 800 pound gorilla my entire life, I saw its popularity wane as Vampire took off in the early 1990s, I saw it wax in 2000 with the introduction of 3rd edition, wane again in 2008, and waxing again in 2014. D&D has changed over the years to meet the needs of their player base (to varying degrees of success). I think that's why it has remained popular.

The fact that the least popular forms of it internally (that is to say within fans of the system) still outstripped virtually all other game systems tells you you can't blow off that brand awareness and networking advantage, however. Though no one is clear to what degree, the fact there have only been two time periods when anything got close tells you how much of an advantage that is (and one of those two was notably an offshoot of D&D that existed to some degree in the same internal ecosystem).

 

[Thomas Shey]

The McDonald's analogy always falls flat since McDonalds is the best burger for what it is. Despite billions of dollars spent trying to knock that off the top, no one has succeeded. Pretending that McDonald's isn't the best at what it is is just ignoring far too much.

"Best" by what standard? That's the point. To claim that, you have to look at something that strips off all the marketing, habitualization and availability. Otherwise you're again just conflating "very popular" with "very high quality", and no, I don't think those things are identical. Blind taste tests don't seem to support your hypothesis here; McDonalds does better than some, worse than others, and as usual with such things, varies from test to test.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[The old multipost in action...]

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Excellence" means many things. The qualities that make something an excellent apple pie are pretty much irrelevant to the qualities that make something an excellent salad.

This is why, every single time I talk about this stuff, I talk about designers achieving a desired experience. Because that is what the game is for. Rules are tools, designed to achieve some end.

So, what are the end goals of McDonald's? We can take the utterly useless "goals" of "make more money," of course, but I think you would agree that that goal, in itself, is completely unhelpful. Instead, we look at what kind of product it claims to offer: Fast, cheap, tasty, and (perhaps above all else) consistent fare. If you order a Big Mac anywhere in the US, you can be pretty confident that you will know exactly what you're getting. You see the same virtue pursued by several other, comparable products: Budweiser and most other "cheap" beers that are jokingly called "sex in a canoe" (you have surely heard the punchline of that joke before) are what they are in part because they are insanely consistent, both over distance and over time. Hostess snack cakes. Coca-Cola. These things are not aiming to be the most finely-crafted product they can be. Nutrition is irrelevant at best and often avoided because nutritious things that taste good are usually fragile. They are aiming to be reliable, cheap, and flavorful.

What does this tell me about these things? That reliability and consistency, especially for low-cost offerings, are an extremely important consideration. Perhaps the most important consideration. Things which choose lower reliability are, generally, aiming to be boutique, "artisanal", "craft", etc. They accept that their product may not be available in all markets, or may not come out consistently the same way every time, or may be significantly more expensive, etc., and in exchange, they aim to deliver higher quality and technique in the execution of whatever product it is. Craft beer, locally-made snacks, fresh fish, menus that change with the season, etc.

Is the current brand of D&D offering reliability and consistency?

Its not probably trying for at least the first of those (I'm actually not sure what "reliability" would mean in an RPG design, but I suspect to the degree it could be applied there are probably better terms for it). I'd argue D&D does, indeed, to some extent aim for "consistency" in the sense that there's a particular kind of experience D&D style games tend to produce and they've aimed for those for a very long time (some of that has shifted over time of course, but its not a coincidence you hear a lot of discussion sometimes of "feels/doesn't feel like D&D")

But I also don't think that's a general trait of "quality" because it doesn't mean a thing to people who aren't already steeped in the D&D cultural sphere. You can argue an awful lot are, to one degree or another (either because they've seen things about or have done things like played fantasy computer games) but that's still far from everyone entering the hobby. Otherwise, it becomes kind of a tautology of "D&D works well for people who like D&D" (though obviously that still turns on what people think of as "D&D" as Micah shows in these discussions frequently).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then how do you do it? There are only a few measures of quality. You can look at the editing, which overall is excellent. The layout and presentation which was always good but is improved in the 2024 edition. The physical product, which WotC has little control over, has had issues but when I received faulty books all I had to do was send them back to be replaced. They were replaced quickly and they also sent me an additional product as compensation. So by those measures, I'd say it's a quality product.

Beyond that? How well does the design hit it's goals? While it's in a nice market, it is a game designed for broad based appeal and a game that most people want to continue to play year after year. That's where ignoring popularity is just smacking yourself in the face to ignore the obvious. It's not just that initial sales were good, every version of D&D has had that. It's the number of people that keep playing the game and the number of new people that also choose to play. We measure that how? By popularity and sales, the fact that the game has seen year after year of double digit growth and dominates the industry. There is no other way.

You can check polish and care for quality. There are some significant examples where in the 2014 PHB there was a lack of care and attention paid to actually doing what they were trying to with the class.

• The 2014 Beastmaster Ranger is, oddly enough, not an example of this; instead it's an example of missing the class fantasy and arguably psychotic design. The 2014 beastmaster is balanced ... if you consider your pets to be disposable and throw them into combat without trying to keep them alive.
• The 2014 Warlock is my favourite class in the game. But what is actually put in the PHB was clearly just thrown together with no love and no polish; a full quarter of the invocations just add a spell known to the warlock list (and there are other bad ones), many of the others are bad (there are a few lovely ones in there), and iconic warlock exclusive spells like Hunger of Hadar don't scale with spell slots. And then there's the Pact of the Blade. The 2014 Warlock clearly isn't the class it could be.
• The 2014 sorcerer is a wannabe wizard who knows too few spells - and other than twin spell the metamagic isn't all that and the numbers are very small
• The 2014 monk ... what do I need to say?
• The 2014 barbarian basically stops at level 6 and the 2014 fighter at level 11

In 2024 every single one of these has been patched if not outright fixed (a few were by Xanathar's and many by Tasha's).

But the thing is that the macro level design goals of the 2014 rules, removing the pain points, were pretty good. It set out for and succeeded at mass market appeal and getting in the way the least of any edition. Although the implementation is frequently lacking the structural basics of removing all the pain points and having a very good Tier 1 experience and pretty good Tier 2 worked well.