D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[Mistborn]

Crawford’s and Perkins’s departure doesn’t really matter much to me. My issues with the current state of D&D come from something else entirely: the fact that it’s a product published by a large, profit-driven corporation whose primary goal is to sell as many books and supplements as possible. And that’s perfectly understandable — that’s how big companies operate.

However, it also means that every new release has to be aimed at the broadest possible audience. The game and its supplements must be as universal, accessible, and “safe” as possible in order to appeal to everyone: complete newcomers, casual players, and long-time veterans alike. As a result, the designers are limited in how experimental they can be — whether in mechanics, tone, or more niche concepts — because anything too specialized might alienate parts of the mass market.

All of this means that D&D, at least in its official form, will always be a mainstream product designed for a wide audience. And that’s why I don’t expect this to change, regardless of who is currently working on the game.

 

[TiQuinn]

See?

 

[AlViking]

Crawford’s and Perkins’s departure doesn’t really matter much to me. My issues with the current state of D&D come from something else entirely: the fact that it’s a product published by a large, profit-driven corporation whose primary goal is to sell as many books and supplements as possible. And that’s perfectly understandable — that’s how big companies operate.

How do you think any company survives? They want people to buy their particular product.

However, it also means that every new release has to be aimed at the broadest possible audience. The game and its supplements must be as universal, accessible, and “safe” as possible in order to appeal to everyone: complete newcomers, casual players, and long-time veterans alike. As a result, the designers are limited in how experimental they can be — whether in mechanics, tone, or more niche concepts — because anything too specialized might alienate parts of the mass market.

It is true that they aren't going for the niche market of Vambronies.

All of this means that D&D, at least in its official form, will always be a mainstream product designed for a wide audience. And that’s why I don’t expect this to change, regardless of who is currently working on the game.

Then the good news that if you want to play a vampire pony nobody is stopping you from playing some other game. The only question I have is why people feel compelled to post on a D&D forum that they like other games better and that D&D is lamestream. I mean ... okay? Go for it?

 

[AlViking]

I don’t know about D&D as a whole, but 100% disagree with regards to 5e. We have had the most fun playing 5e and I wouldn’t trade that for all the other TTRPGs combined.

A dozen mediocre experiences don't combine to a better experience for me either. There are times I kind of want a different genre but then I realize that it's the stories I tell more than the set dressing that matters. Meanwhile no other set of rules has ever gotten me particularly interested.

So I reject the whole "You only like D&D because of the label" BS. I understand wanting variety. I play a wide variety of video games, but that's a different itch and one I don't feel the need to scratch for the time I get to play a TTRPG. People should spend their free time playing what they want, complaining on a D&D forum because you have different preferences feels like sour grapes.

 

[TiQuinn]

Crawford’s and Perkins’s departure doesn’t really matter much to me. My issues with the current state of D&D come from something else entirely: the fact that it’s a product published by a large, profit-driven corporation whose primary goal is to sell as many books and supplements as possible. And that’s perfectly understandable — that’s how big companies operate.

How do you think any company survives? They want people to buy their particular product.

For me, there was one remark made a couple of years ago that just kind of lingers on, and it underscores the whole corporate goal versus being a fan of the game thing - “D&D is undermonetized.” Wasn’t a great moment in corporate leadership or positioning from the perspective of a consumer of their product, IMO.

 

[AlViking]

For me, there was one remark made a couple of years ago that just kind of lingers on, and it underscores the whole corporate goal versus being a fan of the game thing - “D&D is undermonetized.” Wasn’t a great moment in corporate leadership or positioning from the perspective of a consumer of their product, IMO.

First, it was corporate speak for stock-holders. Second, it was primarily talking about video games and other related products. If a small company had an option to license their IP for a video game the vast majority would jump on it instantly. Why wouldn't they?

If a company produces something I like and value at a cost I can afford I'll consider buying it. If there is a good D&D video game I'd probably buy it, a fun TV series I'd watch it. Is there ever going to be an expiration date on complaining about something that doesn't really relate to the actual game itself? Enshitification happens when one product dominates a market by losing money in order to get rid of the competition until they have a virtual monopoly. There are plenty of options to D&D if I ever feel it's not worth my time and money.

 

[TiQuinn]

First, it was corporate speak for stock-holders. Second, it was primarily talking about video games and other related products. If a small company had an option to license their IP for a video game the vast majority would jump on it instantly. Why wouldn't they?

If a company produces something I like and value at a cost I can afford I'll consider buying it. If there is a good D&D video game I'd probably buy it, a fun TV series I'd watch it. Is there ever going to be an expiration date on complaining about something that doesn't really relate to the actual game itself? Enshitification happens when one product dominates a market by losing money in order to get rid of the competition until they have a virtual monopoly. There are plenty of options to D&D if I ever feel it's not worth my time and money.

True, but people have their reactions to such things. Enshitification happens. We can say it's just about making more video games or a TV series, but it can also be the impetus behind things like Project Sigil, not to mention the OGL decision process. I don't think anyone having my reaction would be the first to say they wish Hasbro had never bought WotC and D&D as a result of that, and would rather not have the game in the hands of someone who needs to cater to stockholders and quarterly stock reports.

 

[AlViking]

True, but people have their reactions to such things. Enshitification happens. We can say it's just about making more video games or a TV series, but it can also be the impetus behind things like Project Sigil, not to mention the OGL decision process. I don't think anyone having my reaction would be the first to say they wish Hasbro had never bought WotC and D&D as a result of that, and would rather not have the game in the hands of someone who needs to cater to stockholders and quarterly stock reports.

It's been 3 years since the OGL and they completely changed course based on the reaction they received. You're still dragging out that old bone?

Has enshitification actually happened to D&D? Because after being adjusted for inflation the books are cheaper than ever. DndBeyond is a useful tool and one I find worth my money but it's in no way required. They wasted money on Sigil but it didn't affect the game I play and it's been cancelled. They haven't flooded the market with product while threatening to sue practically any other company that released a game that used a D20 like TSR did. Compare that to Facebook or Youtube which are worse now because they got rid of the competition. Uber and Lyft are raising prices because they drove the taxi companies out of business. I see why people complain about those business practices.

D&D still has plenty of competition and they have done nothing to stop it other than produce a game a lot of people like to play. If that changes I'll change my tune. Until then I'll continue to play a game i enjoy. They may be making a game you don't personally care for, but it's impossible to please everyone. What exactly is WOTC doing currently that's so terrible?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For me, there was one remark made a couple of years ago that just kind of lingers on, and it underscores the whole corporate goal versus being a fan of the game thing - “D&D is undermonetized.” Wasn’t a great moment in corporate leadership or positioning from the perspective of a consumer of their product, IMO.

D&D the franchise was undermonetized. They were not talking about the tabletop game itself.

As shown by the fact that nothing like extra monetization of the game happened, while they released more of various other types of D&D products

 

[TiQuinn]

It's been 3 years since the OGL and they completely changed course based on the reaction they received. You're still dragging out that old bone?

Oooooooooo Geeeeeeee Elllllllllll...... Wait, let me say it three times into a mirror for you: OGL. OGL. OGL.

BOOOGA BOOOGA BOOOGA!

3 years is not a very long time for really anything to pass, particularly in a hobby where people are talking about stuff that happened back in the 70s and 80s.

It was a thing, it happened, and the comment that I referred to happened as well.

What exactly is WOTC doing currently that's so terrible?

I'm just saying "D&D is undermonetized" is a comment that I've heard many times across a number of different forums and sources. It resonated in a negative way, and it's still out there wafting on the wind for a number of folks. People can have long memories.