WotC 2020 Was The Best Year Ever For Dungeons & Dragons

[Paul Farquhar]

Not really. You’ve just stated that it’s “not needed” and that you think it’s bad game design. You’ve shown no compelling arguments that there is any negative impact.

Compare sales of 1st edition and 5e. New players are put off by big long lists, and no new player ever decided to not play D&D because there was no Lucerne Hammer.

It's easy enough for experienced players to add in additional weapons if they feel like it.

Okay? Try swinging a greataxe in a 5 foot passage.

A greataxe* is 5 ft long. a Lucerne hammer is 7 feet long. it's designed for knocking knights off horses. If you opponent isn't a mounted knight and you are not on an open battlefield it's a poor choice of weapon.

Not remotely a valid reason to exclude bludgeoning polearms from the game.

And if a player came to me and said "I really really want a character who uses a Lucerne hammer" I would stat it up and let them have it.


*Technically, your typical D&D greataxe wouldn't work in the real world at all. It's as much fantasy as Magic Missile.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then accept that your opinion is just one opinion in an ocean of opinions. Having the opinion that multiple polearms is not necessary, potentially confusing and not worth it is just as valid as yours.

You stated your opinion, other people stated there's. They decided to do just base weapons and if you want a variation (a katana instead of a longsword) it's simply a description from a game perspective. It's part of the KISS methodology of 5E which, in general, works really well.

I’m not the one putting my opinion on a pedestal of objectivity, here.

If you read that into an admonition to not crap on other people’s opinions and preferences, that’s your problem, and a very strange outlook.

 

[Oofta]

I’m not the one putting my opinion on a pedestal of objectivity, here.

If you read that into an admonition to not crap on other people’s opinions and preferences, that’s your problem, and a very strange outlook.

What I'm saying is that instead of giving logic and reason, counter arguments or justification for your opinion you're just dismissing it as "crapping on other people's ideas".

 

[OB1]

So, now, in the latest D&D sales news, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft hit the USA Today bestseller list at #8 on its opening week.

Woot! Hers the pdf. https://content-static.usatoday.com/editorial/life/booklist/usatodaybooks.pdf

Absolutely outstanding! Wonder if the same type of guide for Spelljammer could duplicate this success? If VRGtR is about horror tropes, SJ could do the same for Space-Fantasy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Compare sales of 1st edition and 5e. New players are put off by big long lists, and no new player ever decided to not play D&D because there was no Lucerne Hammer.

No, don't do this. It's ridiculous. Don't compare the sales of 1e to 5e and come to the conclusion any disparity is because of a pole arm or other list.

Good lord...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, don't do this. It's ridiculous. Don't compare the sales of 1e to 5e and come to the conclusion any disparity is because of a pole arm or other list.

Good lord...

There are lots of other things as well. But the main reason for the success of 5e is simplicity.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are lots of other things as well. But the main reason for the success of 5e is simplicity.

What is your citation for this? That 5e's success over 1e* was due to 5e's simpler mechanics? There are more than 20 years between those two editions, so it's gonna be hard to prove that. Especially knowing 4e was simpler than 1e as well, and....

Quite frankly, I don't think you can compare sales #s of 1e to 5e because they are completely different eras. It's not just apples and oranges comparison, it's apples to wheelbarrows.

*assuming how you measure 5e's and 1e's success. Raw #s? Growth rate? Because if you look at rate of growth, nothing compares to 1e in the late 70s/early 80s. And if you're comparing raw # of players, that's disingenuous for obvious reasons.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What is your citation for this?

I can't prove it, but I know most of my players play 5e because of it's simplicity. That's why I haven't contributed to "Level Up: D&D Advanced". I know more complexity is something my players don't want.

I've also had experience of trying to introduce players to 3rd edition, and them not wanting to play again because it was too complicated.

 

[Reynard]

There are lots of other things as well. But the main reason for the success of 5e is simplicity.

I think "accessibility" is a more accurate term. Part of that is 5E's potential simplicity -- depending on the character you build or style of game you run -- but also 5E's potential depth and complexity. You can do things in a way that feels complex, at least, and that has allowed 5E to hold on to players that might have been put off by a truly simple game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can't prove it, but I know most of my players play 5e because of it's simplicity. That's why I haven't contributed to "Level Up: D&D Advanced". I know more complexity is something my players don't want.

I've also had experience of trying to introduce players to 3rd edition, and them not wanting to play again because it was too complicated.

1. this has nothing to do with 1e, or 1e's success compared to 5e (it's also off because if what you say is true, B/X would have been king, and no one would have played 1e, and 2e or BECMI never would have came out because everyone would have been playing B/X)
2. Having 30 weapons on a weapon chart or 35 weapons does not add complexity or make the game less simple. There are no new rules or mechanics added by having 5 pole arms on the table compared to 1 any more than there would be to list 4 different types of light sources compared to just "torch" on the equipment list.

Now, if your argument was that 5e can lend some of its success to being simpler than some previous editions, sure. But that's not what you said. You said things like "all polearms are just a blade on a stick" which isn't true, and made a weird comparison to look at the sales figures of 1e compared to 5e as a way to justify not having more weapons available, and that makes no sense.