D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough

[TheSword]

Including you for that matter. I think it would be an egregious mistake to equate criticism of a game with snobbery simply because it's critical of D&D 5e. There are others in those "some threads" that genuinely like and play 5e with some regularity, myself included and at least one poster you may be alluding to here.

It’s not snobbery to say you’ve enjoyed something. It is snobbery to say something can’t be done or isn’t allowed to be done, and you must be wrong for having thought you’d done it.

Anyway wrong thread and off topic. I shouldn’t have responded to your precious prod.

 

[Campbell]

I think all of the conflicting ideas on what should be done to improve 5E are an indicator that ... wait for it ... there is no such thing as a perfect game. Problem is, one person's improvement is another's degradation. There are absolutely things I think D&D, and specifically 5E, could do better.

But are those things going to make it better for the general public?


The thing is that while there are things I would personally change in D&D to make it "better", that definition of what is better will always be subjective. Take a look at all the contradicting ideas that come up when there's a thread on how to improve the game.

Just because people (like me) are fans of 5E and enjoy it, I don't think it means people think it's perfect. On the other hand, if you complain that D&D doesn't do what some apocalypse world variant does then maybe you should be playing that instead of D&D.

I don't see a problem with acknowledging that no game will work for everyone. I also don't have a problem saying that 5E is the best version of D&D I've played. I think it works pretty well out of the box, and I have not problem saying that for me and the people I actually play with some of the things people complain about are features, not bugs.

I just do not see why it has to be a pissing contest.

I really do like D&D. I would not play in a biweekly game of it if I did not. I think it does amazing job at what it sets out to do. I just do not see it as a particularly flexible game. Not even when compared to contemporaries like Exalted, Worlds Without Number, or Warhammer Fantasy. The idea that other games were more narrow and focused would hold a lot more water to me if I ever saw even a single play report anywhere that shared the particular energy and flow of something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Masks or Monsterhearts.

I do not think Monsterhearts is a better game than D&D. Just a different one that provides something you just do not get from D&D. I'm not really sure how that became so contentious. That different games focused on different things and provide different experiences. That not every RPG was somehow contained inside D&D.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm reading this as you saying that "popular, therefore good" and "popular, therefore bad" are (more or less) the same fallacy. I 100% agree with this.

I've put some thought into why these threads can be so ... contentious. You like (and run and play) 5E, so if you say something about its weaknesses, it's coming from something of a positive place. If you say that you've found that Blades in the Dark does something better than 5E, there's little reason to think it's coming from ... animus, for lack of a better term. If someone who admittedly doesn't like or play 5E says something similar, it's a little harder to take at face value--would you take anything I said about Blades in the Dark at face value?--even if they make a sincere effort not to be negative about the game they do not enjoy.

I would, actually, because you've shown a honesty and effort to at least understand other games, so you not liking them is usually followed with cogent criticism, and that's valuable to me as a different look at things.

But, in general, yes, you're not wrong. Most of the criticism I see leveled at other games, like PbtA and BitD, is so loaded with a lack of awareness of how those games even function at a basic level that it's exceedingly difficult to take them at face value.

 

[Blue]

You folks (not just the ones quoted here, but others as well) talk about "good" and "best" as if they are some objectively definable things that everyone else should also respond to - as if you all actually agreed about what those things were.

You talk like "favorite" isn't something determined by more factors than just the system. And that, if you'd have your druthers, you'd only ever consume your one favorite food, watch your one favorite show exclusively - and that if it isn't your favorite, it can't be totally awesome anyway.

You talk like this is still the 80s, and finding out about other games is still hard, and that the small game companies aren't currently experiencing a renaissance of kickstarter products and players for those products like never before.

You folks look to be going to significant rhetorical effort to deny, reject, downplay, discredit, or deflect the idea that D&D... might actually be a good game.

I find that interesting.

Did you read that I talked about how I love 5e - emphisizing it multiple times, and that it's my favorite edition of D&D and I've been playing since Red Box Basic?

And since when is there any indication that someone's favorite means that they think it must be everyone's favorite? Favorite is an opinion. I can have a favorite color without believing it's objectively the best color of all time. Same for a favorite book, RPG, movie or whatever.

I feel you are mischaracterizing my comments to support your point.

 

[Aldarc]

I just do not see why it has to be a pissing contest.

I really do like D&D. I would not play in a biweekly game of it if I did not. I think it does amazing job at what it sets out to do. I just do not see it as a particularly flexible game. Not even when compared to contemporaries like Exalted, Worlds Without Number, or Warhammer Fantasy. The idea that other games were more narrow and focused would hold a lot more water to me if I ever saw even a single play report anywhere that shared the particular energy and flow of something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Masks or Monsterhearts.

Speaking of which: reading through each new beta release of Worlds Without Number has me salivating and hungry for more. I would love to use it for an island-hopping adventure, much in the fashion of SWN style planet-hopping. Crawford has a good grasp on what his game can do while also providing solid sandboxing guidelines.

 

[Manbearcat]

Including you for that matter. I think it would be an egregious mistake to equate criticism of a game with snobbery simply because it's critical of D&D 5e. There are others in those "some threads" that genuinely like and play 5e with some regularity, myself included and at least one poster you may be alluding to here.

The irony here is if you were a fan of 4e D&D a decade ago, the endless deluge of aggressive thread-crapping and edition warring you had to endure (and inevitably push back hard against) makes the comparatively innocuous and remote critiques of 5e borderline invisible.

But back then, you certainly weren’t a “snob” to crap on the present iteration of D&D. It was basically cast as righteous indignation and reclaiming birthright against insurrection!

 

[Oofta]

I just do not see why it has to be a pissing contest.

I really do like D&D. I would not play in a biweekly game of it if I did not. I think it does amazing job at what it sets out to do. I just do not see it as a particularly flexible game. Not even when compared to contemporaries like Exalted, Worlds Without Number, or Warhammer Fantasy. The idea that other games were more narrow and focused would hold a lot more water to me if I ever saw even a single play report anywhere that shared the particular energy and flow of something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Masks or Monsterhearts.

I do not think Monsterhearts is a better game than D&D. Just a different one that provides something you just do not get from D&D. I'm not really sure how that became so contentious. That different games focused on different things and provide different experiences. That not every RPG was somehow contained inside D&D.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "pissing contest". Because sometimes it seems like whenever someone posts an idea for an improvement and someone responds "that wouldn't work for me" they get a response of "why do you think the game is perfect?" or "stop hating on me!".

It's fine to criticize. It's fine to suggest that other games do stuff better. But people do seem to associate "I like D&D" with "I hate ___".

 

[TwoSix]

Speaking of which: reading through each new beta release of Worlds Without Number has me salivating and hungry for more. I would love to use it for an island-hopping adventure, much in the fashion of SWN style planet-hopping. Crawford has a good grasp on what his game can do while also providing solid sandboxing guidelines.

I really, really want to do some Dark Sun with it. Some fairly heavy modifications to make it more like my own headcanon of Dark Sun, but I love the combination of the two.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Guess it depends on what you mean by "pissing contest". Because sometimes it seems like whenever someone posts an idea for an improvement and someone responds "that wouldn't work for me" they get a response of "why do you think the game is perfect?" or "stop hating on me!".

It's fine to criticize. It's fine to suggest that other games do stuff better. But people do seem to associate "I like D&D" with "I hate ___".

They do. That's not something I've seen. Usually it's "D&D could do X better," or "D&D doesn't do Y," gets hit with "Whatever, you just hate D&D." I haven't seen "I like D&D" get hit with "then you must HATE <insert thing here>."

 

[prabe]

I would, actually, because you've shown a honesty and effort to at least understand other games, so you not liking them is usually followed with cogent criticism, and that's valuable to me as a different look at things.

But, in general, yes, you're not wrong. Most of the criticism I see leveled at other games, like PbtA and BitD, is so loaded with a lack of awareness of how those games even function at a basic level that it's exceedingly difficult to take them at face value.

My point was at least as much that some portion of the criticism (and I think it's the criticism that's most likely to be contentious) of 5E seems to come from people who don't like or play it. I don't doubt their honesty, or their ability to analyze the game and see how and why it doesn't suit them, but it's easier to accept a criticism of a thing you enjoy, from someone else who enjoys it, than from someone who doesn't--even in the absence of malice.

(Also, there seems to me to be more acceptance that someone might dislike 5E without having played it, than that someone might dislike BitD without having played it. That might be my perceptions not aligning to consensus reality, though.)