Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7459823" data-attributes="member: 996">Those flaws are not minor, and accessibility to new/casual gamers could be a lot better.&nbsp; What's outwieghing those deep, perennial flaws in the mechanics and the accessibility issues the exacerbate is /acceptability/ to long-time and, especially, returning fans from the fad years.&nbsp; D&amp;D is in the grip of an over-due come-back, and being genuine to the original (original to the fad years, anyway) has been critical in getting that rolling.&nbsp; Returning or potential new players thinking of trying the somewhat-famous (if for teen suicide &amp; satanism and being irredeemably nerdy) D&amp;D are, afterall, looking to get something of the D&amp;D experience you would have had you tried it 40 years ago.&nbsp; &nbsp;I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before &amp; for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&amp;D (and not).&nbsp; 4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM).&nbsp; The system was just much clearer and more consistent.&nbsp; Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time.&nbsp; 5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible.&nbsp; It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.'&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;Agreed.&nbsp;Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term.&nbsp; 5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think.&nbsp; We have to make our own excitement.&nbsp; But we're used to that.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done).&nbsp; &nbsp;Also agreed.&nbsp; Essentials &amp; 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form &amp; feel (&amp; dysfucntion) of the classic game.&nbsp; Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly.&nbsp; 5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7459823, member: 996"] Those flaws are not minor, and accessibility to new/casual gamers could be a lot better. What's outwieghing those deep, perennial flaws in the mechanics and the accessibility issues the exacerbate is /acceptability/ to long-time and, especially, returning fans from the fad years. D&D is in the grip of an over-due come-back, and being genuine to the original (original to the fad years, anyway) has been critical in getting that rolling. Returning or potential new players thinking of trying the somewhat-famous (if for teen suicide & satanism and being irredeemably nerdy) D&D are, afterall, looking to get something of the D&D experience you would have had you tried it 40 years ago. I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before & for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&D (and not). 4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM). The system was just much clearer and more consistent. Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time. 5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible. It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.' ;) Agreed. Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term. 5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think. We have to make our own excitement. But we're used to that. ;) To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done). Also agreed. Essentials & 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form & feel (& dysfucntion) of the classic game. Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly. 5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen. [/QUOTE]

Verification