D&D 5E A new Golden Age for D&D

[Celtavian]

You don't even have to go back to 2009, just look at how this thread is shaping up:




I have to agree. 5e is mainly about avoiding controversy and knuckling under to the more aggressive elements of the fanbase so they'll be less likely to brutalize it. It's a lowest-common-denominator strategy, and it's working, the property is getting a chance to recover. That's it's had to give up some of the gains make by 3.5 as well as virtually all those of 4e, in addition to making very little progress in itself may be disappointing to a few (who, by now, should be long since accustomed to living with disappointment), but it's not like WotC had a choice. From their PoV, there's room for the franchise to grow in other markets, so the TTRPG can be left to it's current base.

Of course there is some objective way to determine a statement like this.

The whole thing is subjective rubbish. Your opinion and nothing more with no basis. Lowest-common-denominator strategy? How ridiculous.

Gains? What a laugh. There is no objective "gains" in role-play game design. There are different rules at different times to keep changing it up to keep a game from being stale. That's it. Whenever I read statements like this I can't help but think the poster is a pretentious pseudo-intellectual that thinks their viewpoint reflects reality.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those aren't necessarily "edition warry" comments, Tony. One can say that 4E was a dark age or iron age for D&D and it have less to do with the game and rules itself, and more with the community, how the game was carried, etc.

The edition war /was/ a community phenomenon. If there was a 'dark age' coinciding with it, it was a dark age for the on-line community in the grips of the edition war, not for the game itself, which was actually a great deal of fun (and still is).

Ironic that you seem to complain about 4E comments, but then go ahead and call 5E "the lowest common denominator." I think 5E was less about "avoiding controversy" and more about listening to what the fan community actual wants, and designing a game around those wants

That's avoiding controversy by cleaving to the lowest common denominator, yes.

(as well as trying to create a game that is more appealing and accessible to newbies).

Also, when you say that 5E "had to give up some of the gains make by 3.5 as well as virtually all those of 4e," another way to look at it is that 5E stripped away the non-essentials of past editions and got back to the roots of the game, but in a modernized form that incorporates many of the innovations of the past edition.

That'd be a nicer spin, sure. But the bottom line is 3.5 brought far more customization to the game, and opened up the industry with an OGL, and 5e hasn't; and the 4e refined the game to a level of balance, playability and accessibility that 5e has completely abandoned in it's appeal to nerdraging edition warriors. You can argue that it was a good idea to do so, that the property was better off sticking with the fan-base it had than trying for break-out growth. From an idealist point of view, I'd want to disagree, but the reality is obvious.

Of course there is some objective way to determine a statement like this.

You mean objective qualities that games have? Sure. Balance, consistency and clarity for instance. D&D has never really depended on such qualities to sell, though. It's depended on it's status as first RPG, the loyalty of the fanbase that's stuck with it since the fad years of the early-mid 80s, and the fact it's the only RPG with any mainstream name recognition.

Lowest-common-denominator strategy? How ridiculous.

D&D is the biggest TTRPG. It sells to more fans than any other RPG. You don't do that by catering to lofty niche preferences. 5e, in particular, was explicitly intended to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D. Got to find some lowest common denominators to do that.

My sense is that the bottom line is that if you like a really complex, highly granular game, then 5E is probably not for you.

5e is meant to be inclusive of all past & current fans of D&D, so every time someone posts "5e is not for you," they're saying it's failed. I disagree with that sentiment.

IMHO, 5e has succeeded. You're both playing it. I'm playing it (technically, DMing it). We're virtually all into it, or at least not offended by it, even if it is with varying degrees of excitement, and different perspectives on the game's history.

 

[Mercurius]

The edition war /was/ a community phenomenon. If there was a 'dark age' coinciding with it, it was a dark age for the on-line community in the grips of the edition war, not for the game itself, which was actually a great deal of fun (and still is).

Yes, I agree - which is kind of what I said.

That's avoiding controversy by cleaving to the lowest common denominator, yes.

(as well as trying to create a game that is more appealing and accessible to newbies).

LCD implies a pejorative term, which I don't agree with. Looking for community feedback doesn't necessarily mean LCD.

That'd be a nicer spin, sure. But the bottom line is 3.5 brought far more customization to the game, and opened up the industry with an OGL, and 5e hasn't; and the 4e refined the game to a level of balance, playability and accessibility that 5e has completely abandoned in it's appeal to nerdraging edition warriors. You can argue that it was a good idea to do so, that the property was better off sticking with the fan-base it had than trying for break-out growth. From an idealist point of view, I'd want to disagree, but the reality is obvious.

This is where I simply don't agree with you. What I hear you really saying is that you prefer the play style of 3E or 4E, and are clothing that in a sense of superiority - which isn't shared by all, certainly not myself. The main fallacy in what you are saying, imo, is the implication that minimalism = dumbing down. I disagree with that implication, and view 5E as a minimalist approach to D&D that actually allows for a huge degree of customization, and is very playable. But hey, there's no accounting for taste!

That said, I do agree that it is a shame that we haven't seen an OGL yet. But I'm not giving up hope...yet.

 

[Mercurius]

5e is meant to be inclusive of all past & current fans of D&D, so every time someone posts "5e is not for you," they're saying it's failed. I disagree with that sentiment.

"Inclusive" is different than "catering to every whim and play style." 5E has done a good job at being "inclusive," but it certainly hasn't "catered to every whim and play style." I do think that it didn't do as much in the modularity/complexity dial compartment as planned and advertised, though.

IMHO, 5e has succeeded. You're both playing it. I'm playing it (technically, DMing it). We're virtually all into it, or at least not offended by it, even if it is with varying degrees of excitement, and different perspectives on the game's history.

Yes, I agree, but this seems at odds with what you are saying above.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have to agree. 5e is mainly about avoiding controversy

Like by hiring Pundit and Zak as consultants? Yep, no controversy happened there...

and knuckling under to the more aggressive elements of the fanbase so they'll be less likely to brutalize it. It's a lowest-common-denominator strategy, and it's working, the property is getting a chance to recover. That's it's had to give up some of the gains make by 3.5 as well as virtually all those of 4e, in addition to making very little progress in itself may be disappointing to a few (who, by now, should be long since accustomed to living with disappointment), but it's not like WotC had a choice. From their PoV, there's room for the franchise to grow in other markets, so the TTRPG can be left to it's current base.

This has to be some of the worst garbage I've read in a long, long time. What you call "gains", a significant number of gamers call "setbacks". That doesn't make them any less of a "real" gamer than you, or part of the lowest common denominator. And a lot of people think 5e did in fact make a lot of progress, both in rules and in overall inclusiveness. You're also wrong in assuming that 5e is content to stay with a current base, when we have lots of evidence of it bringing in brand new players. Not only have you managed to be flat out wrong, but you're insulting to boot. With comments like this, you're also the poster child people point to when they make disparaging comments about 4e fans feeling like they are more entitled than everyone else. Which is sad, because most 4e fans aren't like you. the only edition warrior here is you, with your repeated insults of players of early editions.

 

[Dausuul]

I have to agree. 5e is mainly about avoiding controversy and knuckling under to the more aggressive elements of the fanbase so they'll be less likely to brutalize it.

Or, it was about appealing to the people who felt 4E had gone too far from the game they liked. Same thing, minus the gratuitous slam at everyone who didn't like 4E and at WotC's decision to try to win them back.

If I gave the impression that I thought the slower evolution of games like D&D was a bad thing, that was not what I meant at all. A successful media property should evolve slowly. That is the point of making new editions of an existing game: To iterate on a successful model. The occasional "excursion" like 4E serves a purpose, as a laboratory for new ideas and experiments, but the "return to form" that follows is also important; it takes the best ideas from the excursion and incorporates them into the original model, while discarding the stuff that doesn't fit that model.

 

[AriochQ]

There is more than one way to play D&D. That may seem obvious, but many people tend to view things from the 'I' perspective. I did much of the same in my younger days. I was a real number cruncher and viewed any other play style as inferior by varying degrees. As I have gotten older, I have broadened my view and really appreciate 5th edition. It gives you a solid framework (ignoring the whole vision mechanic issue) upon which you can build whatever type of play suits you. Some might bemoan the lack of complexity present in earlier editions (e.g. 3.5) but 5e hand-waves that away by allowing the DM to tweak to their hearts content, even going so far to include a ton of optional rules in the DMG.

In short, is it the best game for role play focused groups? Nope. Number crunchers? Nope. Home brewed? Nope. etc. BUT, is it the best RPG for all those groups combined? Possibly, it is a strong contender at the very least.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

LCD implies a pejorative term, which I don't agree with. Looking for community feedback doesn't necessarily mean LCD.

I think pejorative is pushing it, a negative connotation, sure, but not an unwarranted one, and inevitable the wider the net you cast.

What I hear you really saying is that you prefer the play style of 3E or 4E, and are clothing that in a sense of superiority

That's a danger of this medium. We can't hear tone or get a sense of eachother beyond the text we're using to communicate, so it's easy to read things into it. I read your posts and get the impression you're an uncritical apologist, who would gush at anything WotC did. I doubt that's what's really going on, but I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't know for sure.

The idea that there's a playstyle forced or 'not supported' by 3e or 4e or classic D&D or 5e isn't something I agree with, anyway. Each version of D&D had some good things going for it, but never to such a degree that you couldn't play them in whatever 'style' you wanted - and 5e's goal was to combine the best of each prior ed, anyway. It succeeded in getting back to the DM-empowerment of classic D&D, which I like a lot (and am happily taking full advantage of as I DM), and didn't throw away all the cool stuff that 3e innovated, even if it did make both MCing and Feats optional, which I also appreciate (though it's not quite enough to get me enthused as a player). If it had somehow managed to do that and keep some of the balance and more of the player agency of 4e, that'd've been even better, of course. But it was a very tall order, and the degree of success they've managed is still impressive.

Speaking only for myself, as a lapsed gamer, I couldn't find any entry into 4e. But while 5e occasionally frightens and confuses me, I have found it to be enjoyable, and it got me playing again and teaching it to the kids. But this could just be because I am older- 1e, for example, probably was pretty intimidating to the newcomer, and I just never noticed it at the time.

That's pretty typical from what I saw of 4e at the time, and with 5e now. Long-time gamers who'd branched off from D&D and completely-new-new-to-hobby-gamers found 4e accessible, while long-time staunch D&Ders and returning AD&D veterans found it weird & un-D&D-like. 5e a lot more accessible to returning players, and still works fine for long-time players of all sorts.

In short, is it the best game for role play focused groups? Nope. Number crunchers? Nope. Home brewed? Nope. etc. BUT, is it the best RPG for all those groups combined? Possibly, it is a strong contender at the very least.

Add to that generalization (there, that's less baggage than LCD), D&D's positioning as first RPG, both literally, and in the sense of the one RPG so many gamers started with, and it's not just a contender, but the Champion.

"Inclusive" is different than "catering to every whim and play style." 5E has done a good job at being "inclusive," but it certainly hasn't "catered to every whim and play style." I do think that it didn't do as much in the modularity/complexity dial compartment as planned and advertised, though.

It's funny, because I disagree and agree with that. Inclusiveness does mean /including/ what everybody wants, rather than excluding what a few people don't want. And, yes, via it's version of modularity (which I'd call 'variants,' because 'module' means something different to me, and implies a higher level of cross compatibility), actually does deliver a fair amount of that.

Yes, I agree, but this seems at odds with what you are saying above.

I'm just not putting as brightly positive a spin on it as you are. I'm a tad cynical, y'know. ;P

The main fallacy in what you are saying, imo, is the implication that minimalism = dumbing down. I disagree with that implication, and view 5E as a minimalist approach to D&D that actually allows for a huge degree of customization, and is very playable. But hey, there's no accounting for taste!

Not what I'm trying to convey, at all. 5e winds the clock back in a number of ways, but it's not minimalist or dumbed-down in any sense. No version of D&D ever was (other than Basic sets, of course), it's just a complex game by its very nature. The Lowest Common Denominator among our community certainly isn't 'dumb' either, this is a nerdy sub-culture, and we all at least like to think of ourselves as on the smart side.

That said, I do agree that it is a shame that we haven't seen an OGL yet. But I'm not giving up hope...yet.

Indeed, the OGL really revitalized the industry, even as it re-focused it back on D&D dominance. Maybe they figure 5e is already dominating, so they don't need it? Maybe it's lack of resources? In any case, the existing 1.0 OGL is flexible enough that a couple of 3pps have already put out "5E" compatible material. More to come, whatever WotC does, I'm guessing.

 

[Mercurius]

I think pejorative is pushing it, a negative connotation, sure, but not an unwarranted one, and inevitable the wider the net you cast.

Semantics. "Pejorative" = negative or disparaging, whether warranted or not.

That's a danger of this medium. We can't hear tone or get a sense of eachother beyond the text we're using to communicate, so it's easy to read things into it. I read your posts and get the impression you're an uncritical apologist, who would gush at anything WotC did. I doubt that's what's really going on, but I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't know for sure.

I don't know what to say. Clearly you haven't read many of my posts, or only ones in this thread - and even then that seems terribly skewed. I've been critical of WotC and am far from an apologist. In fact, this characterization is so off base that I wonder where you are coming from. I really don't see how I appear as an uncritical apologist or gusher.

It's funny, because I disagree and agree with that. Inclusiveness does mean /including/ what everybody wants, rather than excluding what a few people don't want. And, yes, via it's version of modularity (which I'd call 'variants,' because 'module' means something different to me, and implies a higher level of cross compatibility), actually does deliver a fair amount of that.

No, inclusiveness does NOT mean "including what everybody wants" - at least in an all-encompassing way, because that is simply not possible. Or perhaps we can only ever attain "relative inclusivity", because someone is always going to feel left out or marginalized.

I'm just not putting as brightly positive a spin on it as you are. I'm a tad cynical, y'know. ;P

Spin is spin, whether positive or negative. I don't see what I'm doing as spin as much as a possible perspective, for truly I don't know and don't claim to know What Is Really Going On.

Not what I'm trying to convey, at all. 5e winds the clock back in a number of ways, but it's not minimalist or dumbed-down in any sense. No version of D&D ever was (other than Basic sets, of course), it's just a complex game by its very nature. The Lowest Common Denominator among our community certainly isn't 'dumb' either, this is a nerdy sub-culture, and we all at least like to think of ourselves as on the smart side.

LCD usually implies a dumbed down version. But I do think that 5E is minimalist compared to at least 3E and 4E, which I think is a good thing, personally.

Indeed, the OGL really revitalized the industry, even as it re-focused it back on D&D dominance. Maybe they figure 5e is already dominating, so they don't need it? Maybe it's lack of resources? In any case, the existing 1.0 OGL is flexible enough that a couple of 3pps have already put out "5E" compatible material. More to come, whatever WotC does, I'm guessing.

Yup.