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

[neobolts]

3e launch will always be my personal golden age. The Eric Noah site feeding frenzy. Better save categories, prestige classes, no more THAC0. Just a great time of boundless optimism. 5e, with its nods to classic editions and public playtest comes in second. It's a good time to be a D&D player.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mflayermonk]

Every fifth level magic user learning fireball immediately. And so on.

I remember "back in the old days" someone failing the roll to learn fireball and ripping up their character sheet in frustration and then storming away from the table.

 

[JNC]

As long as good ideas are coming, that is what really counts. I wouldn't know, I don't play 5th.

I own 3rd edition materials, never played, so I can't speak for the past either XD

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the one hand, I was pleasantly surprised by reading this thread; I expected relentless positivity, and both the OP and the first page or two was full of much more measured statements (even if several people still can't enjoy 5e without commenting negatively on at least one other edition).

On the other hand, I still think it's incorrect to call the current situation a "golden age" for several reasons, regardless of what view you take:

1) Evaluating the very time period you live in is a fraught and often foolish endeavor. Recall that, at the time, the conflict we call "World War I" was known as the "Great War," and was often described as the war to end all wars. And then WWII happened. And the Korean War. And the Vietnam War, and the Bosnian War, and all the nuclear brinksmanship of the Cold War, and the Iran-Iraq War...and there are still smouldering conflicts in the Middle East, plus the bad blood between Pakistan and India, just to name two situations that could easily ignite into new wars...

Basically, we are often utterly blind to the way history will see what we consider "the present day" and "current affairs." Whether it's wars, technology, hobbies, art...things change quickly, and often gel in ways we never expected.

2) Every edition has its best and brightest moments in its early years. 4e was definitely going strong at this point, with Dark Sun and PHB2 either already out or on the horizon (I don't remember the exact timing). Both 3e and 3.5e had strong showings in their first year. I don't know the stats of editions older than that, but I'd say it's a safe bet that they, too, had strong sales early on (it's a common thing for most entertainment media).

3) Regardless of whether you consider things linearly, cyclically, or spirally, things are definitely not back to the fever-pitch they were in the 80s, not even close. Video games have stolen much of the potential market. Age has stolen another portion. And of the people left, there are now strong competitors taking a share, even within the narrow market, some of which are free to play or have their basic rules completely open-licensed. Of the few who remain, things are still extremely fractured, and every edition is at fault for that, including 5e. If anything, what with the explosion of OSR and prominent "second-party" publishers, it would seem we're currently cycling back to a *beginning* age, which is importantly different from a "golden" age, and 5e is the somewhat-belated official attempt to join that cultural bandwagon.

4) What is the evidence, other than optimism and board-activity, for claims like "embraced by a huge percentage of the community"? If people are so quick to dismiss negative/critical commentary on the internet, why does positive commentary not get treated the same way? Yes, the books are selling well--as they always do, when "the books" refers to core books. I am not trying to speak poorly of 5e's sales, nor make any commentary on its content either way. Simply saying that much of what's being said here sounds like a person gushing about a game they like. Being happy about a thing and wanting to share it are both perfectly cromulent activities, but I see no need to call this a "golden age" for people to enjoy it if they want. Let it be what it is, without expectations of greatness or prosperity hanging overhead.

It seems to me that making a point of stepping back and saying "Look! Look! Things are SO GREAT we should PROCLAIM IT SO!" is just...well, it feels like being insistent, like the speaker doth protest too much. That may not be what it is, and the OP seems to stress the "we should try to enjoy this" side of things...but I see no need to proclaim a "golden age" or really an age of any kind. Leave that to the historians, and get on with the gaming and/or sharing of a mutually-held pleasure (which includes things like posting on these forums...about things that actually affect, or are affected by, play).

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." - Matthew 6:34

 

[Zardnaar]

Every new edition launch would be a golden age lol. Even 2E which used to be the red headed step child of D&D outsold 1E in an equivalent time frame. And 1E was outsold by BECMI in the early 80's.

Going by previous levels of sales 5E is more middle of the pack and towards the low end of D&D sales. The D&D golden age was 1982/83, the silver age was 2000, 2001 and the 1st year or two of 2E would be the bronze age I suppose. I don't think 4E outsold in total 2E or 3.0's 1st year sales.

Its a golden age in terms of where D&D was a few years ago but in comparisons to other editions at launch or the original golden age its nothing special. Out of 7 editions in terms of sales 5E would likely be rated 5th, for launches maybe 4th beating 1E which took a few years and multiple reprints to pick up steam. 1E had adventures which have outsold likely sales of 5E PHB though so there is that to consider.

 

[Mercurius]

Lots of good posts, too many to individually reply to, even though I want to engage with many further. I find it interesting how everyone takes a slightly different angle on what a "Golden Age" or "Age" is in general. It seems that there are two broad approaches:

1. Ages as periods of time that relate to D&D and/or specific editions. We could call this "objective time."
2. Ages as phases of personal experience with the game. This would be "subjective time."

In the former, the general consensus--although not necessarily shared by all--is that the Golden Age is the time from the game's inception in 1974 to sometime in the early 80s. Some would consider Dragonlance in 1983 as the threshold moment, which is also around the time that sales began to drop off drastically. The Silver Age would be mid-80s to mid-90s, focused on 2E. The Bronze Age would start with 3E and end with 4E, which would be the Iron Age. Another perspective to throw into the picture is that between each age is a time of transition and instability, a mini Dark Age - like we saw with the Gygax/Williams drama in the mid-80s, and then the bankruptcy of TSR and switchover to WotC in the late 90s, and then the Edition Wars of the 2008, and the "blackout" of 2012-14 as 5E was in development.

And of course a variant on this perspective is that each edition goes through a mini-cycle.

But perhaps the more meaningful of the two is "subjective time." In that regard, I would posit the following:

Golden Age: The early years, when you first get into the game and there is a feeling of newness, excitement and wonder.
Silver Age: A time of maturation and fruition, when you really get in the groove of the game, your knowledge and collection blossoms, yet there is the first tingling that Something Is Missing.
Bronze Age: A more advanced stage of the Silver Age, perhaps when rulescraft becomes more prominent. It may even be that playing becomes a bit more by rote, without the original freshness.
Iron Age: Your experience reaches a crisis and play feels stale. The feeling of Something Missing has become palpable.

After the Iron Age there may be a period of not playing, a hiatus from the game until, at some point--if you are a life-long RPGer--something reignites your interest, and a sense of newness is reborn.

I am reminded of the famous and beautiful T.S. Eliot quote: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

Mythologically speaking, this is "Paradise Regained." We have explored, tried different approaches to the game, and different games, and in a sense exhausted ourselves. In a way what we have been searching for is that initial sense of wonder and joy. In the process we have become further and further focused on technique and "technology" - the "stuff" of the game, books and rules and optimization - which has in turn covered up the quality that existed during the Golden Age. But in this "New Golden Age," our fascination with Stuff and Techne has been re-contextualized with a rebirth of wonder and imagination.

At least that's one way of looking at it. Just riffing here. And no, I'm not saying that this is how everyone experiences things, but I think there is a universal quality to this "journey" that finds resonance in mythology, as described in Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just think of the terms in which 4e was debated on this board in 2009 (i.e. one year into its existence). Compare that to 2014, or 2015: it's the edition that splintered the fanbase.

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

any one edition that tries to make a sharp break from its predecessor is going to meet the same backlash as 4E, and it will be followed by a 5E-like "return to form."

4e's period was a the Dark Age. You know why.

The Bronze Age would start with 3E and end with 4E, which would be the Iron Age.
Bronze Age: A more advanced stage of the Silver Age, perhaps when rulescraft becomes more prominent. It may even be that playing becomes a bit more by rote, without the original freshness.
Iron Age: Your experience reaches a crisis and play feels stale. The feeling of Something Missing has become palpable.

If I had to speculate, 5e will be remembered mostly in terms of its PR rather than its content. It was the edition designed to bring fans lost by 4e back into the fold. Hence: the edition that was mostly harmless, largely devoid of mechanical innovation, a visual facelift of a deeply conservative outlook. The edition that presented a quiet period for D&D to regain its strength and creative impulse.

I had hoped that 2012's Essentials would already be that edition, giving the team enough time to prepare for something exciting and new. But apparently we have to wait for 6e, or longer, if 6e will be the third edition under Mearls's helm.

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.

 

[Mercurius]

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

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.

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.

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 (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.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Every new edition launch would be a golden age lol....I don't think 4E outsold in total 2E or 3.0's 1st year sales.

WotC claimed that 3.0 out-sold 2e at the time, and that 4e outsold 3e at the time, and that at launch 5e is out-selling 4e at launch. They're pretty consistent, that way. I haven't hear any claims that they're moving units like TSR did in the fad years, though.

Iron Age: Your experience reaches a crisis and play feels stale. The feeling of Something Missing has become palpable.

That's certainly the feel I got from late 2e. It was 5 years before I got back to D&D with 3.0, having played more vibrant games like Hero and Storyteller in the meantime.

While I don't think 'Golden Age' is appropriate for any period in the game's history (no, not even the fad years), 3.0's 'back to the dungeon' and the OGL certainly revitalized the hobby for a few years, and seem more significant, to me, than the current era of post-edition-war appeasement.

What is the evidence, other than optimism and board-activity, for claims like "embraced by a huge percentage of the community"?

It is a decidedly inoffensive edition (even the PF fans I talk to don't have anything bad to say about 5e, just see no reason to switch to it). You just don't see the kinds of criticism that was leveled at Essentials, 4e, 3.5 or 3.0 being spewed at 5e. The 5e edition war is prettymuch between folks who feel 5e is OK for D&D, and folks who are intent on it being acknowledged the most awesomest thing ever.

I see no need to call this a "golden age" for people to enjoy it if they want. Let it be what it is, without expectations of greatness or prosperity hanging overhead. It seems to me that making a point of stepping back and saying "Look! Look! Things are SO GREAT we should PROCLAIM IT SO!" is just...well, it feels like being insistent, like the speaker doth protest too much.

It seems validation and group think are important in communities like this.