D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[Ovinomancer]

D&D is a brand owned by Hasbro... Pathfinder is a different brand owned by Paizo, they are not the same thing. I can claim Shadowrun is D&D to me... but that doesn't make it D&D, does it? It's not about being "exclusive" it's about correctly using terms in a discussion so as to avoid confusion.

Claiming inclusiveness on the part of the D&D roleplaying game and then citing examples from a different roleplaying game called Pathfinder makes no sense. I might as well claim D&D is inclusive because Earthdawn had artwork/descriptions featuring humans, elves, dwarves, etc. of color in the 90's...

So, you're saying that your D&D excludes all TSR editions, editions before TSR, and WotC editions before being acquired by Hasbro? Man, that's exhausting, excluding all of those things that don't look enough like D&D to you.

 

[Imaro]

So, you're saying that your D&D excludes all TSR editions, editions before TSR, and WotC editions before being acquired by Hasbro? Man, that's exhausting, excluding all of those things that don't look enough like D&D to you.

Nope I'm saying it excludes anything that doesn't use the D&D brand.

EDIT: Or are you claiming anything that fits within any single person's idea of "D&D" (mistakenly or not) should be included in a discussion about the inclusiveness of D&D? That could be pretty confusing especially since we can't read each others minds and some people I've run into outside the hobby even go so far as to consider all roleplaying games to just be D&D...

 

[dagger]

Some seller has it for sale really low right now if anyone needs extra copies.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-lis...97721&sr=8-1&keywords=dnd+5e+players+handbook

17.00

+ $3.99 shipping

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope I'm saying it excludes anything that doesn't use the D&D brand.

EDIT: Or are you claiming anything that fits within any single person's idea of "D&D" (mistakenly or not) should be included in a discussion about the inclusiveness of D&D? That could be pretty confusing especially since we can't read each others minds and some people I've run into outside the hobby even go so far as to consider all roleplaying games to just be D&D...

I'm just pointing out that in a discussion about inclusiveness in the hobby, it's a mite odd to start making arbitrary distinctions about which parts of the hobby you can talk about. Ironic, even. I mean, you're excluding Pathfinder from D&D not because it's so firmly rooted in a D&D edition so as to be interchangeable with that edition, but because of it doesn't have the proper mark on it. A mark that has meant many different things across its varied owners. Seems... a bit convenient.

 

[Bagpuss]

There are a lot of people complaining that Luke Cage is "too black". So people are feeling excluded by not being represented (by the one superhero property that isn't led by a white character).

Are their really or were there like three people on twitter (one of which clearly trolling), and then somebody turned it into a "news" article, with manufactured outrage, and then a load of people repeating the myth?

To me considering the number of viewers Luke Cage a handful of people on Twitter dos not make "a lot of people". The fact Netflix crashed due to people watching Luke Cage, now that, that sounds like a lot of people.

You get the same rubbish with Fifa 17 with having to play a black character in The Journey, manufactured outrage thanks to a handful of tweets.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are their really or were there like three people on twitter (one of which clearly trolling), and then somebody turned it into a "news" article, with manufactured outrage, and then a load of people repeating the myth?

To me considering the number of viewers Luke Cage a handful of people on Twitter dos not make "a lot of people". The fact Netflix crashed due to people watching Luke Cage, now that, that sounds like a lot of people.

You get the same rubbish with Fifa 17 with having to play a black character in The Journey, manufactured outrage thanks to a handful of tweets.

I've definately seen dozens of tweeps angry about it, and not just "eggs". In fact only one I saw was an egg, and that person had an actual name for a handle, and thousands of tweets over like 6 years or something. (I know because I fell in a Twitter thread rabbit hole and someone accused him of being an egg, and he got all butt hurt) I haven't seen any articles about it, or any outrage, manufactured or otherwise.
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] the discussion has mostly been about DnD, because the actual point is the contention over whether increased inclusiveness and representation has played a part on DnD's boom in popularity. Pathfinders iconics were used as a counter point to the observation that DnD doesn't have many, if any, iconic characters of color, and part of that is because until fairly recently there weren't many characters of color presented at all. That is, at best, a tangential response to the observation.

Also, throughout the discussion, folk were discussing DnD as the line of games called DnD, not DnD plus clones and "spiritual successors".

On a personal tangential note, 4e was more DnD to me than 3e/3.5e were, in terms of play/mechanics, and I see no real distinction in flavor. so, what is more or less DnD can be very, very different for different people. We're probably better off sticking to clear distinctions and using words like DnD specifically, not generically.

 

[Parmandur]

Ember is the only one I can remember ever reading or hearing about.

I wish 5e had, a) better art/more good art in the phb*. IMO, the last year of 4e products were about the peak of DnD art in the last decade or so.
2) Named Iconic characters in the phb.

*all due respect to the artists, there is a lot of bad, and some of it is art direction. By which I mean Halflings. But also a few other race/class images are just...not great.

There was a discussion like this on the wotc forums a few years ago, where some folks tallied up images of different types, and the data showed that 4e was more inclusive in terms of art, by a wide margin, than any other edition. I'd like that to continue, and expand to include adventure NPC families of more diverse makeups.

Im still super confused how a non DnD product is relevant? Inclusion isn't a mechanical system issue. Paizo being on the ball in their core book has no relevance outside of camparing DnD to things which aren't DnD.

Also, pretty sure the point of pointing out that he characters are fairly new is to drive home the fact that inclusion is improving, and didn't used to be very good.

In yet another attempt to veer on topic, I would say the art is one of the big factors in 5E success: 4E was good, but 5E has great style. Named Iconics = lame, so glad that is not a thing in 5E holding it down like 3E or Pathfinder.

 

[Imaro]

I'm just pointing out that in a discussion about inclusiveness in the hobby, it's a mite odd to start making arbitrary distinctions about which parts of the hobby you can talk about. Ironic, even. I mean, you're excluding Pathfinder from D&D not because it's so firmly rooted in a D&D edition so as to be interchangeable with that edition, but because of it doesn't have the proper mark on it. A mark that has meant many different things across its varied owners. Seems... a bit convenient.

We're discussing inclusiveness in D&D... not in the hobby. There's no arbitrary distinction (if anything there's arbitrary inclusion going on) Pathfinder isn't D&D (in the same way 13th Age isn't D&D, CnC isn't D&D, DCC isn't D&D, Earthdawn isn't D&D and so on) it's Pathfinder.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In yet another attempt to veer on topic, I would say the art is one of the big factors in 5E success: 4E was good, but 5E has great style. Named Iconics = lame, so glad that is not a thing in 5E holding it down like 3E or Pathfinder.

Ok, regarding Iconics, I guess everyone has the right to be horribly wrong.

re: art, Halflings. Also there just isn't much art that grabs me, and a decent amount that I wonder how it got in he book, because characters has messed up eyes, or similar. A lot of it is just...bland. And I definately prefer as much new art as possible.
The 4e books, especially from essentials on, were just really, really, good art. I flipped through the essentials player books, and had to play a cavelier, and an executioner, for instance. The art was just...so damn good. And I could t find a single bad piece, or anything as offputting as the 5e Halflings. I mean, in the early 4e art I could, mostly the handful of "WoW armor" dragonborn, and alligator tail, butt forehead tieflings, but even the tieflings got less dumb looking as time wore on. Halflings just get worse. Every time I look at the Halflings images in the phb it makes me not want to play a Halfling.

/rant lol sorry

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Halfling art has been bad for a long time, but I like my halflings to be hobbits rather than kender, tiny elves, or the monstrosities in the 5e PH. But in my 5e game halflings look like Bilbo.

I skipped 4e so I have no opinion on its artwork but in general I'm enjoying 5e artwork a lot. 3e style was not my thing so for me its the best art since the 2e era. I didn't care about iconics in 3e and don't now.