D&D 5E Am I no longer WoTC's target audience?

[Fenris-77]

I'm guessing the slow pace of publication was always planned, so that raises the expectation that older stuff might often get re-purposed to fill the slowly-filling void a bit faster...?

Oh yeah, for sure, but changing THAC0 to make combat more of an intuitive fit wasn't a needless backward step. That statement does assume that backward compatibility was the primary design goal, rather than increased rationalization and intuitive mechanics to flatten the learning curve for new players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh yeah, for sure, but changing THAC0 to make combat more of an intuitive fit wasn't a needless backward step. That statement does assume that backward compatibility was the primary design goal, rather than increased rationalization and intuitive mechanics to flatten the learning curve for new players.

Yeah, don't know why I even mentioned it, it just occurred to me.

Also, not backwards compatibility, so much, but familiarity and brand continuity were probably primary goals.

 

[HarbingerX]

My only point is that THAC0 wasn't a good solution. Much better was the Target20 system I referenced, which is equivalent to ascending AC introduced by 3e but has the benefit of being backward compatible and involves adding smaller numbers so it is cognitively faster than the current system. For an interesting discussion about it by the designer, see Delta's D&D - What is the best combat algorithm. 5e actually made ascending AC better by addressing the 'adding big numbers' issue that was in 3, 3.5 and 4 by reducing the to-hit bonuses.

 

[pemerton]

Well, Wizard's empirically measures strength of gameplay through having groups of players play different rules, and by releasing UA articles that then come with polls. The former is a measure of how fun the rules and adventure are, the latter is usually a measure of game balance and popularity.

Pretty much every RPG-technology that isn't D&D is irrelevant, rather than obsolete, in the realm of broader adoption w/in the hobby.

I think @GreyLord already contrasted quality and popularity. Hollywood studios have sophisticated techniques, I believe, for determining audience reactions and making sure that the films they release will be popular. That doesn't mean that (say) the latest Star Wars film is better than the first one, or that (say) any detective film made in the past decade is better than The Maltese Falcon.

There is no empirical proof that Classic Traveller or Prince Valiant are weaker systems - in design, in function, in play - than 5e D&D. For what it's worth, I'd pretty confidently assert that each is better!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I think @GreyLord already contrasted quality and popularity. Hollywood studios have sophisticated techniques, I believe, for determining audience reactions and making sure that the films they release will be popular. That doesn't mean that (say) the latest Star Wars film is better than the first one, or that (say) any detective film made in the past decade is better than The Maltese Falcon.

There is no empirical proof that Classic Traveller or Prince Valiant are weaker systems - in design, in function, in play - than 5e D&D. For what it's worth, I'd pretty confidently assert that each is better!

I don't disagree with your point, but funny enough the Star Wars example actually doesn't help you; the first Star Wars, adjusted for inflation, is the fourth-best performing film of all time.

 

[Sunsword]

You are not alone, but it's okay that we aren't their target audience. I'm going to be 50 in a few years. I'm pretty set in my ways when it comes to role-playing and at the moment I can be because I have a stable and like-minded group. But this hobby and this edition needs new faces and the kind of energy I don't have the time to give between having a career, paying my bills, and being a husband, father, and grandfather.

I've watched as I've aged out of the zeitgeist in the last 10 years. I first noticed it in comics and then in movies. I love 5E and the OSR but I'm not going to finish 2-3 campaigns a year so I don't need to buy them and I don't want more than 1 rule addition per year either.

There are things about WotC's plans that make me go "Huh?", but that's okay because I still play their game, buy some of their stuff, and get together twice a week to have fun, roll some dice, blow off steam and kill some monsters and take their stuff.

Let the younger and newer players take the spotlight, I'm too tired to keep doing it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no empirical proof that Classic Traveller or Prince Valiant are weaker systems - in design, in function, in play - than 5e D&D. For what it's worth, I'd pretty confidently assert that each is better!

I played a lot of classic Traveller in the 80s, and I equally confidently assert that it is a vastly inferior system to D&D 5e (whoops, I died during character creation).

 

[pemerton]

whoops, I died during character creation

Well, this is just about the time required to generate a character as per the rules - which are about balancing risk and reward, rather than allocating points.

The Classic Traveller system for PC gen is an interesting example of PC gen "technology" - as far as I know the first lifepath system for PC generation. And of systems I know is the only one that has this sort of particular system (ie survival and reenlistment checks) for balancing risk/reward. (D&D and T&T have lots of random generation, but not risk/reward dynamic).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, this is just about the time required to generate a character as per the rules - which are about balancing risk and reward, rather than allocating points.

The Classic Traveller system for PC gen is an interesting example of PC gen "technology" - as far as I know the first lifepath system for PC generation. And of systems I know is the only one that has this sort of particular system (ie survival and reenlistment checks) for balancing risk/reward. (D&D and T&T have lots of random generation, but not risk/reward dynamic).

Yeah, but if your character dies then you start again, until you get one who doesn't die, so there is no real risk, just a time-waste. And when you did get a character is was always a geriatric military veteran. Add to that the combat was garbage, and it had a feudal system that should have been part of a setting hard-coded into character creation.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I see it as a neutral development in and of itself - neither an improvement nor a backstep.

However, the fact that it now forces a conversion in order to use one edition's material in another edition's game is more than enough to tilt it off neutral and make it a needless backward step. (had we started with ascending AC and then switched to descending I'd be saying the same thing)

You'd need to convert anyway. It's not like dropping a 3E monster into a 5E encounter is going to play well, even though both have ascending AC. 2E was really more like 1.5E, a lot more compatible with the previous edition than any edition since.