D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Umbran]

Ok, here's his back up.

Yeah, well, "anecdote," is not the singular of, "data".

To support the point in terms of setting business goals, we should have statistically relevant data that indicates that WotC is missing the target. If someone wants to assert that WotC is missing the target, they ought to back that up with evidence that at least approaches statistical relevance. Burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion.

 

[ad_hoc]

Pretty much this. And bringing back a lot of relapsed players. It's sort of like Zard's recent thread on now XG breaks the game due to builds. Even if it does, I think that's only for a tiny % of gamers. Casual players (which is me now, and has been for the past decade or so), don't care, or don't have the time to spend the energy on finding the best charop builds, or a zillion monsters, or a ton of player options. IMO, that's actually a turn off because it seems too much to know in order to play the game. I can't speak for everyone of course, but I think I speak for a whole lot of people older than 35 when I say people over 35ish have their own families, and kids, and work, and a million other things so that we can't play every weekend all weekend long. We've become casual players. And since D&D came out in the 70s, and has made a resurgence in popularity, there a whole heck of a lot of us out there in this boat (casual adult players).

And from a business perspective, WoTC focusing on the casual players instead of the outliers has proven to be a sound decision because I'm sure they are more than aware of how many we are now too, and with disposable income. Catering to the outliers is not a sound business decision. I really would love a turn based first person party based RPG for my PS4. Guess what? With the cost of making a good game, and the number of people like me who would want that wouldn't make for a very profitable game. In that case, I'm an outlier. I need to accept that. Incessantly complaining about it, or demanding that I'm entitled to one won't change anything. I can either decide to play what is out there, or to move on to a different platform to fulfill my needs.

I bet you're right about the over 35 crowd.

I bet the majority of the young crowd would also fit into what is considered 'casual'. These are the boardgame cafe people. The people in their early 20s to early 30s who have a boardgame night with their friends once a week. And for many of them that has turned into a D&D night. Perhaps because D&D is a cooperative social game which is what they really want rather than competitive games. The downside, of course, is that D&D is more complicated than Ticket to Ride or Settlers of Catan and requires more time to play.

 

[Retreater]

Honestly, I'm running 3 different groups in 5e, and I'm finding the whole game to be pretty dull these days.

 

[ccs]

I find it interesting that the content you want diverges largely from what I see most people who want more content (even in this thread) asking for: more player options.

If anything it seems to indicate to me that by bundling Monsters, Player Options, and setting info like cosmos detailing WotC is putting out, despite it not being what you want, a fairly guaranteed to sell well book.

(shrugs) There's always been more players than DMs. So of course player demand is higher. Now probably more-so than ever before.
And I don't deny their direction is a success. Or hold it against them. I'm sure that if I were trying to sell D&D books I'd make a similar call on what to print.
That still doesn't stop me from wishing my Volo book had even more useful pages (to me) every time I pick it up. Or stop me from hoping that the next monster book is pure monster entries.

Unlike others though? I'm not upset that I'm not getting exactly what I want.
If they listen & print it, great, I've got cash. If they keep printing things along the lines of Volos & Mords? Eh, that's OK too & I'll probably buy it. And if the player side crap exceeds the content I want then I'll just save that $ & hope the next book is better.

 

[Maxperson]

And I can also scroll up and see I never saud you did not, only that attribution isn't necessary for a strawman. Stay on target.

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."

That's the definition.

It's not possible for me to exaggerate, misrepresent or fabricate someone's argument without attributing whatever I come up with to them. If there is no attribution, there is no exaggeration, misrepresentation or fabrication of their argument.

 

[Maxperson]

You took the affirmative position here, claiming people want more content. I am waiting for a single link from you for anything which backs up that factual assertion. All you've done is demand proof that counters your unproven claim which challenges the status quo. That's not how this works. If you challenge the status quo, the burden starts with you supporting that challenge with something more than, "Here's my guess about what people think, which just happens to be identical to what I prefer."

And no, "they messed up 8 years ago and more" is not proof of anything. It's not even the same "they" as those years.

I don't need a link. I and others here have posted as much, so my claim that there are people that want more content is proven factual just within this thread alone. What I am not doing, is claiming hard numbers as facts like you do. I'm voicing my opinion only, not making a statement of fact. You on the other hand have made a statement of fact in your claims, attempting and failing to refute me with them. You are obligated to back up your statements of fact.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, well, "anecdote," is not the singular of, "data".

To support the point in terms of setting business goals, we should have statistically relevant data that indicates that WotC is missing the target. If someone wants to assert that WotC is missing the target, they ought to back that up with evidence that at least approaches statistical relevance. Burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion.

Nobody is asserting that they are missing their target. I'm saying that they could likely get more by releasing a bit more content than 1 book worth of crunch in a 4 year period.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I will say this. If 5e was more complex, I wouldn’t have learned it or be playing it. I’d still be playing the game I learned in 1981 like I did when 3e came out and when 4e came out because my time is more limited and I don’t want to learn a complex version where you had to have system mastery on some level as a player and as a DM (which I usually am) because you had to be aware of players who liked to mix and match all those options. Before someone says 4e isn’t more complex than 5e, that may be true (I don’t know), but it sure seemed more complex from a combat perspective. And other reasons existed for why I didn’t want to learn.

5e is super easy and intuitive to learn and play, so it works well with my limited gaming time.

 

[Caliburn101]

All any of us has is conjecture: WotC has the market and playtest research data, and seem pretty committed to this working system.

They do indeed.

 

[Caliburn101]

Well, the first of such deciders or gatekeepers to the "more successful" for your ideas is you, yourself.

Take the OGL stuff, wirte up your better system type changes, publish thru the numerous easy ways to self-publish these days and put your better ideas out there on the market and see the massive groundswell that drives you into the actual arena of "more successful."

As a lesser stage half-measure, do it up as web-site and youtube streamer type stuff with basically free-for-clicks and see again how that works for gaining momentum.

Either of those is the start of the path towards turning this from just "yet another forum poster musing around partially stated/formulated ideas about how they can do it better" to an actual attempt at putting out better and letting the so-called "marketplace of ideas" weigh in on the validity of your judgments as to "what is too much."

Which is all we have on these forums, alas, as most of us I would expect have jobs to support ourselves and thus not the time WoTC do to rewrite the system.

That said, I am mightily tempted to do so anyway, despite a busy job. Some things just glare at me when I play or run 5th Edition regardless of all the good stuff that is undoubtedly in it.