D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well let me check out what's coming out then...View attachment 155832View attachment 155835View attachment 155834View attachment 155831Yup, back to my OSR games I go. Have fun with your totally grown up D&D...

Yeah, you're just cherrypicking. You can also find all of these in recent 5e releases:

Spoiler: Definitely "Disney" Art

Yep. That's all definitely not "Grown-up D&D". Looks like Disney and Kiddie-D&D to me.

(Oh, and in case you were wondering, I chose art from 8 different D&D 5e products from the past two years. Candlekeep, Netherdeep, Strixhaven, Spelljammer Compendium, Ravenloft, Tasha's, Fizban's, and Witchlight. And I could easily pull up three times as many more art in similar styles/themes. You only chose art from two different releases. Two. One of which is from a pre-existing setting that's been around for 33 years.)

 

[Hussar]

Just so we're clear, a Zoomer can be almost 30 at the moment. I think if you read my statement to say I guess a lot of new players coming into the hobby are under 30 and/or Magic fans it's not nearly as ludicrous as you're making it out to be.

And if you remember, 4E also outsold all other editions of D&D. It also had a pretty good run, but in the end almost tanked the franchise. A big part of 5E's development was getting back to the roots of the game and reclaiming the older fans again. It did and it was amazing. But with a new edition coming out this is shaping up to be pretty different from classic D&D again, I can't help but think they're going to repeat the same mistake.

If you're 30 at the moment, wouldn't that make you a Millenial? The oldest a Zoomer should be about 25 at the most. I suppose that's "almost 30" but, I'd put that much closer to a millennial with most zoomers being high school age right now.

But, the point you're forgetting here is that 4e had nowhere near the year on year growth that 5e has had. And, again, remember, we haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence that that growth isn't still ongoing. Comparing 5e to 4e or any other edition doesn't really mean anything when we've seen D&D gamer numbers double, double again and then double again since 5e's release. And, if I recall correctly, we're on pace for a fourth double in the next couple of years.

D&D has never, ever been even remotely this popular.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow. Your impressions from the cover ("eldritch horror circus" and "gritty fantastical steampunk") could not be more wrong. There's basically nothing even remotely steampunk-y in the book, and really not much eldritch horror (unless you count hags).

(Also, the ringleaders are Shadar-Kai, not orcs/ogres. They're actually former ringleaders for Ravenloft's carnival.)

...interesting. That's...not what I expected shadar-kai to look like, given that in 4e they looked like this.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hang on a moment, you just admitted that you hadn't really read Candlekeep. If you haven't actually read the book (and presumably other newer releases) who are you to be making such a stand that the newer releases are "Disneyfying D&D"?

In the writing community, there's this little phrase, "write what you know." You've probably heard it before. I'm a strong believer that its basic meaning also applies to online posts, in-person conversations, and general discussions.

If you don't "know" Candlekeep Mysteries and its contents all that well . . . why in the name of Tharizdun are you writing multiple posts about how you think that it and other newer books are "Disneyfying D&D"?

(P.S. I'm just specifically calling you out because of this post of mine. This applies to a lot more people that just you. And in more threads than this one.)

I'm not the one claiming that but I know what people using that term mean by it.

I don't agree with their stance but I understand what it means and why they're claiming that.

5E has the same issues pretty much every other edition of D&D has but some here are very intolerant of any criticism of it.

Same thing happened with 4E same thing will happen with 6E.

Ripping on 3E wasn't such a deal at the time.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ok. So I can tell you how I see them (as mostly an outsider who has seen the initial marketing and the big word-of-mouth promotions).

Call of the Netherdeep
My opinion as an outsider ... Critical Role is a humorous setting run by comedic voice actors. The scenes I have heard about include a player thinking it would be HILARIOUS to wild shape into a goldfish and jump off a cliff. When my wife watches the animated series, there's a bard that is singing about having sex with stuff constantly. It's like watching Tenacious D&D. Which can be entertaining, sure, but it feels more like Harmon Quest than a real D&D game I'd want to play.
Netherdeep's big reveal about the end boss ...

Spoiler

You face him down and try to turn him from his evil ways.

That's certainly soft.

That's all a bunch of ridiculous complaints. I don't watch Critical Role (I've seen their animated show, which I thought was pretty good, but I've never watched a full episode of Critical Role), but I still really enjoy the books that WotC has put out with them. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is one of the best official D&D 5e setting books, being tied with Eberron: Rising from the Last War with how well it gives you hooks to run adventures in the world.

And it's not at all a "humorous setting". Exandria is as serious as the Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Not as serious as Dark Sun or Ravenloft, but definitely not "humorous". And its lore is really good and very well presented in the book. Some of the best that I've seen in D&D. Call of the Netherdeep is a pretty good adventure with a very different overall theme from Critical Role's adventures. The fact that it has a possible redemption arc for the villain doesn't make it "soft". Descent into Avernus's redemption arc is "softer" than Netherdeep's, and Avernus is a pretty dark/hardcore adventure.

Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
The big thing I've heard about this one is that the way I used to run Ravenloft is bad, and I should feel bad about playing it and presenting it the way I've done for nearly 30 years. It's a very negative way of promoting a product. Some of this is from the official marketing, some of it from fans online. I'd rather just not run either setting now. I'm a middle aged white guy in the mid-western U.S., running games for the same population. The cultural zeitgeist of the recent years is that we need to let people tell the stories of their cultures - and I'm good with that. I just can't do it without appropriation.

Yeah, that's just nonsense. Whoever told you that the book/marketing says that you should feel bad about how you previously played Ravenloft and that it's badwrongfun to enjoy it was lying to you. That's not at all what it does. It changes some fairly minor parts of the setting, but none of them would be especially difficult to add back in (the Core, the gender changes to certain Dark Lords, etc). The book is great for giving advice on running horror adventures and has some of the best monsters from all of D&D 5e.

Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
I don't suppose this is soft or silly. I just can't imagine a world in which this would be useful to me. It's a book about dragons. What am I going to do, run an adventure with all these dragons in it? We've got plenty of dragons already, and this doesn't seem like it could possibly add anything to my game. It is as exciting to me as Gary's Book of Polearms.

I've never thought that Dragons were particularly interesting in D&D 5e, but this book gives them more things to do than just be big flying bags of hit points with breath weapons. The monsters in this book are pretty well designed and imaginative. Although it focuses on dragons, not every single monster, magic item, spell, or bit of lore contained in the book are exclusive to dragons. If you absolutely despise dragons and will never use them in a campaign, I could still see this being moderately useful (new Magic Items and Hoard Items, Draconic Gifts, Spells, Hoard Scarabs/Mimics, new NPCs and gods, etc).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

...interesting. That's...not what I expected shadar-kai to look like, given that in 4e they looked like this.

Yeah, that is weird. Shadar-Kai in 4e were basically completely different from how they are in 5e. I thought that the main Shadar-Kai NPC was kind of strange. This is another image of him:

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Person 2: "Well, I (and everyone gamer I know) haven't bought anything in the last 4 years because the tone is too soft, sleek, and silly."

And I'd reply "No, that's not what the tone of most recent 5e products are like, and you would know that if you actually bought them and read them."

Complaining about the tone of products that you have neither bought nor read is pretty idiotic. I've read every official D&D 5e book. None of the newer stuff is wackier than many early D&D adventures/settings (Spelljammer, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape, etc). And 5e's tone overall has stayed remarkably consistent throughout its 8ish-year history. Tomb of Annihilation was released closer to the original release of 5e than it is to the present day. Volo's Guide to Monsters included the Flail Snail, Kobolds that throw skunks and wasp nests at you in battle, 4-armed spider-monkey-elves, and humanoid fey cursed to be so edgy that explode in the sunlight. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes had a whole chapter devoted entirely to Halflings and Gnomes and an abyssal wild magic table that can make your ears fall off and crawl away from you and double the size of your head.

Even the Monster Manual had plenty of wacky creatures, some of which had never appeared in a Monster Manual before. I mean, seriously, the 5e Monster Manual included Flumphs. 5e is the only edition so far to include them in the edition's main Monster Manual.

 

[Jahydin]

And I'd reply "No, that's not what the tone of most recent 5e products are like, and you would know that if you actually bought them and read them."

Complaining about the tone of products that you have neither bought nor read is pretty idiotic. I've read every official D&D 5e book. None of the newer stuff is wackier than many early D&D adventures/settings (Spelljammer, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape, etc). And 5e's tone overall has stayed remarkably consistent throughout its 8ish-year history. Tomb of Annihilation was released closer to the original release of 5e than it is to the present day. Volo's Guide to Monsters included the Flail Snail, Kobolds that throw skunks and wasp nests at you in battle, 4-armed spider-monkey-elves, and humanoid fey cursed to be so edgy that explode in the sunlight. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes had a whole chapter devoted entirely to Halflings and Gnomes and an abyssal wild magic table that can make your ears fall off and crawl away from you and double the size of your head.

Even the Monster Manual had plenty of wacky creatures, some of which had never appeared in a Monster Manual before. I mean, seriously, the 5e Monster Manual included Flumphs. 5e is the only edition so far to include them in the edition's main Monster Manual.

You don't get to decide what I find silly Acererak...

And I don't have to buy the books to get a sense of their tone. Plenty of previews online, not to mention I can walk into my local store and flip through it.

We can have different opinions. It's okay.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You don't get to decide what I find silly Acererak...

You don't find Spelljammer silly? You don't think that Modrons are silly? Or skunk-throwing kobolds? Or zombie T-Rexes that vomit other zombies? Or floating alien jellyfish with telepathy that shoot stink spray at people? Or Flail Snails? Gnomes? Or Sea Lions that are actually lions with fish tails? Seriously? You don't think that literally any of that is silly, but somehow think that having a Rio-style Mardi Gras in a D&D book is so childish that it makes you want to mock people that like this version of D&D and boast about how you're playing "adult" D&D from decades ago?

Yeah, you're either acting in bad faith or have your head on backwards.

And I don't have to buy the books to get a sense of their tone. Plenty of previews online, not to mention I can walk into my local store and flip through it.

Yeah . . . yeah, you really do. Or, at least, to get a fully accurate sense of their tone you need to. "I don't have to even read the book to know that I don't like it!" is not a compelling argument. There is plenty of serious D&D that's been released in the past 4 years (Avernus, Ravenloft, Fizban's, Netherdeep, Theros) and plenty of wacky D&D that was released before then.

You'd never realize that child slavery is a part of Witchlight, learn about the fairy suicide in Candlekeep, or know about the true story behind Netherdeep just by skimming through the books or looking at their art online. In order to truly get a sense of what the book is like, you really do have to read the thing.

We can have different opinions. It's okay.

Ah, the "It's okay if I'm objectively incorrect, it's just my opinion!" defense.

You've admitted to not reading the full books, have tried to say that there was no goofiness in early D&D (proven false by the mere existence of Spelljammer, Flumphs, and Owlbears back to the TSR era of the game), and cherrypicked art from a couple of recent D&D books to support your argument when there are literally dozens of pieces of art that directly contrast the overall point that you've tried to make and have continued to ignore. D&D 5e can be (and often is) serious, gritty, and dark. It still is, even in these last few years that you seem to think are nothing but bubbles, sunshine, and fairies for some reason. The people that have actually read the books and have run games with them are the ones that actually know what they're talking about. You don't.

Having an opinion is not a suitable replacement for factuality. Having an opinion does not make your opinion as valid as those more experienced/knowledgeable in the subject matter.

 

[Minigiant]

If you're 30 at the moment, wouldn't that make you a Millenial? The oldest a Zoomer should be about 25 at the most. I suppose that's "almost 30" but, I'd put that much closer to a millennial with most zoomers being high school age right now.

Yup. the oldest Zoomers are 25 26.. Milennial is 27-40. I and many others usually go with 1997 as the cut off. When Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Notorious BIG die. Some go with 96. If you are an infant or not born by then,you're azoomer.

D&D has never, ever been even remotely this popular.

Testement to the smart strategy of targeting every generation instead of only 2 or3.