D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at


5e Freelancer
Not sure what this rant is getting at... All I meant by my statement is if I find something "goofy and cringe" you can't "prove me wrong". That's all. You can talk about how you don't think it's goofy and cringe, and that's totally cool. In fact, it's why I post on these forums.
That's . . . not at all a valid response to anything I said. I listed a ton of very goofy/silly things from previous editions, many of which were created by Gary Gygax himself, and you responded "you don't get to tell me what I find silly!" as if I was making some personal attack against you by showing all of those goofy things.

I took that to mean that you didn't find anything from older D&D silly/goofy, like you implied/said in your earlier posts in this thread. The doubling down on "have fun with your totally serious D&D" as if early D&D wasn't just as goofy.

I'll ask this question clearly, so this time you don't misunderstand it: Do you seriously, truthfully believe that early D&D was never goofy, at least not as goofy as you view some current D&D products to be?

Because, again, if you truthfully believe that, you are objectively wrong. Just completely, utterly wrong. To the point where I wonder whether or not you're actually being truthful or if your view of early D&D isn't extremely tainted by the rose-tinted glass of nostalgia. Because, if you sincerely do believe that what you're saying is true, all of that stuff that I listed from previous editions and all of the artwork from newer products that disprove your view that modern D&D is only goofy nonsense prove that your view of past/modern D&D is either heavily tainted by nostalgia.
You really think you have to read every book before you can decide if you like it or not?
That's not what I said. I said that you have to actually read the full book to make a complete, objective judgement about its contents. Like was stated earlier, while you might be able to tell if you'd like a movie or not by its trailer, you're not actually going to be able to make an objective judgement of its contents.
Good grief. Just because you cherrypicked your art and shared your opinion doesn't make you anymore "objectively correct" than me.

You have a lot of great things to say, but would be nice if you just shared them rather than focus on proving me wrong.
I "cherrypicked"? No duh! That was literally the freaking point of that post! To prove that if you just hand-pick art that supports your argument, you can find support for basically any argument that you want to make about D&D's overall theme!

You're the one that only shared 4 pieces of art from just two D&D products. I gave 13 different examples from 8 different releases. I chose 8 different D&D 5e products from the last 2 years to demonstrate that not only is "serious/adult D&D" widespread throughout the recent releases and that modern D&D can be pretty much what you want it to be solely based on the art you choose.

Here, do you want me to demonstrate this more? I can do that, if I really need to. Here are some other positions that can be made just by cherrypicking art from recent releases.








See, I can do this all day. If you cherrypick art from just a few different sources, you can support basically any opinion you want. That's the point. D&D 5e's modern playstyle and art is so diverse that you can support basically any position you want.

It's pretty obvious that D&D 5e isn't trying to turn you into a furry, or brainwashing you into buying more books, or turning you into a grimdark edgelord, or only publishing silly nonsense only fit for kids. That was the point of me sharing more art. There is so much art in D&D 5e of so many different themes that you can easily support whatever nonsensical position you want.

The fact that there's a few pieces of art that are silly does not prove that D&D 5e is only silly now, just like handpicking a few pieces of artwork with scary monsters doesn't prove that it's only adult horror or that the inclusion of animal races doesn't mean that WotC is trying to turn you into a furry. That was my point.

log in or register to remove this ad


I mean, we literally have a famous idiom in English that you cannot judge a book by its cover...one of the most widely used metaphors in the language, specifically used to remind people that superficial appearance can be deceiving. And it's flanked by several others, like "still waters run deep," "not all that glitters is gold," "beauty is only skin deep," "the clothes do not make the man," "more than meets the eye"....

It's probably one of the most common metaphors in our language, and English isn't alone in this. Judging something on the basis of very limited information, especially if your judgment ends up being truly inaccurate for that thing's actual qualities, is usually considered a fault.
That's not what's going on here. I'm judging a book by promotional material, in-depth reviews, and going to my local store and paging through it.

Even if I wasn't though, people are completely in their right to decide if they like something or not with however much information they feel is adequate.
Now, the issue of course is basing a judgment on sufficient information...
Wow, that is dense. Look, if someone thinks it tastes like bubblegum to them, and it's actually strawberry, guess what, it still tastes like bubblegum to them. You can shrug and laugh and say that's weird, but calling them a liar, telling them they need to be more educated on all the flavors of ice cream before they can give their opinion, and/or belittling their opinion because its "anecdotal" is just crazy.

What I find sleek, soft, and silly, someone else might find utterly terrifying. You wouldn't go out of your way to prove them wrong too would you?


5e Freelancer
I'd really like to see the in-depth reviews and physically available books in local stores for Spelljammer. Link please?
Or the Journeys Beyond the Radiant Citadel. You know, the two D&D products that @Jahydin was bashing for being too silly, even though neither of which have actually been released yet.

(I'm not denying that Spelljammer will be silly. It will be. It's Spelljammer. But judging Journeys Beyond the Radiant Citadel when it is completely new and there's not any reviews for it yet is beyond stupid.)


I'd really like to see the in-depth reviews and physically available books in local stores for Spelljammer. Link please?
We were talking about more books than just that.

And I wasn't the one saying in-depth knowledge was needed, that was Acererak remember? Go after him.


Morkus from Orkus
Were you happy or unhappy, back in (say) 2015-2016, about the fact that Wizards was intentionally producing only a small amount of material each year?
That decision by them is why my group didn't even start 5e until 2019 and almost didn't at all. We weren't about to give up all the options 3e afforded us for an edition that has a comparatively paltry number of options.
Do you think "bloat" is a serious problem that games should make significant efforts to avoid?
Sure, but there's a world of range in-between the almost nothing they are still producing as far as PC options go, and the flurry of books 3e put out.
Are you of the opinion that, in game design, "less is more" is just better than other approaches? (That is, few and generic options that cover many cases broadly, as opposed to many and specific options that each cover a few cases thoroughly.)
Less is not more. More is more. That's what more means.
Finally, do you feel your preferences need official support in order to be playable or functional within D&D?
Yep. We almost didn't do 5e at all because our preferences weren't being supported. Even with what is out now, 2 of the 5 of us in my group want to go back to 3e and the other three are on the fence.


Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
this has been an interesting discussion.

I don’t think there are a ton of recent releases that speak to me. However, my bookshelf has quite a few 5e books.

I went to the game store yesterday and with this thread in mind, took in their selection. They have books on the rack so you can see the covers all at the same time and not just the spine.

I think the best I can say is that they have been on a run that is not to my tastes but overall they produced a lot that I like.

time will tell if they have really changed direction in tone for the whole line or just for a few releases.

my hope is for a diversity of offerings moving forward. I don’t want to be compelled to buy all of it, just some. Half would be great.


I sponsor the D&D Club at my school, and my impression is that 5e is aimed at pretty much everyone. It seems like all kinds of kids are able to find something in it for them, which is fantastic. One thing I really like is that the sourcebooks and adventure guides are now all framed explicitly as suggestions and ideas, rather than canon.

In terms of content, again it seems to me like WotC is trying to aim at as diverse an audience as possible. My favourite has been the new Critical Role Adventure book, Call of the Netherdeep, because in terms of story it feels kind of old school, like me, but there are some new innovations there that keep it from being stale.


Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
1 or 2 a year, assuming the underlying structures and systems of the game are not harmed, would have been nice.
Well that’s the thing.

I will probably be very choosy. I might just stay with Tasha’s and prior. But I cannot say it has been a bad run overall.

An Advertisement