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

[Medic]

I actually had a firsthand experience with this recently and spent more time investigating it than I probably should have. To spare readers the lengthy tale of my adventures in reading and deep personal immorality, I wouldn't say that 5th Edition's content is being "Disneyfied" or "aimed at unborn infants" so much as it's being defanged and cleaned up to make it more palatable for a broader audience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I recently saw DCC (from some thread here) and found it refreshing.

I love DCC, especially the dangerous nature of magic. Not familiar with OSE, but I've heard good things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually had a firsthand experience with this recently and spent more time investigating it than I probably should have. To spare readers the lengthy tale of my adventures in reading and deep personal immorality, I wouldn't say that 5th Edition's content is being "Disneyfied" or "aimed at unborn infants" so much as it's being defanged and cleaned up to make it more palatable for a broader audience.

Not much better from my point of view. Obviously their view differs. I still miss save or die effects.

 

[Scribe]

I actually had a firsthand experience with this recently and spent more time investigating it than I probably should have. To spare readers the lengthy tale of my adventures in reading and deep personal immorality, I wouldn't say that 5th Edition's content is being "Disneyfied" or "aimed at unborn infants" so much as it's being defanged and cleaned up to make it more palatable for a broader audience.

I'd say it amounts the same thing in the end, but I dont know if 'disneyfied' has a proper definition.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Is "disneyfication" seriously a controversy here? Like, seriously?

Sweet zombie Jesus on a pogo stick, that's sad. I'll take some lighthearted whimsy over the "ouch, I almost cut myself on all that edge!" gritty grim darkness that dominates the artpunk wing of the OSR these days.

The only thing that keeps me from buying Wild Beyond the Witchlight is all the trouble I'd have to go to in converting it from 5e to 1e. You know, in addition to reading the module before running it. Might as well just write my own adventures at that point, given the effort required.

 

[Malmuria]

"more palatable for a broader audience" is the entire point of 5e from the beginning. Characters are resilient and do not die easily with three death saves and numerous healing options. It is a high magic game, with cantrips and character abilities that bypass entire core elements of earlier editions (like tracking light sources). It is heroic, with characters zipping past lower levels quickly and easily. That's all phb 5e.

I get wanting to play a game that is "grittier," less magical, and more down to earth; personally, I love OSR games and don't see myself returning to 5e. But all that has to do with no liking base-5e, not with any trend in their products. 5e grognardism is so silly when you look at the base game

 

[doctorhook]

I’ve mulled this “Disney-fied” critique, and I’m mixed on it. It’s hard for me to separate what I see as the shift in 5E compared to the shift in my own interests within the hobby. (I think both are shifting.)

I do feel like 5E is shifting toward a lighter, less mechanically complete vision of D&D than I like. I also dislike WotC’s revisions of classic D&D settings and hamfisted approach to canonicity. I think these factors are just me becoming a grognard lol

But also, 5E products do seem to feature a lot of cutesy, whimsical, and goofy stuff now, which used to be used more sparingly in prior editions. Is this Disneyfication? Idk, but it’s not really for me.

I am pretty hyped for that new Spelljammer stuff! It looks cool and also promises a modern take on something super different. The only reason I hesitate is that 5E products mostly leave me feeling disappointed lately… Pathfinder 2e is doing a much better job scratching my itch, for reasons I haven’t isolated.

I do feel like WotC is trying to make 5E be all things to all people, and despite their obvious success, I do think that approach is repelling longtime players like me. But again, it could just be that I’ve grown away from it while WotC pursues lucrative new markets.

 

[Medic]

Not much better from my point of view. Obviously their view differs. I still miss save or die effects.

I'd say it amounts the same thing in the end, but I dont know if 'disneyfied' has a proper definition.

I'm not awfully torn up about it, but I must confess that scrubbing away some of the grit and evil takes a little bit of the wind out of my adventuring sails. It was a reason to get out into the world and do stuff.

"more palatable for a broader audience" is the entire point of 5e from the beginning. Characters are resilient and do not die easily with three death saves and numerous healing options. It is a high magic game, with cantrips and character abilities that bypass entire core elements of earlier editions (like tracking light sources). It is heroic, with characters zipping past lower levels quickly and easily. That's all phb 5e.

I get wanting to play a game that is "grittier," less magical, and more down to earth; personally, I love OSR games and don't see myself returning to 5e. But all that has to do with no liking base-5e, not with any trend in their products. 5e grognardism is so silly when you look at the base game

I suppose that I should have specified, but I was referring to the fluff. A lot of uninviting stuff is not removed, just played down or hidden under the rug. A game can be high magic and heroic while still having such elements.

 

[billd91]

I'm very much of the C.S. Lewis mindset on this stuff. A critic that uses the word "adult" as a form of praise or any form of "this is for children" as criticism has fallen short of maturity themselves.

Well, not entirely. "Adult" as a form of praise is perfectly reasonable, but then, so is "for children" or any other formulation that targets a segment of the market.

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't say that 5th Edition's content is being "Disneyfied" or "aimed at unborn infants" so much as it's being defanged and cleaned up to make it more palatable for a broader audience.

To me the two things I've bolded here are one and the same.

I've always maintained that D&D is best designed for and "aimed at" college-age people and above, both in content and in level of writing/prose; and if kids want to play it anyway that's fine too but they're not the intended market.

Defanging it and cleaning it up just makes it boring.