D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Remathilis]

All I know is that this weekend, I'm playing WotC Tales of the Valiant.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know about that. 4e was widely perceived (fairly or not) as bringing Word of Warcraft to D&D, and there was a reaction against it (fair or not) that computer games and tactical combat was not really what the game was all about. 5e was a return to roots of sorts, with some nods to 3e that was fully embraced, along with the wave of the internet (Critical Role, YouTube, Wil Wheaton), and Hasbro's global reach. All these together were instrumental to 5e's success.

5E early on was performing typically well for D&D. it reclaimed the mantle from Pathfinder and it was selling pretty good, probably even better than expected, but it was not this monstrous success we see today. THAT was the result of elements well beyond WotC's control.

 

[Swanosaurus]

I don't know about that. 4e was widely perceived (fairly or not) as bringing Word of Warcraft to D&D, and there was a reaction against it (fair or not) that computer games and tactical combat was not really what the game was all about. 5e was a return to roots of sorts, with some nods to 3e that was fully embraced, along with the wave of the internet (Critical Role, YouTube, Wil Wheaton), and Hasbro's global reach. All these together were instrumental to 5e's success.

Though most of this is somehwere between "design" and "brand identity". It was obviously important that D&D5 was a well designed-game, but it also had to be the right kind of design that sends the right message; because D&D4 sent the wrong message. If D&D5 is 10 times more succesful than D&D4, that doesn't mean that it is 10 times better designed; it just means that its design didn't hamper it in tapping into far more important marketing factors like nostalgia or "identity as pen&pater gamers, ot computer gamers". Simiarly, if D&D is 100 times more succesful than, let's say, The One Ring (I'm just picking numbers here, so be lenient if I get them totally wrong), it doesn't mean that it's a 100 times better designed.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's core is very well designed. Some of its components are a little wobbly, and its CR/XP/Encounter system is bonkers. It is missing some components of D&D that I prefer to have, but that doesn't make the design bad, just incomplete.

Why do epople think i said 5E was not well designed, or even not good? I did not say that.

@Oofta and I read a few of your posts as seeming to imply that, so instead of presuming I thought it would be best to ask.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Those were all USA things, mostly in the 80s. I was more aiming how well known D&D was even in geek circles outside USA/Canada and maybe UK. Like continental Europe, Latin America, developed Asian countries etc. Cause today, with globalization and instant communication channels via internet, D&D as a brand is recognizable around the world.

WotC era of D&D coincides with proliferation of internet.

All in all, love it or hate it, but they played their cards right and D&D became industry leader. Like someone said, it's Coca- Cola of TTRPGs. Love or hate it, but mass market appeal and recognition is there.

Just so you understand the history, from the wiki:

The game had more than three million players around the world by 1981,[175] and copies of the rules were selling at a rate of about 750,000 per year by 1984.[176] Beginning with a French language edition in 1982, Dungeons & Dragons has been translated into many languages beyond the original English.[71][73] By 1992, the game had been translated into 14 languages and sold over 2 million copies in 44 countries worldwide

I'm not disputing that it has grown exponentially since then under WOTC/Hasbro and that the company made some good decisions for the brand, just that it was pretty damn big under TSR back in the day. The game was every bit as huge in the UK as it was in the US. You can count the TSR days as another reason for today's brand recognition -- it didn't start with WOTC.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed.

Popularity can't be used to prove that the design is actively excellent, unless one is making the argument that the only valid critical criterion is popularity. And I don't think most people agree with that.

But, one can argue that the popularity indicates that the design certainly isn't actively bad, and must at least hit the floor of "pretty good". Otherwise, you're arguing that mass popularity is completely insensitive to design quality, which I don't think most people agree with either.

Right. I think we can go a bit further on your first point. Popularity can still be a criteria without being the only criteria.

 

[FrogReaver]

5E early on was performing typically well for D&D. it reclaimed the mantle from Pathfinder and it was selling pretty good, probably even better than expected, but it was not this monstrous success we see today. THAT was the result of elements well beyond WotC's control.

Might have had something to do with the ‘big tent’ design goals?

 

[Oofta]

For the record: I can't find Reynard suggesting anything like this at all. They just claimed that the system design is not the reason for D&D's current success. They may be right or wrong, but either way, it doesn't mean "D&D5 is badly designed", and it certainly doesn't mean "if you think you're having fun playing that game, you're wrong." It could just as well mean "D&D5 is a really well-designed RPG, but I think it's success is due to other factors", which would make a lot of sense to me, because a) D&D5 seems to be well-designed, and b) there's a lot of well-designed RPGs that aren't remotely as succesful as D&D5; so if it is all about design, how can that be? There MUST be other factors that are a lot more important. If there was a linear relation between the good design of an RPG and it's success, D&D would have to be, what, 1000 or 10000 times better designed then the next contender?

I tired of the 5E is a mediocre game and that the rules has little to do with it's success. Typically followed up by "But Stranger Things! Critical Role!" Which, true those things certainly didn't hurt. But 5E was growing rapidly before Stranger Things and D&D during previous editions had just as much exposure over the years in entertainment such as The Big Bang Theory. Mercer and company switched to 5E from PF because they felt 5E flowed better, which is a big selling point of the game.

Are there many factors to 5E's success? Of course. But if it were a poorly designed game, I see no way it would see the continued growth. All the pieces were there for 4E, there wasn't a sudden cultural revolution over the course of a couple of years.

You could do that, but that would be on you since I did not say a single thing about liking 5E or whether 5E was fun. You're erecting a strawman.

If you want to claim that the media attention, streaming, and the pandemic did not have a major impact on 5E's popularity, you are welcome to do that.

You literally stated

5E's success is not really attributable to its design...

I disagree. It's a fun game, easy to pick up, enjoyed by people I never would have expected to play the game. The popularity I've seen has everything to do with it's design. I play games, tabletop games in particular, as a social activity and one that I enjoy. Are there other factors? Of course. I never said otherwise.

The entire goal of the game is to be a fun group activity. You can't separate the two. Design and the results of the design when played at the table go hand in hand. D&D 5E was able to take advantage of a number of factors by producing a game that is easy to get into and that people enjoy playing.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Though most of this is somehwere between "design" and "brand identity". It was obviously important that D&D5 was a well designed-game, but it also had to be the right kind of design that sends the right message; because D&D4 sent the wrong message. If D&D5 is 10 times more succesful than D&D4, that doesn't mean that it is 10 times better designed; it just means that its design didn't hamper it in tapping into far more important marketing factors like nostalgia or "identity as pen&pater gamers, ot computer gamers". Simiarly, if D&D is 100 times more succesful than, let's say, The One Ring (I'm just picking numbers here, so be lenient if I get them totally wrong), it doesn't mean that it's a 100 times better designed.

I can get on board with that. The game needed to tread a fine line between nostalgia and game design, and I think 5e successfully thread the needle. Not the best design in general, but perhaps the "perfect" design (so far, and sales-wise, and for the D&D audience) for the D&D "brand."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Agreed.

Popularity can't be used to prove that the design is actively excellent, unless one is making the argument that the only valid critical criterion is popularity. And I don't think most people agree with that.

But, one can argue that the popularity indicates that the design certainly isn't actively bad, and must at least hit the floor of "pretty good". Otherwise, you're arguing that mass popularity is completely insensitive to design quality, which I don't think most people agree with either.

I think that there is an essential problem with this analysis (and with what @Reynard is presupposing).

Design does not exist in a vacuum. Design has a purpose. In other words, something can be perfectly designed (in some abstract sense) but not be well-designed for a particular use, or for the market.

Imagine the car market in the United States. I can rightfully say that the Porsche 911 manual coupe is a beautifully designed car in the abstract, and even for me. I could argue that it's a much better designed vehicle than the Ford F-150.

But for a variety of reasons, the Ford F-150 is a better-designed vehicle for the American market, in terms of consumer preferences. It's a pickup truck, which people like. It's an automatic transmission. It's less expensive. It has better cupholders. And so on.

This isn't to say that the design of 5e is perfect, but when people argue about the design of 5e vis-a-vis other games, they often forget two major things-

1. It's not designed to be any TTRPG. It's designed to be the current version of D&D, which has it's own advantages, and drawbacks, when it comes to designing the product.

2. It's designed to be as widely appealing as possible, not to be the "best" or most "cutting-edge" or controversial. That's why, for example, the designers approached 5e (and the most recent revision) with a lot of humility, sacrificing aspects that might be "better" to the designers in order to appeal to more people.

A lot of the time, I think that people forget that designing a product, especially a mass-market product, necessarily involves compromises. To quote Hemingway, "Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place then come down and shoot the survivors."