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

[FrogReaver]

That gives WotC too much credit to my mind, and in any case my issue is discussion of 5e should include all things using the 5e ruleset, and not assume WotC unless that is clearly communicated. As I said, many topics of 5e discussion do not require that you limit yourself to WotC.

I don’t think 5e should inherently include anything outside wotc’s 5e.

If you want to talk about level up then mention it by name. Same with any other 5e adjacent product.

While insisting otherwise comes across as trying to inject games you like better into everyone else’s discussions so they will talk about the games you like instead of the games they play. That never ends well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think 5e should inherently include anything outside wotc’s 5e.

If you want to talk about level up then mention it by name. Same with any other 5e adjacent product.

While insisting otherwise comes across as trying to inject games you like better into everyone else’s discussions so they will talk about the games you like instead of the games they play. That never ends well.

I'm sorry it comes across that way, but I want discussion of 5e to include thing published using the 5e ruleset that weren't made by WotC, as well as things that were. Not making a distinction assume only the latter. If you're talking about 5e and don't want any discussion outside of WotC's take on it, please say that; i refuse to assume it.

 

[Corinnguard]

I don’t think 5e should inherently include anything outside wotc’s 5e.

If you want to talk about level up then mention it by name. Same with any other 5e adjacent product.

While insisting otherwise comes across as trying to inject games you like better into everyone else’s discussions so they will talk about the games you like instead of the games they play. That never ends well.

Even when it also goes by the name of Advanced 5e?

 

[Oofta]

Just @Oofta I think. They're very sensitive to perceived attacks on WotC 5e.

I disagree with what some people say and don't mind stating my opinion. I don't take it personally.

People can say whatever they want, just like I can disagree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's also the number of players who are well familiar with earlier editions. The learning curve is a bit less steep, and they just need to learn what's changed or new. For new players, there's usually someone who can teach at the table.

That doesn't change the fact that even a moderate level spellcaster has a bunch of distinct different widgets to keep track of how they work (traditionally worst for clerics because they had all standard options, best for sorcerers since they at least got used to all the ones they had available). Whether someone can teach them or not, its still a big ruddy number of different cases.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm sorry it comes across that way, but I want discussion of 5e to include thing published using the 5e ruleset that weren't made by WotC, as well as things that were. Not making a distinction assume only the latter. If you're talking about 5e and don't want any discussion outside of WotC's take on it, please say that; i refuse to assume it.

Among other things, some material made for 5e are not distinct separate games. They're just add-ons, adding additional classes, spells or other bolt-ons that are still intended to work with the basic game. There ought to be some way to talk about that threads discussing 5e without having to make a separate thread just because its 3PP.

 

[GrimCo]

Well, we might discuss semantics. But words matter. FE If i say to someone - we play D&D 5th edition, core only, it should be self explanatory that it means- PHB classes/races only. Sorry, but Tales of the valiant isn't D&D 5th edition. It's game based on 5ed rule set, but it's game of it's own. Same like PF1 isn't really 3ed D&D. It's Pathfinder, game based on 3ed d&d rules, but it stands on it's own,

Not to quote everyone, but i saw some discussion about success of D&D. Only objective measure of commercially released game is market share and sales figures. If it sells good, it's success. It means design was good enough to convince people it's worth their money. And comercial sucess is good. It means there is large player base. Large player base means it's easier to find groups to play with. There might be better designed games out there, but what's the point if they are obscure and there are few people playing them?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, we might discuss semantics. But words matter. FE If i say to someone - we play D&D 5th edition, core only, it should be self explanatory that it means- PHB classes/races only. Sorry, but Tales of the valiant isn't D&D 5th edition. It's game based on 5ed rule set, but it's game of it's own. Same like PF1 isn't really 3ed D&D. It's Pathfinder, game based on 3ed d&d rules, but it stands on it's own,

Not to quote everyone, but i saw some discussion about success of D&D. Only objective measure of commercially released game is market share and sales figures. If it sells good, it's success. It means design was good enough to convince people it's worth their money. And comercial sucess is good. It means there is large player base. Large player base means it's easier to find groups to play with. There might be better designed games out there, but what's the point if they are obscure and there are few people playing them?

How many people have to play a game before it moves out of your "obscure" category?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just @Oofta I think. They're very sensitive to perceived attacks on WotC 5e.

Mod Note:

This post does nothing but single out a particular poster. You’re veteran enough to know that’s a no-no here.

 

[Shardstone]

It doesn't matter if you have a lot of features and forget to use them. When you play over the course of 3-4 months, that's enough time to go through and essentially find things you forgot you had and use them. And if you use them at least once, and it works out in a cool way, that's all a casual player needs to feel satisfied.