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

[FrogReaver]

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 think it’s possible for something to be a greatly designed game and a badly designed d&d game.

As @Snarf Zagyg has been pointing out - a Porsche is a terribly designed truck. The defense there is that the Porsche was never designed as a truck so knocking it for its completely subpar performance as a truck rings really hollow to most people - the only people that complaint might grab are ones that already see trucks as the pinnacle of vehicle design - as in why ever design anything other than a truck.

Thus, I think it really only makes sense to compare designs where they are trying to produce something similar. Otherwise we are just asking did the product meet its design goals (or if it couldn’t, were those design goals even practically reachable?).

At the end of the day I don’t think comparing the design of trucks to the design of sports cars matters to anyone. The starting point is do I like/want/need a sports car or a truck and then which sports car or truck should I buy/use?

Telling me that game X is better designed than d&d means jack if game X is trying to be a sports car and I want a truck.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You are playing 5E -- a rules system -- with specific rulebooks and supplements. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who says they are "playing D&D" is probably using the WotC core books unless they specify otherwise. But if you are playing Tales of the Valiant, you aren't playing "Kobold D&D."

I mean, it is all semantic and not particularly important. Usually context will tell us what people mean.

Though it can get a little fraught when people are playing older versions of actual D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be honest, when people complain about the design of something at the top of the market, I generally think they're complaining about the tastes of the market more than the design of the product.

Excellent summary! Which also explains why such comments come across offensive to those who enjoy the markets tastes.

 

[Shardstone]

Of course, if no one at the table is into rules-heavy, that means there's no reason to pick up D&D5 just to ignore two thirds of the rules.

You missed most of my point. It's not just about the rules heaviness, its about ease of play. Your bias blinds you horribly.

 

[Oofta]

I won't disagree. Still, I don't see why you have to act as if you had been personally attacked in your preference for 5e, when there's really only a difference of opinion about how important 5e's design was for its success.

I don't take anything posted here personally. Well, if it's a directed insult I guess I suppose I do sometimes but that's what the moderators are for. On the other hand, I think some things that get repeated like 5E is successful in spite of it's design is just ... I don't know ... boring and something I think should be obviously untrue.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Excellent summary! Which also explains why such comments come across offensive to those who enjoy the markets tastes.

Well, as I said before: I think that if someone's lucky enough for the market taste to coincide with their preferences, they should be generous when the less lucky act a little grumpy at times.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, as I said before: I think that if someone's lucky enough for the market taste to coincide with their preferences, they should be generous when the less lucky act a little grumpy at times.

I dunno. Considering it’s mostly the same 10 or so people voicing that sentiment repeatedly we might be way past the point of generosity.

 

[cranberry]

Good if you create 3rd party content for D&D, bad if you create content for other games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, as I said before: I think that if someone's lucky enough for the market taste to coincide with their preferences, they should be generous when the less lucky act a little grumpy at times.

You think?

I mean ... it always goes well, right?

 

[Swanosaurus]

You missed most of my point. It's not just about the rules heaviness, its about ease of play. Your bias blinds you horribly.

Maybe ... but if everyone at the table only cares for the most basic rules elements, because they can't really be bothered with the rest, I'm not really sure why I would choose 5e if I could just as well use something cheaper and slimmer that provides similar rules depths as the most basic 5e experience, like something based on Fighting Fantasy (Warlock, Troika) or a Freeform Universal game or a light pbtA variant.
I didn't mean to take away from your point that 5e may be a great enabler for "mixed group play", where some use the more complex bits and others stick to the basics. If 5e truly succeeds at that, it's a great feat. But it still wouldn't convince me to play 5e, because really, I think none of the people I usually play with would be interested in having more than one or two class-specific abilities to memorize.