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

[Shardstone]

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.

Again you completely ignored my point. All those narrative-heavy games take a lot of thought and effort from the player to come up with stuff. 5E is pressing a button and light RP (which isn't bad). I don't really care about what would convince you to play 5E, I'm just saying this is why a lot of casuals prefer 5E.

 

[DarkCrisis]

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.

Ease of play is something I strive for and frankly thank goodness for OSR. Basic Fantasy (D&D B/X more or less) is the best RPG $5 you can spend. It's D&D and simple. Or if you like the 5E mechanics but what something super easy and slim, Shadowdark.

5E is not the easiest RPG to play. Even now years later me and my players still have issue with all of the powers and feats and special abilities etc etc etc.

 

[TwoSix]

Again you completely ignored my point. All those narrative-heavy games take a lot of thought and effort from the player to come up with stuff. 5E is pressing a button and light RP (which isn't bad). I don't really care about what would convince you to play 5E, I'm just saying this is why a lot of casuals prefer 5E.

I tend to agree with you that the best games for casuals are "push-button", with recognizable tropes for choices.

5e does this reasonably well, yes. It could be better for that type of play, of course. Off the top of my head, stats would be modifiers (or roll under), all checks would just be ability checks (with bonuses to certain types of checks based on background/race/class), nothing like proficiency bonus so you don't add two numbers to checks, and a simplified spellcasting system without levels.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Again you completely ignored my point. All those narrative-heavy games take a lot of thought and effort from the player to come up with stuff. 5E is pressing a button and light RP (which isn't bad). I don't really care about what would convince you to play 5E, I'm just saying this is why a lot of casuals prefer 5E.

You're right, I kind of missed/ignored the point about narrative-heavy or not. I was thinking more about the rules load. However, most of the games I mentioned aren't inherently narrative-heavy (though I guess pbtA is); you can sit down and play Troika or Warlock just as casually, with no great need for narrative investment. If we're talking about Fate and D&D, I agree: You can't really play Fate without having to think constantly about the interaction between metacurrency and narrative and what's on your character sheet. But with something like Warlock or Barbarians of Lemuria, or, I'd dare say, even Freeform Universal, you can show up, roll your attacks and do your occasional cool stunt just well as with D&D. And if you feel you don't need the slightly more complex bits from 5e, you might be just as well served with one of these games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does D&D 5E have to be the biggest RPG there is? No. Or as big as it is in comparison to all the other RPGs? Also no.

But it IS both of those things. So so what?

At this point in the conversation I think a more interesting side question might be "Would (general) you be more okay with D&D 5E being the biggest RPG and market leader if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast?" Because I suspect a good number of people don't like 5E being as big as it is due strictly to a "corporation" having its foot on top of the hobby (with all the positive and negatives that come with that.) But if an independent company say like FASA was the publisher of 5E and the game was as big as it currently is, with as many employees as it has, and as much cultural cache as it has... would as many people be bent out of shape over it's size? I'm sure some still would of course... because some of those folks still wouldn't be able to find players to play whatever esoteric RPG they want to get on the table... but I do think a lot of people are just so "corporation averse" that they reflexively will say 5E's dominance is bad just for who owns it. So it's not the idea in and of itself that is the problem, but merely who it is in this current configuration.

I would love it if D&D wasn't owned by a publicly-traded company, even if said private concern was big. That's my issue with their ownership. It stifles creativity and forces a philosophy of profit-seeking over all other considerations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't think it is just semantic. There are many topics of discussion that would apply to any flavor of 5e, for example, but the assumption when you talk about D&D is always WotC. I've had people become irritated when I bring up 3pp because they believe any discussion about the game is about WotC version of it. This is why I always say "WotC 5e", because to me it is far from the only 5e, even if so many assume it is the only one.

 

[Campbell]

I see very few people saying that 5e is not a good design - only that the difference between its popularity and the popularity of other very good games is one of market fit rather than design quality. I honestly do not understand why people feel the need to put it over other games. Why it cannot just be one good game in a sea of good games. Moreover, what I really have trouble comprehending are people who treat all roleplaying games as if they were a specialized subset of D&D despite phenomenally different models of play, roles for participants, structures of play, reward models, etc.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is why I always say "WotC 5e", because to me it is far from the only 5e, even if so many assume it is the only one.

This is why it's important to point that there are a number 5e adjacent RPGs out there now. WoTC 5e is now just one brand of 5e out there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I like "D&D" (WOTC) and "OGL-D&D" (non-WOTC)

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ease of play is something I strive for and frankly thank goodness for OSR. Basic Fantasy (D&D B/X more or less) is the best RPG $5 you can spend. It's D&D and simple. Or if you like the 5E mechanics but what something super easy and slim, Shadowdark.

5E is not the easiest RPG to play. Even now years later me and my players still have issue with all of the powers and feats and special abilities etc etc etc.

As I've noted elsewhere, exception-based design can be easy and (if done competently) at worst harmless when you have a simple game; there's only so much to keep track of, so the fact there's plenty of it not made to a common metric is innocuous. Once you're starting to get into a more complicated iteration of that game, that lack of common metric begins to require keep track of more and more special-casing.