D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Oofta]

I think a huge part of 5e's success is that it was given huge boosts by other media. The popularity of Critical Role on internet streaming, D&D being placed in popular main stream shows like The Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, and more all contributed to shifting D&D out of a small niche group and into the mainstream.

When you add many millions of new potential players by going from niche to mainstream, you add the ability to grow your sales for a long while. The small niche group would quickly buy the books it wanted and then you didn't need a second or third PHB or DMG unless you destroyed yours somehow.

It's entirely possible that 3e would have done as well or better if it had been the edition released as D&D went mainstream. Or maybe it wouldn't have. There's no real way to know. That 5e is a well made game doesn't mean that the quality is the primary reason for 5e's success. For sure it's a big reason, but we don't really know where it ranks with the other large variables involved.

I don't think 3E could ever have done as well as 5E. There was too much of a barrier to entry for effective characters and the game fell apart at higher levels. Both of those issues have, by and large been fixed. I enjoyed 3E, but then again, I like reading through options and figuring out combinations that will work well even if I don't consider myself a power gamer.

Since PF was basically D&D 3.75, if it had really worked for people I see no reason why it would not have taken off.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think 3E could ever have done as well as 5E. There was too much of a barrier to entry for effective characters and the game fell apart at higher levels. Both of those issues have, by and large been fixed. I enjoyed 3E, but then again, I like reading through options and figuring out combinations that will work well even if I don't consider myself a power gamer.

That's a matter of opinion. Having played high level in 3e a LOT and in 5e a decent number of times, 3e was easier and more enjoyable for me to both play in and run. Did it take more work to balance things out? Sure. But it was worth it. On the 5e side of things, the severe lack of high level D&D creatures that aren't some form of evil planar creature, dragon or giant is a huge detriment for me. I don't have time to create new monsters, so I have to rely on ones that are already out there.

Since PF was basically D&D 3.75, if it had really worked for people I see no reason why it would not have taken off.

At least two big reasons. 1) Timing. Unlike 5e, Pathfinder came before the great normalization. 2) The name. Despite effectively being 3.75e, people new to the game wouldn't know that, unlike with 5e.

 

[Mort]

Since PF was basically D&D 3.75, if it had really worked for people I see no reason why it would not have taken off.

If I recall correctly, Pathfinder did, very briefly, overtake D&D (4e) in sales. But then 5e came out and that was that

For me personally, 5e fixed many of the issues I had with 3e, while PF exasperated them (and PF2 went in the exact opposite direction of my preferences). I suspect I wasn't alone.

 

[Mort]

That's a matter of opinion. Having played high level in 3e a LOT and in 5e a decent number of times, 3e was easier and more enjoyable for me to both play in and run. Did it take more work to balance things out? Sure. But it was worth it. On the 5e side of things, the severe lack of high level D&D creatures that aren't some form of evil planar creature, dragon or giant is a huge detriment for me. I don't have time to create new monsters, so I have to rely on ones that are already out there.

Interesting, I've DMd both through 20th level.

I'm fine playing both at any level. But while I gladly DM high level 5E, I would only DM mid/high level 3.5 with extreme reluctance. It started to become a hair pulling unfun experience for me.

 

[Oofta]

Interesting, I've DMd both through 20th level.

I'm fine playing both at any level. But while I gladly DM high level 5E, I would only DM mid/high level 3.5 with extreme reluctance. It started to become a hair pulling unfun experience for me.

The divide between martials and casters was much, much more pronounced in 3E. At around 14-15th level, an effectively built caster dominated the game. Meanwhile, I had martial characters that up until that point that was simply leaps and bounds more effective than almost every other PC without using edge case exploits.

I've run and played 5E to 20th level now, it's easier to DM than even medium high level 3E was for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you doing a review? As far as reviews go, I base my decision on the reviewer and what they say. A lot of movie critics evaluate what they see based on criteria that I simply don't care about and the movies they recommend bore me to death. They throw around words (much like wine Sommeliers just make up terms to describe wine) that they learned that sound amazing. But end of the day? I go to movies to be entertained, not to analyze how the movie was shot or the deep undercurrents of tension. I'll take popular and increases in box office after the first showings over a lot of critic reviews. Because people have indicated with their time and money that the movie is worthwhile at least to them. Aggregate opinions are more important than individual opinions.

Popularity doesn't mean I'll like a movie, I thought the Matrix movies were kind of stupid, but it will get me to give it a second look. Lot more than some arthouse film that will make me fall asleep halfway through.

I listen to people I trust, usually those whose recommendations have panned out for me in the past. This usually means people I know personally. Otherwise I make my own choices without advice. I read reviews because I want to know about the thing being reviewed, the reviewers opinion of it is usually irrelevant to me.

The only thing popularity has to do with it is increasing the possibility of something being brought to my attention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All you've made clear is that you ignore any and all contraindications that your conclusions have no basis. You're ignoring that all the advertising, legacy and tradition, D&D has certain built in advantages. Those advantages did not make the previous 3 versions successful after initial adoption. That many of the things you claim have made 5E successful also apply to every other TTRPG.

So yes, you've made your position clear. I just disagree and as far as I can tell so do millions of other people. I know everyone I currently play D&D with (close to 20) would disagree.

Original and Basic together lasted about 16-17 years (original box to Rules Compendium). 1e lasted about 10 years or longer. 2e lasted 10 years (and both 1e and 2e shared like 90% of a ruleset). 3e/3.5 lasted 8 years, longer if you count Pathfinder, admittedly shorter if you separate 3.0 and 3.5 (which is a valid take). 4e lasted about 5-6 years. So far, 5e has lasted 10 years.

How long does an edition have to be actively in print for it to count as a success by your standards?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was initially successful and then demand dropped off rapidly. Why do you think they came out with 3.5 and 4E? For that matter why do you think they replaced 4E quickly but have only done a minor update a decade after 5E came out?

But ... this is what I'm talking about. You posit something that simply is not true as support for your claims and then state that I'm not reading what you say. So ... yeah. Have fun!

One could argue that 2e was a minor update a decade after 1e came out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If meeting design goals means selling well, I think the best selling TTRPG of all time means they met their goal.

Its a--take.

And? Why make radical changes if it's not broken?

Because you could end up with a better game that sells even better, if we're still just paying attention to financial success.

A rising tide lifts all boats. There's never been a better time to create a new game with things like funding from Kickstarter and ease of sales with the internet as well as how easy it is to find other people who want to play the same game with several VTT options out there. We have yet to see a significant competitor from a sales standpoint.

If it increases everyone's sales by 200%, the game that already starts out with 1000% of the sales is still going to be in front.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think 3E could ever have done as well as 5E. There was too much of a barrier to entry for effective characters and the game fell apart at higher levels. Both of those issues have, by and large been fixed. I enjoyed 3E, but then again, I like reading through options and figuring out combinations that will work well even if I don't consider myself a power gamer.

Since PF was basically D&D 3.75, if it had really worked for people I see no reason why it would not have taken off.

...it did take off, for a good while.

Again, what does a game need to do to count as a success to you? Sell as well as D&D 5e?