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

[Baron Opal II]

How did 1e differ from 2e when it comes to dual wielding?

The base penalty was much larger. However, you could "easily" offset these penalties if your fighter was geared towards a "Dex Fighter" rather than a "Str Fighter". I believe you could spend proficiencies to offset instead of learning new weapons.

It's been a while, though.

 

[Oofta]

I'm getting a bit tired of you NOT actually reading my posts and reading your own words or whatever in mine. And D&D isn't just a WotC product, right?


Read it all, ok? Thanks.


Yep, I know that.

Same reaction, sorry. Internet and Amazon were well established for 4E (at the very least). It still doesn't change the general trajectory or that previous versions di not have broad long lasting appeal.

 

[Zardnaar]

Same reaction, sorry. Internet and Amazon were well established for 4E (at the very least). It still doesn't change the general trajectory or that previous versions di not have broad long lasting appeal.

Social media was kinda new 4E.

I remember someone linked to a bad WorC video over why 4E failed. It had 40k views. After a few years.

A weekly video from a major D&D youtuuber has around double that after a week or 3.

YouTube and Facebook were new no Twitter, youtubers don't really exist yet, Instagram not sure no tik tok.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I take it forums don't count as social media for some reason.

 

[ezo]

It still doesn't change the general trajectory or that previous versions di not have broad long lasting appeal.

Since there is no way of ever knowing, we'll never know.

D&D is "the thing" now. It has good design and appeal, no doubt, but that isn't the sole (or likely IMO) reason it has the succes it has. It is standing on the shoulders of the giants that went before it, they (designers) have learned from past mistakes, while making new ones, and the industry (not juse D&D) is benefiting in general. Since D&D has the lion's share, it is benefiting the most.

 

[Oofta]

Social media was kinda new 4E.

I remember someone linked to a bad WorC video over why 4E failed. It had 40k views. After a few years.

A weekly video from a major D&D youtuuber has around double that after a week or 3.

YouTube and Facebook were new no Twitter, youtubers don't really exist yet, Instagram not sure no tik tok.

It's certainly helped, I just don't think it was the sole factor. Every previous version of D&D going back to at least 2E captured people who had played previous versions and just enough new people to not completely die.

If advertising, buzz, internet or Amazon wa enough to make a product successful we'd all be zipping around on Segways wearing Google glasses while listening on a Zune while headed to see Madame Web.

 

[Zardnaar]

I take it forums don't count as social media for some reason.

Debatable/technically true. Very few people used them. They didn't have the reach of Twitter, youtube, Facebook etc.

 

[pemerton]

It is logically consistent with the setting. Whether or not it's silly is a different question.

"Verisimilitude" = the appearance of being true or real.

That something is silly or ridiculous or strains credulity is not a different question.

Narrow or miraculous or unexpected escapes/survivals (which is what a "will to live" mechanic produces) may likewise become strained. But I think they are more plausible to begin with, and don't become as ridiculous as quickly as repeated resurrection.

I'm assuming because its an acknowledged setting conceit.

Not all "setting conceits" are verisimilitudinous per se.

 

[ezo]

It's certainly helped, I just don't think it was the sole factor.

Was anyone arguing it was the sole factor?

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to versions, I've played pretty much all of them. The earliest versions were sloppy and contradictory with some good things (obviously) but weird math for things like THAC0 and a lack of overall consistency and coherency. WotC cleaned up a lot of that with 3E and developed a solid basis. But in order to have an effective PC you really had to know what you were doing. I enjoyed it, but there was a huge barrier of entry and it fell apart for me at around level 14 or so. I gave 4E my all but it simply didn't have sticking power. I remember watching a livestream of people playing 4E early on and it was painful to watch. It was mostly people staring at their character sheet trying to figure out what they could do. It had some good ideas but it just wasn't the game a lot of people wanted and was a pretty dramatic change of direction from previous versions.

Then 5E came and it felt like they had finally gotten it right. Felt like the 3E and older games in play with cleaner math, more consistent approach and much easier to play for most people. It's never going to be everyone's cup of tea but I think it has the best overall design yet, keeping in mind all the compromises it has to make to have broad based appeal.

Of course it's not perfect, can be improved and will never ever appeal to everyone. But I still think that the design of the game is the majority of why it's successful in ways that most previous versions simply hadn't been. All the other factors (internet, Amazon, etc.) helped increase the rate of growth but the fact that there was growth year after year in the first place? That's because of the rules.