You state just below, that the success of the game is not due primarily to its design, but to marketing and influencers.
Ergo, people who play (who number in the millions) broadly are more influenced to play it by that marketing and influencers than by the game itself. How are we to take it otherwise? Do you have some other definition of, "due primarily," that we aren't aware of?
Your ergo is a false conclusion. To say one thing
is not the primary cause of something
does not imply other things listed ARE the primary cause--which I never stated. I have always attributed multiple factors to the success of 5E, only one of which is design, which I've acknowledged is decent. It is impossible to know just which factor is the primary reason, or even how "primary" such a factor might be. If we could see all the possible factors in a pie chart, there might be a few that are all about the same--contributing to the bulk of its success. Would any of those three be "primary" over the other two if they are so close? Not to me. Your definition of any margin necessary to be considered primary could easily be different from mine. But I care little for aruging somantics, and if it became a point of contention with another poster, all anyone need do is ask and I'll happily clarify to avoid issues. It would be better than them outright assuming they know what I mean if there is doubt.
With respect, you are responsible for representing your own thoughts. If your representation includes an inescapable logic, that is not the reader's fault.
But my thoughts to NOT include "inescapable logic". Going back to my original response to Oofta:
So being popular is a direct reflection of how well they designed the game.
And my response...
Not really. It is popular because of branding and influencers with younger players. It is popular because the onus which once hung on the heads of those playing it is long gone. There are a lot of people out there who like other versions of D&D more or who just outright prefer non-D&D RPGs.
I wrote it is popular due to branding (which includes the legacy factor) and influences, but also:
the onus is gone (or greatly lessened depending on your experiences),
...and in later responses I include other factors such as delivery of product being more available, etc.
And this is what I mean: I write one thing, which in no way implies something else, but people (for whatever reason)
read that implication into it. I cannot help or know why someone would do this. It is not my responsibility for what they think or feel. I am clear in my writing (in general--we all make mistakes) and try to be compeletly direct. If someone has an issue they can ask for clarification--it would be better IMNSHO.
I've never said D&D (or 5E in particular) is "bad" design. In fact, in another post I said I am in the group that finds it acceptable. Could it be better (for my personal experience)? Certainly. It could be worse (like 2024 is worse for me) as well.
Yes, I understand you assert this.
Mind you, as a point of logic, this is not subject to our opinions. It is true, or it is not. The reality is not influenced by the feelings we use when knowledge is not available.
I have no idea what connection you are making to my response about this (restated in its entirety below):
Our opinions differ, which I am fine with. I've said (repeatedly) simply that IMO the success of 5E is not due primarily to its design, most of which elements are built on prior editions, but more so due to the investment by WotC in marketing, influencers, wider spread acceptance of gaming and RPGs in general (born mostly from the evolution of the video game industry), and other factors such as the availablity of gaming materials, etc.
Since we have no way of knowing definitively which is the actual truth, is is subject to our opinions. Popularity as a measure of success is subjective and since we cannot ask every single person in the target population, it is and will always remain an unknonw. The best we can do is express our opinions based on what we do know from the limited information gathered and our own experiences.
This cannot be material to the argument. If RPGs in general are more widely accepted, that applies to all RPGs, not specifically D&D. It does not distinguish D&D separate from other games, or apply more to D&D than other games. It is a rising tide that lifts all boats, not D&D specifically.
Of course it can! D&D rises when all RPGs rise. Because it has the lion's share of the market, it rises the most. This (to my knowledge--I could be wrong) was never about the popularity and/or success
Eh, that's weak. There is no real availability bottleneck. Amazon, Kickstarter and crowdfunding, online ordering, the internet, the rise of electronic formats - these are great equalizers of availability. I can go to DriveThruRPG and get surely hundreds, probably thousands of games.
Even before those, back in the age of 2e, White Wolf Games' World of Darkness line paid credible challenge to the supremacy of D&D. Making materials available enough was possible three decades ago, it surely is possible now.
Yeah, not weak.
I am (and was) talking about the availability bottleneck that most certainly did exist back in the 80s and even to a lesser degree in the 90s. Prior editions did not enjoy the same degree of success and popularity 5E due to this as a contributing factor. With each release it became less and less of a factor.
Now, today?? I agree, hardly an impacting issue if any at all. I am sure someone somewhere might still have troubles with it... or don't doubt the possibility at least.
While White Wolf definitely started to see some loving, it really didn't retain players as much as D&D did IME. Some people really loved Vampire, or Shadowrun (both of which I played back then from time to time when I wanted a break from D&D). But even then, D&D had good design and widespread appeal for a number of factors--not primarily for the design--we all know a lot of design issues exist then!
Anyway, hopefully I've made myself and my position clear.
