Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9486117">Then we sit in very different places.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />The discussion was on the popularity and sucess of 5E being due primarily to its design. I disagreed that is not its primary source, and there are in fact several contributing factors. IIRC (though I could be wrong), I think someone even said something about it being the most popular and successful edition yet. There is no arguing that simply due to the raw numbers we have, but claiming its design is the primary cause is up for debate when so many other factors add to it.Also, 5E's success compared to what? To something like 2E, which was also successful. However, 2E did not have all the benefits 5E is (and has been) banking on regularly: more widespread marketing, influencers, commonplace availability, disccusion boards, forum, the Internet explosion in general, video game saturation for fantasy, acceptance of RPGing, etc.To a much lesser degree, but in some cases none whatsoever, 2E did have these things. My point was just this: if 2E, with its design, had all the advantages 5E has NOW, it would probably rival it or maybe even surpass it in popularity and success. It also had great design, improving on (what was widely recognized as) the flaws of 1E.5E's design, while overall good, certainly contributes to its success, but I cannot personally feel it is the primary reason given the strength of all the other contributing factors. Design is certainly one of the leading factors, since I do feel even myself it has some good design, but even this is widely attributed to design elements from prior editions--which like 2E--were honed based on feedback from those editions.</blockquote>

Verification