D&D General ENWorld is better that the pundits…change my mind

[EzekielRaiden]

Its relative. Its more casual than 3E and 4E.

Which is like saying that being on active duty in WWII is more casual than being a proto-SEAL in WWII, so therefore it is casual.

It's not. Heck, it isn't even that it's closer to casual than to hardcore. It's far closer to hardcore than it is to anything actually casual. That's the point I'm making here. You can't hang a point on "but we HAVE to cater to the casuals as much as possible" in a game that actively goes out of its way to include anti-casual mechanics. Either those actively anti-casual elements should get removed first, or we should recognize that "casuals above all!!!" isn't actually the design D&D has pursued at any point in its 50 years of existence.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which is like saying that being on active duty in WWII is more casual than being a proto-SEAL in WWII, so therefore it is casual.

It's not. Heck, it isn't even that it's closer to casual than to hardcore. It's far closer to hardcore than it is to anything actually casual. That's the point I'm making here. You can't hang a point on "but we HAVE to cater to the casuals as much as possible" in a game that actively goes out of its way to include anti-casual mechanics. Either those actively anti-casual elements should get removed first, or we should recognize that "casuals above all!!!" isn't actually the design D&D has pursued at any point in its 50 years of existence.

It wasn't casual above all but it eases newer players in easier than 3E or 4E. Or pretty much any edition since 1991s rules cyclopedia.

You just don't see it because of your personal bias.
I've run 3 games for newbies and those early levels being simple are golden. Along with the starter set adventures. Around about level 4 they start picking up tge basics.

Dragon of Stormwrack Isle. B tier. Newbie adventure S tier.

That's why 5E blew up imho.

All the big selling D&D items are the easy editions. B/X (BECMI?) core outsold AD&D 1&2E combined 4.5 to 3.5 million items apparently.

Alot of that was 2 boxed sets. 81 and 83 basic boxes. Basic had 2 bixed sets that outsold your favorite editions core phb (unless you like 5E or 1E).

More complex you make a game. Less casuals. Less casuals harder to find a game. Works on videogames as well. Minecraft, Tetris, GTAV isn't hard as such.

Easy to learn hard to master. Chess, Magic the Gathering.
Easy to learn parts important.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Just last session I had to remind our fighter he had 2nd wind and action surge.

Watching them continually hit the guy I had Tasha’s laughter on instead of the other guy was painful. They got advantage and hit but the monster saved…

And our sorcerer still never remembers he has innate sorcery.

Some DMs have all the luck.

 

[payn]

Which is like saying that being on active duty in WWII is more casual than being a proto-SEAL in WWII, so therefore it is casual.

It's not. Heck, it isn't even that it's closer to casual than to hardcore. It's far closer to hardcore than it is to anything actually casual. That's the point I'm making here. You can't hang a point on "but we HAVE to cater to the casuals as much as possible" in a game that actively goes out of its way to include anti-casual mechanics. Either those actively anti-casual elements should get removed first, or we should recognize that "casuals above all!!!" isn't actually the design D&D has pursued at any point in its 50 years of existence.

Oh right so anti-casual it has more players than ever. Queue “because it was named dropped on a tv show!”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh right so anti-casual it has more players than ever. Queue “because it was named dropped on a tv show!”

A complete non-sequitur. Whether or not it is pulling people in is not particularly a function of how casual-focused the game is.

I am very much of the opinion that a game which is too casual-friendly is inherently going to do worse, not better. Casual-friendliness has its place as a useful design concern. I am very well-convinced, by multiple examples, that going overboard with casual-friendliness is outright disastrous for most games.

 

[payn]

A complete non-sequitur. Whether or not it is pulling people in is not particularly a function of how casual-focused the game is.

I am very much of the opinion that a game which is too casual-friendly is inherently going to do worse, not better. Casual-friendliness has its place as a useful design concern. I am very well-convinced, by multiple examples, that going overboard with casual-friendliness is outright disastrous for most games.

Oh I definitely had this one in my bingo card!