D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

This comment isn't directed necessarily at you Billd91 but a few people have gone DSM-5? Why would tons of people buy this?

In addition to all the reasons you mentioned - college students in the thousands study psychology, and may have this on their list of textbooks for the fall semester. They'll be buying just a touch early from Amazon to get it cheaper than they would from their college bookstores....

Heck, the product page specially points out "Free two day shipping for college students!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

the (at least to my eye) pretty clearly recognizable RPGing cultural inertia that evolved under AD&D 2e (which separated itself from 1e through it) and VtM.
I recall their being a distinct dichotomy, as needlessly divisive, and nearly as vitriolic as that of the edition war, marking (or marring) the 90s RPG community: Role vs Roll. You had the Storyteller (V:tM &c) side claiming to be real ROLE-players, and pointing to D&D as the worst example of vile ROLL-playing. The elitist philosophy culminated in the infamous "bad rules make good games" meme - the idea that, because a good enough DM could run a great game using a bad system, bad rules were actually desirable. I guess the success of Storyteller was 'proof' of the maxim.

I suppose 2e did knuckle under to it enough in the end to make 3.0's unapologetically rollplaying "Back to the Dungeon" slogan mean something.

But, if anything, that was the opposite of inertia, since it was a change in the hobby's landscape that actually impacted D&D, if only just a little. D&D, itself, though, had been practically made of inertia prior to that. D&D Inertia proved itself, again, with the success of Pathfinder, and 5e prettymuch banks on it (so far with clear indicators of success).
 

When Amazon says that a book is the #1 best seller, it means that it has sold more books then the #2 best seller. That's what ranking means. That's all you can know.



Let me point to some numbers we do have.

August 20: #1 Guardians of the Galaxy (2.6 mil) #2 TMNT (2.4 mil)
August 13: #1 Let's Be Cops (5.2 mil) #2 TMNT (5.1 mil)
August 6: #1 Guardians of the Galaxy (8.8 mil) #2 Lucy (1.9 mil)
July 30: #1 Lucy (3.7 mil) #2 Hercules (2.6 mil)

See? Sometimes #1 is way out in the lead; sometimes it's narrowly pulling out ahead of the next place.



Which jumps out as a sampling problem right there, especially as they gave you one number instead of the ranking of numbers over the time of the book holding that spot.

No, they do give you the ranking of numbers over the time of the book holding the spot.

You really should Google this and read the stuff on it, rather than guessing based on how you think it works. It's enlightening.
 

You really should Google this and read the stuff on it, rather than guessing based on how you think it works. It's enlightening.

So you're saying that despite the fact that it looks like a ranking, and Amazon calls it a ranking, it's not actually a ranking? Otherwise I stand by my statement, that rankings only tell you so much.

You'll notice that I cited those numbers, gave an actual link. Instead of waving me at Google, how about you cite your claims? That makes it clear where your claims are coming from and lets me respond to what you're working from, instead of you waving a hand at whatever I find and saying that's not what I was looking at.
 

I recall their being a distinct dichotomy, as needlessly divisive, and nearly as vitriolic as that of the edition war, marking (or marring) the 90s RPG community: Role vs Roll. You had the Storyteller (V:tM &c) side claiming to be real ROLE-players, and pointing to D&D as the worst example of vile ROLL-playing. The elitist philosophy culminated in the infamous "bad rules make good games" meme - the idea that, because a good enough DM could run a great game using a bad system, bad rules were actually desirable. I guess the success of Storyteller was 'proof' of the maxim.

Absolutely. One wonders what it might have been like if the interwebs were about back then. Having experienced it first-hand, I have little doubt it would have been as rough and tumble as the recent edition wars. It was pretty similar in a lot of ways.

I suppose 2e did knuckle under to it enough in the end to make 3.0's unapologetically rollplaying "Back to the Dungeon" slogan mean something.

But it was little more than a slogan because 3.x beyond 5th level (CLW wands and Scribe Scrolls?) wasn't particularly fit for that playstyle.

But, if anything, that was the opposite of inertia, since it was a change in the hobby's landscape that actually impacted D&D, if only just a little. D&D, itself, though, had been practically made of inertia prior to that. D&D Inertia proved itself, again, with the success of Pathfinder, and 5e prettymuch banks on it (so far with clear indicators of success).

I think its been a series of step changes for mainstream RPG culture. During the intervening periods, there has been a tendency for the greater culture to go head down, full bore in a direction and be resistant to change backwards (eg back to Wargaming from Storyteller/Gm-Force/Illusionism) and a resistance to revolutionary ideas (eg OSR culture/system and Storyteller culture/systems vs Story Now/Narrative systems...or rules-heavy vs rules-lite). Then, there is another step change, either forward or backward. Sort of like the waxing and waning of the American electorate due to party/policy fatigue.

Finally, we seem to have come to a point in the RPG marketplace where it is saturated with a fairly matured understanding of what each of us want to do while RPGing and matured systems that support that understanding. 5e's "big tent" idea (at the outset at least) appeared to have been an acknowledgement of that. However, in reality, I think that they ultimately (and likely, at least in part, wittingly) made mainstreaming the OSR (exploration rules, tables, and subsystems) and Storyteller ("rulings not rules", "natural language", impromptu DC establishment that "feels right", all serving to maximize the prospects of GM illusionism or system being subordinate to GM whim/interpretation/metaplot) crowd again a priority. They're hopeful of drawing in the rules-heavy, 3.x simulation crowd with a la carte multiclassing, a lot of system familiarity (basically a ported saving throw paradigm and familiar layout), dials and widgets for maximum crunch and "rules as physics". They're hopeful of competing for the PF crowd with robust adventure support and a "living" D&D system that looks familiar enough to what they have been playing. And they're hopeful of bringing in the 3.x disenfranchised part of the 4e player-base that only wanted a 3.x with more spellcaster/martial character parity and quicker combat resolution.

That is a pretty big book of business. I think what they have created with 5e (pending some modules) may be agile/versatile enough that they can cater to most of that crowd. What they can't do is simultaneously cater to the Story Now crowd nor the 4e crowd that liked 4e for its unique "4eishness" and not its "having D&D on the cover"; basically its amazing ability to functionally marry Gamist and Narrativist interests/ideas. My guess is that they probably have realized this for a fair stretch (or at least they probably have by now even if they were "true believers" when all the "big tent" tenets were being espoused). Which is probably A-OK by them so long as they keep getting our yearlies for the online tools!
 

So you're saying that despite the fact that it looks like a ranking, and Amazon calls it a ranking, it's not actually a ranking? Otherwise I stand by my statement, that rankings only tell you so much.

You'll notice that I cited those numbers, gave an actual link. Instead of waving me at Google, how about you cite your claims? That makes it clear where your claims are coming from and lets me respond to what you're working from, instead of you waving a hand at whatever I find and saying that's not what I was looking at.

You cited movie ranking numbers...had nothing to do with the topic, and no link that I saw even if it had something to do with the topic. You gave an example of the idea of rankings, which not only is insulting to everyone's intelligence as if we don't know what the word ranking means, but also didn't help the topic. I am saying when you look consistently at a large number of reported numbers on this specific issue, you will find the rankings for this specific Amazon rank tracking tends (on a regular basis) to be what I am describing.

You can choose to believe that, or you can choose to believe that this is some special outlier that was just edging out the rank below it by tiny numbers, in wide defiance of the broad reported averages, for unknown reasons, for 50 hours straight. But, as there is a lot of data out there, I'm going to let you choose to either research it, or not. I am pretty confident in what I've read over the years. And again, I think Hugh Howey sponsored a full study that included this aspect, so you might start there if you are interested.
 


We wouldn't be getting such a good 5e without pathfinder. Let's point that out.

I'm a longtime d&d player who lapsed in the middle of the 4e cycle. I'm not interested in pathfinder at all- I tried it and found that it took everything I didn't like about 3.x to 11. I'm NOT a pathfinder homer. But I don't see how you can deny that PF and Paizo clearly had a resoundingly positive effect on the hobby. Regardless of whether you enjoyed 4e or not, I don't think you can deny that the edition change was handled poorly- disastrously, even. Wizards had gotten complacent, and their actions bore this out-radical changes to beloved properties, much poorer support for third parties, overly negative marketing- the difference with the rollout of 3e was obvious. Paizo's emergence-among other factors- changed the environment, all for the better. Wizards could no longer count on a monopoly effect, and it seems like they learned quite a few lessons from the experience.

I say that because it seems that some people feel threatened by 5e's obvious success- yes, it might not be sustained, but that won't be the faulty of the phb- I don't think any company could hope for a better platform for future products than a book that hits #1 on Amazon. Wotc is back in control of their own destiny- what they do from here doesn't diminish what they've accomplished with this release.

And now we can hope that this works the other way- Paizo will see what works, improve on it and release a game that challenges 5e. At least I hope so- competition is a great, great thing.
 


are there seriously people who want 5th Edition to fail?,:erm: i'm getting such good vibes locally for it

There are. I don't like the game, I think it perpetuates a lot of trends that I disliked in D&D since the 19080s. I don't care enough about D&D to want it to fail, since it hasn't been my main game for over 30 years now, but I know a couple of people from my generation who have the same sort of preferences in D&D that I do, and they do want it to fail - and fail badly. Real hardcore OSR types, who haven't liked or bought any D&D material since 1990 or so, which rather suggests they weren't a likely part of the market anyway.
 

Remove ads

Top