D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[Oofta]

So that's the thing, right? 5e was a rushed edition, made on a shoestring, with a bunch of unpopular last-minute changes between playtest and publication, aiming to convince the widest number of people that it was 'real' D&D this time -- whatever that means.

Having achieved financial success and exploded the brand's visibility, the obvious step would be to rework the game's design in a way that mirrors its success and its new, larger player-base. Except that they can't do that, for the reasons I mentioned above. D&D is a brand, made of more-or-less arbitrary components, and changing any of these is going to upset someone.

Was it rushed? Compared to previous editions they put as much or more work into it. They did what was, at the time, the largest public playtest ever. As far as arbitrary components, doesn't that describe pretty much every game ever invented?

The obvious steps to me are to make minor modifications because no one knows what went into the secret sauce of making 5E as popular as it is.

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair, if it really is just about preference, why does 5e's popularity keep being brought up by its proponents? It does seem to be considered a reason why some consider it a great game.

Because people overly identify with the things they like, and when people don't like something they do like, they feel like it's an attack on a portion of their identity.

And wide popularity IS a metric of quality. It's not the only metric, but it is certainly worth consideration.

There are plenty of movies that are labeled as "classics" by people who are dedicated cinephiles, but the average movie watcher has never watched, and often never heard of. Likewise, there are movies that generate billion-plus box office reviews, but are only viewed as middling by dedicated reviewers. The true classics, I believe, are the ones that are both widely loved AND viewed as exceptional by those who are the experts in the medium.

 

[gorice]

Was it rushed? Compared to previous editions they put as much or more work into it. They did what was, at the time, the largest public playtest ever. As far as arbitrary components, doesn't that describe pretty much every game ever invented?

The obvious steps to me are to make minor modifications because no one knows what went into the secret sauce of making 5E as popular as it is.

Significant elements of the game (like exploration) changed beyond recognition between the final playtest and publication. Another example is the sorry fate of the original playtest sorcerer, and its replacement by a tepid simulacrum that seemingly no-one wanted, for reasons we don't understand. Everything I've heard from playtesters suggests that WotC were more interested in making a game that 'felt like D&D' than a game that was actually good.

As for arbitrariness: no, good design is intentional. Every part of a game should be that way for a reason. In the case of 5e, the reason for many, many design choices seems to be 'it's tradition'. The entire druid class, for example, is basically a fetish. Why isn't the druid a type of cleric? Why don't they wear metal armour? Why do they use sickles? Why is the druid the shapeshifter, instead of a dedicated shapeshifter class? Because the druid is a grab-bag of self-referential D&Disms, all of which are important to the game's brand. The ranger has the same issue, only worse, because a large chunk of ranger players actively hate that it has magic (an arbitrary component that doesn't fit the fantasy), but rangers must have magic, because its tradition. That's before we get into the nuts and bolts stuff, which isn't any better.

 

[billd91]

Everything I've heard from playtesters suggests that WotC were more interested in making a game that 'felt like D&D' than a game that was actually good.

What would be the point of making a D&D game that, while it might be good, doesn't "feel like D&D"?
Fortunately, they hit both goals. 5e is both good and feels like D&D.

 

[gorice]

What would be the point of making a D&D game that, while it might be good, doesn't "feel like D&D"?
Fortunately, they hit both goals. 5e is both good and feels like D&D.

The problem is that 'feeling like D&D' isn't a thing. D&D is many, many editions of a game, all of which do different things and are at odds with each other, plus peoples' myriad perceptions of those things. So, what you get is a cargo cult based on arbitrary components. That's my whole point: D&D isn't just a game, it's a brand. The game has become subservient to the needs of the brand.

 

[Oofta]

Significant elements of the game (like exploration) changed beyond recognition between the final playtest and publication. Another example is the sorry fate of the original playtest sorcerer, and its replacement by a tepid simulacrum that seemingly no-one wanted, for reasons we don't understand. Everything I've heard from playtesters suggests that WotC were more interested in making a game that 'felt like D&D' than a game that was actually good.

As for arbitrariness: no, good design is intentional. Every part of a game should be that way for a reason. In the case of 5e, the reason for many, many design choices seems to be 'it's tradition'. The entire druid class, for example, is basically a fetish. Why isn't the druid a type of cleric? Why don't they wear metal armour? Why do they use sickles? Why is the druid the shapeshifter, instead of a dedicated shapeshifter class? Because the druid is a grab-bag of self-referential D&Disms, all of which are important to the game's brand. The ranger has the same issue, only worse, because a large chunk of ranger players actively hate that it has magic (an arbitrary component that doesn't fit the fantasy), but rangers must have magic, because its tradition. That's before we get into the nuts and bolts stuff, which isn't any better.

Playtests are to find out if people want things like detailed rules for exploration. As far as the basis for rules being arbitrary? The fact that we use a D20 was basically because Gygax found some funky dice and wanted to use them for his Chainmail system. About as arbitrary as it gets. You have to start somewhere, and you start with arbitrary ideas and then see what sticks. Some things (like the sorcerer) were likely rejected because of the feedback they received.

You personally liking something they ended up not including is no reflection on what the majority thought.

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that 'feeling like D&D' isn't a thing. D&D is many, many editions of a game, all of which do different things and are at odds with each other, plus peoples' myriad perceptions of those things. So, what you get is a cargo cult based on arbitrary components. That's my whole point: D&D isn't just a game, it's a brand. The game has become subservient to the needs of the brand.

I just had this discussion with a buddy of mine who's been playing D&D nearly as long as I have. We, and my wife for that matter, disagree. While the details may have changed the actual gameplay feels like older editions, something I can't say about 4E.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I certainly didn't ask for the Constitution Save against damage to keep a concentration spell going, it was never in the playtest and I certainly would have voted against it. To me that rule seems to be more about punishing players, than about providing an out for PCs against enemy spellcasters. If it's something to help players against "save of suck" spells, well less monsters and NPCs use concentration now with the move away from spells in monster statblocks.

 

[Mercurius]

The obvious steps to me are to make minor modifications because no one knows what went into the secret sauce of making 5E as popular as it is.

Maybe not with complete certainty, but I think we can make educated theories.

Start with the fact that its popularity is largely due to the large number--a majority--of new fans it brought in. Sure, lots of folks came back-whether people who had moved from 4E to Pathfinder, OSR games, etc, or folks that had just stopped playing--but we're not just talking about a renaissance, but an explosion of popularity. Meaning, if it was just us old-timers dusting off our dice, then we'd be talking about something closer to the 3E revival, or maybe a bit more. But we're talking about a new player base that is multiple times larger than that.

If it was just a renaissance, then we could focus on the game itself and what it does well (or well enough) to win people back to playing. We could look at its "classic" vibe that harkens back more to 3E and before than 4E. We could even focus on specific elements like Bounded Accuracy. And perhaps most especially, the more temperate release schedule (which is probably the single biggest internal factor).

But because the immense popularity is largely due to the influx of new players--Zennials, mainly--then it probably has more to do with outside influences. Stranger Things could be the single largest contributing factor; I don't know the number of viewers, but it is probably high tens of millions, if not 100 million+. Then you have a confluence of other factors, some specific, some more nebulous: Critical Role and quasi-celebrity players, the popularity of comic book movies and the mainstreaming of geek culture, accessibility and the convenience of gaming apps, as well as online gaming and lockdowns, and perhaps a kind of general digital ennui that leads young people wanting more organic, imaginative experiences.

So I think we're on solid ground if we posit that 5E is as popular as it is because of a perfect storm of cultural factors, most especially Stranger Things. Sort of like a soup: Lots of ingredients, but the "star of the show" (the meat, if you will) is Stranger Things. But lots of other ingredients, with a "broth" of a general cultural moment. And because of that, it is less so about the game itself--whether the mechanics or presentation--and more about external factors. The game itself probably helped sustain popularity, but it didn't create it. To use another metaphor, it is like a rising wave that WotC was able to successfully surf on, both because of a good surfboard (the game mechanics) and skillful surfing (marketing, release schedule, etc).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To be fair, if it really is just about preference, why does 5e's popularity keep being brought up by its proponents? It does seem to be considered a reason why some consider it a great game.

You still have it backwards. You mix up cause and effect.

Popularity is brought up, because obviously many people like it.

So for them it is probably a good game. It certainly is for me.

Or short:
Many people like the game (they probably think it is good) => popular.

I can list reasons why it is good for me:

• right amount of complexity
• easy to teach (simple base rules)
• easy to run (also over skype)
• fits well into 45 to 120 minute sessions
• nostalgia

If you followed the D&Dnext playtest, all of those points were design goals for the 2014 edition.

I am not surprised that with those goals in mind, that the game got traction and became popular.
There were certainly some other factors playing in, but for me those were irrelevant.
(I have never seen critical role and really don't like watching other people play D&D).