D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Minigiant]

Which I think is bunk. Yes, there were many, many factors that lead to 5Es success. But all the streams? They didn't get a lot of viewers until after 5E was already exceeding expectations. Critical Role for one switched from PF to D&D because it was more streamlined and approachable.

I didn''t say streaming was the only thing that propped up 5e. The total mood and technological acceptance of 2014-2022 is however huge factor.

The multitude of D&D video channels and video guides.
The explosion of meme culture
Reddit, Twitter, Tik Tok and other social media blowing up as forms of community and advice
the Big Bang Theory and other shows displaying nerds and geeks being influential and popular characters in TV and movies
celebrities being able to proudly state their tabletop hobbies
medieval fantasy becoming
popular on TV again
entire generations of gamers coming into their financial strength
entire generations of RPG video gamers coming into their financial strentgh
RPG video games becoming mainstrream
RPG video games copying D&D style adventure formats
Anime and comics of fantasy worlds becoming mainstream
VTT and conference services hitting the strides technologically.

I mean, I sent my sister a Warhammer meme. She laughed. My sister doesn't know any Warhammer products. I'm tehe only one that I know of in the family that does.

 

[Minigiant]

You’ve yet to support your claims with actual examples, and even if you do, you haven’t supported the spurious notion that a given game element not making it into the initial release but being released years later proves anything remotely related to what you’re claiming it does.

I've said the playtests had elements that the initial release lacked and rules supplements reintroduced.

For as specific example, the Aug 2013 playtest gave the Fighter Knight subclass the ability to roll superiority dice for Charisma checks and the Champion subclass Reliant Talent to standing guard. The PHB fighter subclasses lacked any direct social nor exploration subclass features. However XGTE and TCOE added subclassfeatures in other pillars.

If you look at the late playtest product, the playtest product looses closer to XGTE/TCOE product that PHB/DMG product. Therefore the claim that 5e's success is due to the heavy surveying of playtest in order to craft race and class materials only works if you base it on Post-XGTE/TCOE material.

The PHB/DMG doesn't look much like the playtest and for a long time looked nothing like it. The playtest barbarian didn't exhaust themselves. The playtest champion fighter wasn't a barebones combat only damage monster. Feats only became optional on the last 2 playtests. etc. etc.

The factors outside of game design have been severly downplayed on the success of 5e.

 

[Haplo781]

What happened is that they made the best decision they could using information that we do not have.

Hell of an assumption.

Critical Role for one switched from PF to D&D because it was more streamlined and approachable.

Nope. They switched because Geek & Sundry didn't have any 5e streams and they thought they should do one. This is a matter of public record.

Your "proof" is unsubstantiated conjecture which I can only assume is to justify your personal opinions and preferences.

Kinda ironic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've said the playtests had elements that the initial release lacked and rules supplements reintroduced.

For as specific example, the Aug 2013 playtest gave the Fighter Knight subclass the ability to roll superiority dice for Charisma checks and the Champion subclass Reliant Talent to standing guard. The PHB fighter subclasses lacked any direct social nor exploration subclass features. However XGTE and TCOE added subclassfeatures in other pillars.

If you look at the late playtest product, the playtest product looses closer to XGTE/TCOE product that PHB/DMG product. Therefore the claim that 5e's success is due to the heavy surveying of playtest in order to craft race and class materials only works if you base it on Post-XGTE/TCOE material.

This does not follow, at all.

Not everything in the playtest made it into the PHB, but a lot of it was refined and given another try later on. Okay, great. How does that lead you to “5e is only popular by virtue of lucky timing”?

Like…you know the PHB sold like hotcakes before any of those elements were iterated and then added back in, right?

What is actually indicated by all this is simply that the PHB was well suited to what the potential audience wanted, and those elements fill out the game further, but weren’t necessary. Their exclusion wasn’t so much a “mistake” or design flaw, so much as just a choice not everyone agreed with, that they’ve expanded over time to accommodate even more people than at launch.

The PHB/DMG doesn't look much like the playtest and for a long time looked nothing like it. The playtest barbarian didn't exhaust themselves. The playtest champion fighter wasn't a barebones combat only damage monster. Feats only became optional on the last 2 playtests. etc. etc.

The factors outside of game design have been severly downplayed on the success of 5e.

By whom!? Lol every time 5e’s success is mentioned it is an avalanche of voices demanding that those external factors be recognized, but I’ve never seen a single person anywhere act like they had nothing to do with 5e’s success.

 

[Minigiant]

This does not follow, at all.

Not everything in the playtest made it into the PHB, but a lot of it was refined and given another try later on. Okay, great. How does that lead you to “5e is only popular by virtue of lucky timing”?

They didn't go back after a point. There were significant changes after the last public playtest. Significant ones. And almost everything outside of adv/disadv was a late playtest choice. Going to 6-8 encounter meters was a post playtest decision. Stripping out the noncombat of the fighter was a post playtest decision.

This isn't to say 5e was bad. 5e is great. The main thing that 5e got right was tat it left openings for fixes within the system via additions. This way WOTC was able to address issues while 5e was it it's honeymoon period.

Every edition sold like hotcakes. What kept the sales going was that the environment existed to keep engagement, outreach, and community going once the puppylove stage ended. 5e had the support systems that kept it up at the times when the other editions would slump.

So when people started to say the baeastmaster ranger was bad, there were videos on how to fix it, streamers showing you how to make due, memes displaying humor over hate, etc. This bought WOTC years to discover a solution.

This is unlike something like 3e that went straight into the toxic early 00s fan arguments of LFQW and 4e;s mid 00s ragefits over AEDU..

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@Minigiant
Noone denies that 5e hit the market at a perfect time.
But 5e and how wizards handled it was the perfect game for that kind of market.

So it was luck for the market, too tgat they got the right game at the right time.

And maybe both grew because of the perfect synergy.

Pathfinder, a game that was just a rehash with dubious improvements over 3.x also hit the market at the right time. Was it luck? No. Paizo read the market perfectly and released the game, many people wanted under quite some time pressure.
Quite some achievement.
Was pathfinder special? Yes. It took the design of 3e and turned it up to eleven. Obviously that was what a majotity of people wanted at that time.

 

[Minigiant]

@Minigiant
Noone denies that 5e hit the market at a perfect time.
But 5e and how wizards handled it was the perfect game for that kind of market.

That's the part I disagree with.
I don't think 5e was the perfect game for the market.

5e's high sales doesn't mean it was perfect. 5e is very good. However you can sell alot of a very good product.
You can also make a lot of sales of average or of junk. I do it at work everyday.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's the part I disagree with.
I don't think 5e was the perfect game for the market.

Yes, sorry, I was again overexaggerating. Maybe 98% perfect.

Thing is: D&D was successful and it did so much right. And a lot of that is due to the extensive playtest.
I have DMed a fixed group for the whole playtest process and my experience seems to differ from yours.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e's high sales doesn't mean it was perfect. 5e is very good. However you can sell alot of a very good product.
You can also make a lot of sales of average or of junk. I do it at work everyday.

Even a bad or average product can be the perfect one for the target audience.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, sorry, I was again overexaggerating. Maybe 98% perfect.

Thing is: D&D was successful and it did so much right. And a lot of that is due to the extensive playtest.
I have DMed a fixed group for the whole playtest process and my experience seems to differ from yours.

I ran my base Bats vs Cats Vs Rats adventure in core book 4e, 4e Essentials, D&D platyest, core book 5e, and post TCOE 5e.
My experience is the at campaign I'm running now is closer to the playtest one that the one I ran right after 5e was published.

My experience is that the people I've DMed, played with, or talked to with are closer to the aligned with the shifted 2022 5e than the 2014 5e.

"2022 5e" with it's freeform ASI races, magic warriors, weapon mages, weird clerics, and 3rd party tactical fighters and 3rd party adventures with special rules is closer to the 5e audience.