D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Thomas Shey]

Good enough for what purpose? I mean, I have my complaints about pain points in 5e's design, how short rests don't quite work and the limited scope of martial class abilities and such. But is 5e good enough to be both the most popular edition of D&D and the most popular TTRPG ever? It is both those things, and those things don't happen by accident or luck or mischance.

In part, I'd argue that like most successes, they do just that.

Honestly, D&D has enough historical weight behind it, and sufficient mindspace, that given 5e came out when a lot of well-received video let's play's were landing (Critical Role being the obvious one, but there are others), all it needed to do was A) Be D&D (which is almost synonymous with "RPG" for the general public), and B) Not annoy the people who'd been annoyed by 4e, and it'd probably have done just fine. Any virtues of design in other ways were almost gravy.

 

[darjr]

In part, I'd argue that like most successes, they do just that.

Honestly, D&D has enough historical weight behind it, and sufficient mindspace, that given 5e came out when a lot of well-received video let's play's were landing (Critical Role being the obvious one, but there are others), all it needed to do was A) Be D&D (which is almost synonymous with "RPG" for the general public), and B) Not annoy the people who'd been annoyed by 4e, and it'd probably have done just fine. Any virtues of design in other ways were almost gravy.

5e was a huge hit before CR.
Upon release it sold so well and fast it shocked WotC. Amazon ran out of PHBs in days and WotC ordered emergency reprints to fill demand. They even delayed the next book so they could stop the printer and have them print mor PHBs.

I think they even doubled the first print run, and when that sold out in days they doubled it again.

5e was a huge smash hit right out of the gate.

 

[happyhermit]

You are wrong on point1

So, I am wrong that there are many ttrpgs that have less tactical combat than 5e does by default?

You already mentioned one, so at least we agree that some exist, how many do you think there are 2? Half a dozen? A hundred? How many would it take to be "Many" in the definition you will choose to "prove" that I am wrong?

& point 2 depends on that being at least close to accurate in order to paint people wanting more as wanting an extreme... that's the problem.

Lol what!?! I never painted anyone as extreme for wanting more of something, at all. Maybe read what I am actually saying.

5e is pretty low on the tactical scale, you'd be hard pressed to find many ttrpgs that are less tactical without diving into story focused narrative games like fate & BitD where the focus is so different that it's generally difficult to even compare them

BUT I said; "Default/Vanilla 5e has more "Tactical combat" than a lot of other ttrpgs, I don't see any way that isn't true."

I did NOT say; "There are many ttrpgs with less "Tactical combat", and of course I am ignoring all the ttrpgs that clearly have less "Tactical combat". I mean, you obviously know this because you used Fate as an example earlier and now exclude it.

 

[tetrasodium]

So, I am wrong that there are many ttrpgs that have less tactical combat than 5e does by default?

You already mentioned one, so at least we agree that some exist, how many do you think there are 2? Half a dozen? A hundred? How many would it take to be "Many" in the definition you will choose to "prove" that I am wrong?


Lol what!?! I never painted anyone as extreme for wanting more of something, at all. Maybe read what I am actually saying.


BUT I said; "Default/Vanilla 5e has more "Tactical combat" than a lot of other ttrpgs, I don't see any way that isn't true."

I did NOT say; "There are many ttrpgs with less "Tactical combat", and of course I am ignoring all the ttrpgs that clearly have less "Tactical combat". I mean, you obviously know this because you used Fate as an example earlier and now exclude it.

was it not you who wrote this?

Spoiler

Default/Vanilla 5e has more "Tactical combat" than a lot of other ttrpgs, I don't see any way that isn't true.

There's this weird thing I see online a lot (particularly from fellow nerds) where we assume that if a person enjoys something, then they would enjoy the pure, unadulterated, extreme version of it more than a moderate version. In reality, I think the opposite is true and most people who enjoy a thing in moderation are less impressed by the more extreme/pure version.

The problem with claiming 5e is at or near some kind of moderate tactical middleground that would not be "the pure, unadulterated, extreme version" is that it starts out at the extreme low end of the scale & then on dmg 251/252 adds a set of tactical rules that are tactcial in name only while managing to design against tactical gameplay as if written by someone who disapproves of the very concept as an unacceptable style of play

 

[Thomas Shey]

5e was a huge hit before CR.
Upon release it sold so well and fast it shocked WotC. Amazon ran out of PHBs in days and WotC ordered emergency reprints to fill demand. They even delayed the next book so they could stop the printer and have them print mor PHBs.

I think they even doubled the first print run, and when that sold out in days they doubled it again.

5e was a huge smash hit right out of the gate.

Again, it was D&D. And the "return to norm" to a lot of players who were not happy with 4e and had not made the jump to Pathfinder (or in the case of whatever OSR folks came on board, even 3e).

To a great number of people, what 5e was selling was indeed what they wanted to be buying.

But to ignore the other factors--including, as I noted, the fact that D&D is virtually the only RPG many people have ever played--is to be hearing what you want to hear.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You use objects to represent characters and monsters?

Yep. Ever since AD&D in the early 80's.

 

[Retreater]

We always used TotM for 3.x

Too many intricacies for me to keep up with if I don't have visual representation. And if I don't use minis and grids my players' character just stand there lifeless and beat on a monster until something dies.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Too many intricacies for me to keep up with if I don't have visual representation. And if I don't use minis and grids my players' character just stand there lifeless and beat on a monster until something dies.

Honestly, I've found my sense of spatial relationships and memory for same is bad enough I need some kind of graphical representation of those in any game that cares about them in any way at all. These days its tokens on a VTT, but the principal is still the same.

 

[happyhermit]

was it not you who wrote this?

Yes, exactly.

The problem with claiming 5e is at or near some kind of moderate tactical middleground that would not be "the pure, unadulterated, extreme version" is that it starts out at the extreme low end of the scale & then on dmg 251/252 adds a set of tactical rules that are tactcial in name only while managing to design against tactical gameplay as if written by someone who disapproves of the very concept as an unacceptable style of play

Default 5e sits between extreme "Tactical combat" games and not-at-all "Tactical combat" games. With or without the rules in the DMG there are games that are more or less about "Tactical combat". You already agreed to this with examples but now say they don't count so that I am "wrong" lol. I very clearly never claimed it was at some "golden mean" or magical point between the two, that was a strawman you set up all by yourself.

So, any ballpark on how many games are less about "Tactical combat" and what sort of number you would consider "many"? Probably more fun to tell people how wrong they are when you don't address what they are actually saying but still.

 

[loverdrive]

I honestly think if you're honestly curious about what other people enjoy, you should simply ask them and then take them at their word when they reply.

Honestly, my group has had fun with PbtA-derived games, but Dungeon World wouldn't work any better for us than AD&D or 5e (less so, in fact). It doesn't help that the DW book is roughly 5 - 6 times as long as it needs to be and slightly full of jargon.

Sure, but I don't think that someone who only tried one thing can really make an informed decision about their tastes.

I can't help but notice that virtually every "how to be a good DM" video or article is basically a naughty word retelling of DW (or AW) game mastering section, and the reasons many people name for what like 5e are Dungeon World's selling points.

People who have experience with other games are surely big boys enough to pick their own poison. People who have only played D&D or want to get into D&D? No, they aren't.