D&D 5E (2024) Is There A New Sheriff in Town?

[mamba]

I still don't get why some people feel it is so important to think that "Pathfinder outsold D&D"

or vice versa, not sure either, I see this more as a curiosity, it has no bearing beyond that point

 

[Staffan]

I still don't get why some people feel it is so important to think that "Pathfinder outsold D&D" or that "Daggerheart will surpass D&D" that they'll go through all this effort to try and claim/prove it.

I think that it's not the sales themselves that are important, but what they indicate. If Pathfinder/Daggerheart does better than D&D, that vindicates the poster's opinion that D&D (of whatever edition is relevant in the comparison) sucks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t know what the point of arguing about it is, neither D&D nor Pathfinder were doing particularly well at the time, with little cultural cache and weak sales.

Well, at least for me?

This was the thing people hammered home, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

They harped on this. "D&D lost out! D&D FAILED FAILED FAILED FAILED because of 4e! 4e was the single worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so we need to NEVER do ANYTHING like it ever again!" (Which, of course, conflicts with the "What are you 4e fans complaining about? There's SOOOOO much 4e in 5e!" comments from the designers themselves, to say nothing of the ones from consumers, but I've long since stopped expecting things like contradictions to impede these "arguments" against anything and everything that has even the faintest whiff of being 4e-like.)

I've dealt with, at this point, going on like 15 near-continuous years of people actively crapping on my preferences, telling me to my (internet) face that those preferences are dumb and bad and wrong and antagonistic to the very concept of D&D and (etc., etc.), VERY specifically because of this tired myth that we now know to be false. This is a myth I've seen repeated, on this very forum, literally within the past six months. It's not dead. It's not gone. It's not something that has passed. It's still here, living with us today, used as a reason to do certain things or not do certain things.

 

[Morrus]

I think that it's not the sales themselves that are important, but what they indicate. If Pathfinder/Daggerheart does better than D&D, that vindicates the poster's opinion that D&D (of whatever edition is relevant in the comparison) sucks.

I think it's more complex than that. I've listened to some podcasts which have touched on this. Brand loyalty (or sub-brand loyalty--you get bitter divides within brands like D&D or DC etc.)

When you invest in a brand (or a sub-brand) you don't just invest time and money, you also invest part of yourself. It is part of your identity. Maybe not an important part of your identity (well, for most people) but a part nevertheless. So it's not just about the brand being successful, it's about your investment being the right choice. The success of the brand doesn't just validate the brand, it validates you. And people get really hot and bothered about it. I'm as guilty of it as anybody else--I'll catch myself defending Apple when some Android user makes a comment about my phone, before I realise--does it really matter? To me? Is it important that this person likes my phone?

You see this with the way people strenuously argue about Android vs. Apple, Snyder DC vs. Gunn DC, and--of course--D&D editions. It's a curious psychological phenomena--people turn into unpaid brand ambassadors who evangelise a brand far more than even the brand's owners do, defending it fervently, and attacking all who might oppose it. Usually, while paying for the privilege. Brands, of course, don't condone this... but they don't exactly discourage it either. Nothing wrong with an army of free zealots on your side working hard to uphold your brand's honour!

 

[Deset Gled]

(or sub-brand loyalty--you get bitter divides within brands like D&D or DC etc.)

Identity arguments can get weird. I always like to use Team Edward vs. Team Jacob as my go to example. Primarily because it's a good example. But also because it's a reminder to folks of what it looks like to people who are outside of the community.

As a side note, does anyone remember the hilarious "Dan vs Dave" commercials that attempted a corporate version of this for the 1992 Olympics asking "Who will be the world's greatest athlete?" Spoiler alert: neither. One failed to qualify and the other took home a single bronze. Dan & Dave - Wikipedia

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, at least for me?

This was the thing people hammered home, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

They harped on this. "D&D lost out! D&D FAILED FAILED FAILED FAILED because of 4e! 4e was the single worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so we need to NEVER do ANYTHING like it ever again!" (Which, of course, conflicts with the "What are you 4e fans complaining about? There's SOOOOO much 4e in 5e!" comments from the designers themselves, to say nothing of the ones from consumers, but I've long since stopped expecting things like contradictions to impede these "arguments" against anything and everything that has even the faintest whiff of being 4e-like.)

I've dealt with, at this point, going on like 15 near-continuous years of people actively crapping on my preferences, telling me to my (internet) face that those preferences are dumb and bad and wrong and antagonistic to the very concept of D&D and (etc., etc.), VERY specifically because of this tired myth that we now know to be false. This is a myth I've seen repeated, on this very forum, literally within the past six months. It's not dead. It's not gone. It's not something that has passed. It's still here, living with us today, used as a reason to do certain things or not do certain things.

People exaggerate on the internet SHOCK!

4e was never particularly popular, but then 3e was already struggling to compete with video games. D&D started to rally after 2014 because of two factors: streamers introducing the game to a wider audience, and switching to much simpler, and therefore more widely accessible ruleset. There was a mistaken belief that "more complicated equals better" but that had started right back in AD&D, and peaked at 3e.

Pathfinder wasn't "big", it's just that D&D had become small. It's comparable to games like Runequest and Traveller, which shared a significant part of the tabletop market in the early 80s (but were never "bigger"). There really wasn't much point in buying Pathfinder if you already owned 3e, yet people still feel the need to play something that is "current" rather than use the older stuff they like better and already own. It's like people want to give their money away!

If Daggerheart can do the same, and provide a real alternative to D&D, that will be a thoroughly good thing. It doesn't have to be be bigger than D&D, or kill D&D, it just has to coexist, and demonstrate that oranges are not the only fruit.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think it's more complex than that. I've listened to some podcasts which have touched on this. Brand loyalty (or sub-brand loyalty--you get bitter divides within brands like D&D or DC etc.)

When you invest in a brand (or a sub-brand) you don't just invest time and money, you also invest part of yourself. It is part of your identity. Maybe not an important part of your identity (well, for most people) but a part nevertheless. So it's not just about the brand being successful, it's about your investment being the right choice. The success of the brand doesn't just validate the brand, it validates you. And people get really hot and bothered about it. I'm as guilty of it as anybody else--I'll catch myself defending Apple when some Android user makes a comment about my phone, before I realise--does it really matter? To me? Is it important that this person likes my phone?

You see this with the way people strenuously argue about Android vs. Apple, Snyder DC vs. Gunn DC, and--of course--D&D editions. It's a curious psychological phenomena--people turn into unpaid brand ambassadors who evangelise a brand far more than even the brand's owners do, defending it fervently, and attacking all who might oppose it. Usually, while paying for the privilege. Brands, of course, don't condone this... but they don't exactly discourage it either. Nothing wrong with an army of free zealots on your side working hard to uphold your brand's honour!

This is pretty spot on for me. Ever since I backed Level Up (first time at crowdfunding anything), I feel like I have invested some of my time and money in it. I have bought several of its' books and 3pp books. And I have done a lot of evangelizing for it on some EN World forum threads. There is a lot to like about Level Up.

Which is weirdly amusing btw. What is it about Level Up that makes me like it more than 5e? It was built off of 5e's chassis, and yet I haven't really invested much in 5e except for a few books that have caught my eye, and my weekly 5e RPG sessions.

I guess it's a case of something or someone kickstarting you into doing something you have never dreamed of doing before.

 

[Corinnguard]

If Daggerheart can do the same, and provide a real alternative to D&D, that will be a thoroughly good thing. It doesn't have to be be bigger than D&D, or kill D&D, it just has to coexist, and demonstrate that oranges are not the only fruit.

I guess I am feeling the same thing with regards to Level Up.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I guess I am feeling the same thing with regards to Level Up.

Unfortunately Level Up doesn’t have the exposure that Daggerheart does.

Daggerheart is differenter anyway.

A streamed Voidrunners game would be good though.

 

[Corinnguard]

Unfortunately Level Up doesn’t have the exposure that Daggerheart does.

Daggerheart is differenter anyway.

True. It's a stealth thing for Level Up.