D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

[Mort]

and we have newer sources which show that 5e initial sales were actially really bad, marketing just made it sound good at that point. Only 29 million in revenue from D&D in 2014 and 2015 (compared to the 15 million in 2013 the year where no new D&D book released) which is comparable to the 25 millions at the end of 3.5

This is also why it was possible for 5.24 to outsale the first 2 years of 5e in just 2 months.


At the time 5e released D&D was on life support. So they needed to make it sound like a success to not have hasbro take it away from wotc. Now years later where this is no risk anymore, they showed the actual revenue numbers last year.

Interesting, but misleading. Are you saying the numbers from Amazon were somehow faked?

2014 wasn't that long ago. I remember the popularity exploding from day one.

Now, considering where they were exploding FROM, it certainly makes sense that 5.24 would start stronger (bigger base), but to say 5e was a failure initially? Hardly, it just started from a much lower point, because things for WoTC had really sunk by then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If 5e is the ‘make every class simple’ edition, then that approach seems to work extraordinarily well…

If you only care about the short term, yes.

People keep talking about how they want an evergreen game. "All simple all the time" isn't that.

 

[mamba]

If you only care about the short term, yes.

it’s been over 10 years, no other edition came close to having good sales for more than a year or two. When does the short term end?

People keep talking about how they want an evergreen game. "All simple all the time" isn't that.

I don’t think anyone said ‘all simple all the time’. Also, a game is not evergreen when the same 500k people keep playing it for two decades, it is evergreen when it keeps attracting new players for two decades

 

[EzekielRaiden]

it’s been over 10 years, no other edition came close to having good sales for more than a year or two. When does the short term end?

Ten years IS the short term.

Have you not noticed the negative responses to 5.5e? Have you not seen how things are splintering, folks are re-evaluating their commitments, sales aren't being crowed about from the rooftops, etc., etc.?

For someone like me, who credits a lot of the success of 5th Edition to a combination of luck and timing, it's really quite clear the honeymoon is over and folks aren't satisfied anymore. 5.5e will last a while, because a (first) re-release always does that.

"It succeeded so it will always succeed forever and everything after this should imitate it as closely as possible" is a really bad policy. It screwed Disney with Star Wars. It screwed Marvel Studios (not coincidentally also part of Disney) with the supersaturation of Iron Man clones that didn't have what the original had.

"5e was a success" isn't an argument that's going to get a lot of traction with me, more or less. Sure, what's past is prologue, but things change. If you think those changes don't matter, you're gonna have to actually bring evidence to the table. I've personally seen this exact effect happen to multiple different kinds of games--single-player video games, multiplayer video games, tabletop games, even in the board game sphere.

Simplification above all was the mantra of the late 2000s and 2010s. It cut through a lot of crufty crap that had been around for a while in various media. Early on, it was mostly removing stuff that really wasn't pulling its own weight. Unfortunately, when you've removed all the crufty crap, you start cutting into the actual muscle of the game--and I've seen developers and designers do that a dozen times or more at this point. I am not one who uses the phrase "dumbing down", because I dislike it as treating all simplification as bad. But it really is the case that simplification can be taken too far.

I am very much of the opinion that the buying public has, over time, decided that 5e was simplification taken too far. Again in my own personal experience, the thing I hear from tons of people, across a wide gulf of interest, personal history, and rules-preferences, is that D&D 5th Edition does not give them enough personal expression in how they build their characters. Fluff has always been infinitely free to do whatever you wish, so long as your GM doesn't veto you. What you actually build your character with is where your choices get actually put to the test, since 5e provides no mechanical structure for any other way to be put to the test. That's where you get choices that are clearly, concretely expressing something--and giving actual feedback on that choice, rather than tying a pretty ribbon to it and moving on.

I don’t think anyone said ‘all simple all the time’. Also, a game is not evergreen when the same 500k people keep playing it for two decades, it is evergreen when it keeps attracting new players for two decades

People are specifically talking about making every class more simple than it already is. That's the essence of "all simple all the time".

 

[kigmatzomat]

As apparently the only person on earth who has had a campaign go 1st to 20 (or higher) in 2e*, 3e, and 5e, I pity the rest of you who do not know the glory of high level play.

I've done it. It sucks for the DM.

As the DM in 2 of the 3 campaigns that went 1-20something, I disagree. I had a blast both times. I relished my players freaking when I unleashed some new terror on them (usually an official RAW foe with a different description) and reveled when they beat it.

The 2e game in 1992-94 didn't have all the supplements, but there were still plenty of "complete" books over that span. Yes, I had to be sure items were appropriate for the whole party without any guidance on what that meant, which kind of sucked. 3e had magic item guidelines, which made it easier.

The 3e game started with just the PHB before the DMG was out and made it to the ELH & Bt9S. which isn't a patch on Primal Order but did spice things up, especially for the fighter.

I do miss casters losing spells from interruptions in 5e as it reduces what was a fighter-role, but 5e reducing casters' top tier spell power by 75% is a viable nerf. Since they don't have to deal with vancian prep, its a fair trade imo. It does mean every game has to have the "anti-caster" to thwart NPCs, which is a little boring.

The downside of the 5e nerfs is that 5e casters tend to find a niche and live there, casting the same spells all the time because the party has evolved aset of tactics that work. Without the spell slots or tactical options of 3e, in-game experimentation is much more limited.

I always liked it when a player said "I haven't used this spell to do this before, so this may suck or it could be awesome".

 

[payn]

I am very much of the opinion that the buying public has, over time, decided that 5e was simplification taken too far. Again in my own personal experience, the thing I hear from tons of people, across a wide gulf of interest, personal history, and rules-preferences, is that D&D 5th Edition does not give them enough personal expression in how they build their characters. Fluff has always been infinitely free to do whatever you wish, so long as your GM doesn't veto you. What you actually build your character with is where your choices get actually put to the test, since 5e provides no mechanical structure for any other way to be put to the test. That's where you get choices that are clearly, concretely expressing something--and giving actual feedback on that choice, rather than tying a pretty ribbon to it and moving on.


People are specifically talking about making every class more simple than it already is. That's the essence of "all simple all the time".

I want to agree with this, I basically do in that 5E is too simple for me. Yet, I see all the time, here and all over the internet, that 5E is too complicated. I dont think its safe to say that most people feel this way.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I am very much of the opinion that the buying public has, over time, decided that 5e was simplification taken too far. Again in my own personal experience, the thing I hear from tons of people, across a wide gulf of interest, personal history, and rules-preferences, is that D&D 5th Edition does not give them enough personal expression in how they build their characters. Fluff has always been infinitely free to do whatever you wish, so long as your GM doesn't veto you. What you actually build your character with is where your choices get actually put to the test, since 5e provides no mechanical structure for any other way to be put to the test. That's where you get choices that are clearly, concretely expressing something--and giving actual feedback on that choice, rather than tying a pretty ribbon to it and moving on.

Being a but pedantic, but 5e was an increase in complexity... from 4e. 5e didnt swing as far back as 3e's very granular crunch.

As a 3e fan (who also loves the super crunchy Earthdawn) I think in general 5e hit a sweet spot. Not perfect, but pretty good.

I think they even saw the path forward to add more build-agency without significantly increasing rules. Do you remember the cleric that had two class features that you could pick at like 3rd and 12th level and the one you didnt pick first, you got later? It was like a knowledge/caster "priest"and an armored/smite "templar" feature. You could start a holy caster and grow into laying down the smack, or start as a holy truncheon and acquire divine power.

It was brilliant. Think about it, rather than the many "gain one more use of X" you see in upper-level sub-classes, what if subclasses were 8-levels and you pick one at 2nd and the other 10th? It would let people do more customization while also staying single-class without adding a single page to the books.

 

[Zardnaar]

I want to agree with this, I basically do in that 5E is too simple for me. Yet, I see all the time, here and all over the internet, that 5E is too complicated. I dont think its safe to say that most people feel this way.

My personal preference complexity wise is roughly 5.5. Bit grittier though.

More broadly somewhere between 5.0 and 3.5/4E. I don't want to deal with the complexity of the last two again.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ten years IS the short term.

Have you not noticed the negative responses to 5.5e? Have you not seen how things are splintering, folks are re-evaluating their commitments, sales aren't being crowed about from the rooftops, etc., etc.?

For someone like me, who credits a lot of the success of 5th Edition to a combination of luck and timing, it's really quite clear the honeymoon is over and folks aren't satisfied anymore. 5.5e will last a while, because a (first) re-release always does that.

"It succeeded so it will always succeed forever and everything after this should imitate it as closely as possible" is a really bad policy. It screwed Disney with Star Wars. It screwed Marvel Studios (not coincidentally also part of Disney) with the supersaturation of Iron Man clones that didn't have what the original had.

"5e was a success" isn't an argument that's going to get a lot of traction with me, more or less. Sure, what's past is prologue, but things change. If you think those changes don't matter, you're gonna have to actually bring evidence to the table. I've personally seen this exact effect happen to multiple different kinds of games--single-player video games, multiplayer video games, tabletop games, even in the board game sphere.

Simplification above all was the mantra of the late 2000s and 2010s. It cut through a lot of crufty crap that had been around for a while in various media. Early on, it was mostly removing stuff that really wasn't pulling its own weight. Unfortunately, when you've removed all the crufty crap, you start cutting into the actual muscle of the game--and I've seen developers and designers do that a dozen times or more at this point. I am not one who uses the phrase "dumbing down", because I dislike it as treating all simplification as bad. But it really is the case that simplification can be taken too far.

I am very much of the opinion that the buying public has, over time, decided that 5e was simplification taken too far. Again in my own personal experience, the thing I hear from tons of people, across a wide gulf of interest, personal history, and rules-preferences, is that D&D 5th Edition does not give them enough personal expression in how they build their characters. Fluff has always been infinitely free to do whatever you wish, so long as your GM doesn't veto you. What you actually build your character with is where your choices get actually put to the test, since 5e provides no mechanical structure for any other way to be put to the test. That's where you get choices that are clearly, concretely expressing something--and giving actual feedback on that choice, rather than tying a pretty ribbon to it and moving on.


People are specifically talking about making every class more simple than it already is. That's the essence of "all simple all the time".

I ignore internet drivel unless its hitting critical mass.
. No one's really hating on 5.5 that much relative to other cycles. Its more indifference.

I said long ago I dont expect 5.5 to last as long at 5.0. I dont think it needs to. It doesnt need to outsell 5E to be successful. It needs to outsell 5.0 2022-24 number at least for a while.

I consider 10 years a long cycle. Only 3 editions have pulled that off and AD&D was 2 of them. Basic had lots of revisions so its s maybe.

10 years being short is moving the goalposys since the longest lasting edition was 12 years, 11 and 10 as runner ups.

All the basic line is 17 years. All the 3.X lines are 17 years snd AD&D lasted 23 years both lines.

5.5 complexity might contribute to an earlier demise than anticipated. I'm not making any predictions until year 2 or 3.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you only care about the short term, yes.

People keep talking about how they want an evergreen game. "All simple all the time" isn't that.

Basic line lasted 17 years just saying. Technically 19.