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

[Zardnaar]

You got that backwards. Casino Royale was Bakarat when written. Texas Holden exploded in popularity so they change it for the Craig film.

I am curious why critical role used 5E if it sucked so bad? They never used 4E.

Sold so bad it doubled the rpg market year 1.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sold si bad it doubled the rpg market year 1.

At this stage the Dabus of Sigil are easier to understand than your posts

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am curious why critical role used 5E if it sucked so bad? They never used 4E.

They did, briefly, actually. But it's fairly obvious why CR preferred 5e - they are interested in performative role playing, not tactical combat (which might be fun to play, but is not a good spectator sport).

But @Tigris is both right and wrong. It's fair to say that 4e and 5e are different games: one is a tactical combat game, whilst the other is a rules-lite system that leaves room for performative role play to fill in the gaps. They are wrong to claim either is "not D&D" though. Both have their roots in early D&D, and, as a 1st edition AD&D vet, 5e feels more familiar than 3e and 4e, where the rules increasingly pursued the tactical combat aspect of the game.

 

[Tigris]

I am curious why critical role used 5E if it sucked so bad? They never used 4E.

Because of popularity or the received popularity.


FOr some time people kept saying "Pathfinder overtook D&D". Ans many believed it. Some believe it even today even if facts show that its wrong.

So they chose the game they thought was most popular PF1, but almost no one knows pathfinder compared to D&D. And then when 5e released and all the marketing made it seam like a huge success (again some people still believe this to this day even though 5e was the least successfull version) they changed to the new most popular game.


Its really not so hard. Content creators try to make content for the system they think are popular. Same with boardgames and other media. You can see that content creators for boardgames and computer games even make content about popular games they dont like.

 

[payn]

Because of popularity or the received popularity.


FOr some time people kept saying "Pathfinder overtook D&D". Ans many believed it. Some believe it even today even if facts show that its wrong.

So they chose the game they thought was most popular PF1, but almost no one knows pathfinder compared to D&D. And then when 5e released and all the marketing made it seam like a huge success (again some people still believe this to this day even though 5e was the least successfull version) they changed to the new most popular game.


Its really not so hard. Content creators try to make content for the system they think are popular. Same with boardgames and other media. You can see that content creators for boardgames and computer games even make content about popular games they dont like.

That’s not the real story it wasn’t about popularity. It’s been noted they choose Pathfinder because they liked it better than 4E mechanically. They moved to 5E afft we’re launch cause they liked it even more.

 

[Belen]

Because of popularity or the received popularity.


FOr some time people kept saying "Pathfinder overtook D&D". Ans many believed it. Some believe it even today even if facts show that its wrong.

So they chose the game they thought was most popular PF1, but almost no one knows pathfinder compared to D&D. And then when 5e released and all the marketing made it seam like a huge success (again some people still believe this to this day even though 5e was the least successfull version) they changed to the new most popular game.


Its really not so hard. Content creators try to make content for the system they think are popular. Same with boardgames and other media. You can see that content creators for boardgames and computer games even make content about popular games they dont like.

I never moved to 4e. I moved to PF1e and then realized that the 3e focus on tactical crunch complexity burned me out. I grew to hate 3.5/PF1e.

4e was more of the focus on the tactical grid style of play that left me feeling that was the only way to play.

5e felt more like 2e or early 3.0 and that brought me back.

A lot of my friends bought and tried 4e and bounced off it after one campaign. Very few stuck with it. It was just a narrower appeal although I think it would have been ideal as a game called D&D Tactics.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because of popularity or the received popularity.


FOr some time people kept saying "Pathfinder overtook D&D". Ans many believed it. Some believe it even today even if facts show that its wrong.

So they chose the game they thought was most popular PF1, but almost no one knows pathfinder compared to D&D. And then when 5e released and all the marketing made it seam like a huge success (again some people still believe this to this day even though 5e was the least successfull version) they changed to the new most popular game.


Its really not so hard. Content creators try to make content for the system they think are popular. Same with boardgames and other media. You can see that content creators for boardgames and computer games even make content about popular games they dont like.

Do you have any

I never moved to 4e. I moved to PF1e and then realized that the 3e focus on tactical crunch complexity burned me out. I grew to hate 3.5/PF1e.

4e was more of the focus on the tactical grid style of play that left me feeling that was the only way to play.

5e felt more like 2e or early 3.0 and that brought me back.

A lot of my friends bought and tried 4e and bounced off it after one campaign. Very few stuck with it. It was just a narrower appeal although I think it would have been ideal as a game called D&D Tactics.

3E was kind of a slow boil. You play basic, then advanced then some of the 2E splat so the jump to 3.0 isnt so bad.

You play early 3.0 like late 2E. Gradually you go down the internet rat hole. Most players are still casual. 3.5 lands and gradually youre at war with the system. You dont pay much attention in the lead up to 4E buy it blind. Cleaned up in some ways but new problems and its to slow, grinding and ultimately boring. Very little risk RAW. Flavours different but still tastes like ass just different.

Youre wondering what went wrong but its the slow boiling frog effect. You forgot what attracted you to D&D in the first place.

Ho back and play old D&D and everything is flowing a lot faster, nicer and easier to run. The books are ass backwards though. Clones exist that aren't ass backwards. Hmmmnn this is kinda nice.

5E lands. Hmmmnn.