Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8446232" data-attributes="member: 42582">So here is what I said in my post: if I'm buying a bike maybe popularity is relevant - it can be a marker of quality for price. (Of course, it can also be a marker of branding success.)And you describe that as shrugging off some or other quality of 5e D&D as branding success. Can you see that, to me, that comes across as a significant degree of misreading, even projection? What I actually first had in mind when I wrote the sentence is that some people buy cars because of the brand. But in my post I was writing about buying a bike rather than a car. And the actual example from my own experience I was thinking of was buying a piano, where a better quality was available for a given price because a particular brand carried a premium.But you take a parenthetical remark about what something can be as a dismissive remark about 5e D&D.Some people asserted that the only reason 4e D&D sold in anything like the volume it did was because it was branded D&D. I'm sure that's true. If Burning Wheel was branded D&D it would sell better than it does. If 5e D&D was branded (say) T&T I don't think it would sell in the volume it does.It seems obvious that branding is not everything in 5e D&D's popularity. Branding is something, but not everything, in the popularity of Ed Sheeran's newest songs. But if - for whatever reason - I'm not really into Ed Sheeran, why would the fact that his music is popular change my mind?I mean, whenever I see references to music on ENworld it tends to be to either classic rock or hard rock. I don't think I've ever seen anyone reference Rihanna, or Alicia Keys, or Andre 2000, or Doja Cat, or Olivia Rodrigo, or The Roots, to drop a sprinkling of names of performers I like and/or who I've seen recently in the Top 20.Is there some secret essence to these popular acts that people who are really into guitar-based rock would appreciate it if only they took them more seriously? Or is it just a case of different tastes.Do you think that there is some secret essence of 5e D&D that I've missed, and if I noticed it I'd suddenly want to play it? I mean, I never thought that about 4e D&D when I spent years being attacked by those who didn't like it for the fact that I liked it. Why would I now take that sort of suggestion seriously in relation to 5e D&D?Do you mean 5e D&D in particular? Is 5e different in this respect from AD&D? Most of the debates and discussions I see about playstyle clashes and compatibility in the 5e context (eg optimisers/powergamers/min-maxers vs character-explorers vs instigators  vs follow-the-storyliners) all seem pretty similar to the same sorts of debates and discussions that were going on in the early-to-mid 90s.Well obviously the answer for 4e D&D is yes, given that a significant subset of groups who do this with 5e also did it with 4e.I'd be surprised if this has never been done with Classic Traveller in its 44 year history.Marvel Heroic RP doesn't use minis (but then neither does plenty of 5e play, I'm told) but it certainly supports mathematical optimisation. And can be played relaxedly, and with an eye to character development, and with an eye on exploration.Burning Wheel is going to be pretty demanding on a beer and pretzels player; and Prince Valiant has no scope for optimisation though a wargamer might enjoy its mass battle system. So that's 3 or 3-and-a-half out of 4.</blockquote>

Verification