Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7438075" data-attributes="member: 996">thank you?&nbsp;I'm not sure, either.The OP is just one example of an experienced player.Logically, I think, the edition was designed /last &amp; least/ for players who would have no viable alternative to switching to it - the camp of give-every-ed-a-chance fans &amp; committed apologists on the wrong side of the edition war, and the supposed majority of fans who liked D&amp;D, in general irrespective of edition (do they even have preferences to cater to?).&nbsp; Potential new players were the next-least-catered to, there's really no knowing what they 'want,' anyway, and they have no awareness of any alternatives.&nbsp; 3.x/PF fans, already catered to lavishly by Paizo, were next-most-ignored, the effort to steal them back would have been monumental, and that's Zapp &amp; co.&nbsp; Then there's the OSR crowd, also already lavishly catered to by many offerings, but possibly more open to the siren call of the D&amp;D name for it's own sake, if it's acceptably familiar - the game was, sorta, starting to be designed for them.&nbsp; And, yes, there's the vocal minority on the winning side of the edition war, they had to be appeased, the game was designed very much /around/ them and their objections, to avoid triggering them, that's for them, sorta.&nbsp; But, more so it's for the fans of 2e, who had yet to get a re-print, clone, or even much recognition or buzz around their first D&amp;D.&nbsp; When I heard the most glowing reviews of 5e at release, they very often likened it to 2e, &quot;the best D&amp;D since AD&amp;D 2e!&quot;&nbsp; They were a prime, but not /the/ prime target.&nbsp; The Holy Grail of any D&amp;D ed was to bring back the returning player of the fad years, the millions who hadn't touched the game in decades, that's what Essentials &amp; the Red Box tried so unsuccessfully to do, and had to have been a major design thrust of 5e.&nbsp; But, IM(ns)HO, first &amp; foremost, 5e was designed for the experienced, long-time DM who honed skills with the classic game, because, ultimately, that's your ambassador for the new edition, if there are great DMs running great games, the ed'll look better to everyone who gets to play with them.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And, to wrap it around, creating buzz that &quot;D&amp;D was back&quot; - back to it's old tricks, really, that the latest ed was faithful to the original, super-popular version - also had to be a selling point for the potential new player to /try/ it.&nbsp; A seal of approval.&nbsp; That appeal didn't require the game be in any way designed /for/ them, though, just that it create an image that was appealing.&nbsp; It's been up to the DMs who run for those new players to retain them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7438075, member: 996"] thank you? I'm not sure, either. The OP is just one example of an experienced player. Logically, I think, the edition was designed /last & least/ for players who would have no viable alternative to switching to it - the camp of give-every-ed-a-chance fans & committed apologists on the wrong side of the edition war, and the supposed majority of fans who liked D&D, in general irrespective of edition (do they even have preferences to cater to?). Potential new players were the next-least-catered to, there's really no knowing what they 'want,' anyway, and they have no awareness of any alternatives. 3.x/PF fans, already catered to lavishly by Paizo, were next-most-ignored, the effort to steal them back would have been monumental, and that's Zapp & co. Then there's the OSR crowd, also already lavishly catered to by many offerings, but possibly more open to the siren call of the D&D name for it's own sake, if it's acceptably familiar - the game was, sorta, starting to be designed for them. And, yes, there's the vocal minority on the winning side of the edition war, they had to be appeased, the game was designed very much /around/ them and their objections, to avoid triggering them, that's for them, sorta. But, more so it's for the fans of 2e, who had yet to get a re-print, clone, or even much recognition or buzz around their first D&D. When I heard the most glowing reviews of 5e at release, they very often likened it to 2e, "the best D&D since AD&D 2e!" They were a prime, but not /the/ prime target. The Holy Grail of any D&D ed was to bring back the returning player of the fad years, the millions who hadn't touched the game in decades, that's what Essentials & the Red Box tried so unsuccessfully to do, and had to have been a major design thrust of 5e. But, IM(ns)HO, first & foremost, 5e was designed for the experienced, long-time DM who honed skills with the classic game, because, ultimately, that's your ambassador for the new edition, if there are great DMs running great games, the ed'll look better to everyone who gets to play with them. :) And, to wrap it around, creating buzz that "D&D was back" - back to it's old tricks, really, that the latest ed was faithful to the original, super-popular version - also had to be a selling point for the potential new player to /try/ it. A seal of approval. That appeal didn't require the game be in any way designed /for/ them, though, just that it create an image that was appealing. It's been up to the DMs who run for those new players to retain them. [/QUOTE]

Verification