Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8074127" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I think it’s a mistake to attribute 5e’s explosive growth to its design alone. There were a great many factors that contributed to 5e’s success, and while I do think it’s design is among them, I don’t think it’s nearly as impactful as some of the others. The playtest period some are calling an “interregnum?” It was functionally a multi-year long 5e marketing campaign. Everyone wanted to see what WotC was going to do with the new edition of D&D.Then of course you have the advent of live streaming D&D both advertising the game and finally breaking D&D out of the “older cousin” model of intake. Before, if you wanted to learn to play D&D, you either had to figure it out yourself, or learn from an already-enfranchised player. Since 4e alienated a lot of the enfranchised player base and Pathfinder gave them an alternative that still “felt like” the D&D they were used to, which significantly limited the game’s growth. Now that streaming games are a thing, Matt Mercer can fill the role of the “older cousin” for anyone who wants to learn. And considering 4e actually did sell well, but struggled to grow the brand, I think it would have done incredibly if it had had its own Critical Role.Then of course there were factors that held 4e back, like the tragic circumstances surrounding the planned tie-in VTT.It’s obviously impossible to know how well 4e would have done in different circumstances. But it is hard to deny that it would have done much better if it had enjoyed the same beneficial circumstances 5e did instead of the detrimental ones it actually faced. How well either game has sold is therefore not a strong indication of the quality of their design.I do think 5e would be doing even better now if it had embraced more of 4e’s good design choices.</blockquote>

Verification