Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8731970" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So ... it's not that I necessarily disagree with you. But I also think that there are a few unstated premises in your statements that I think might be helpful to understand to see if your suggestions really argue for broader appeal!Statement 1My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up.Unstated premise: Focusing on &quot;newbies&quot; is not &quot;broad appeal.&quot;My thought- There's a reason that most companies, in most categories, focus their efforts on young people (&quot;newbies&quot;). They are trying to form associations for life. Heck, most &quot;grognards&quot; today were introduced to the game when they were teens/tweens. So yeah, while not exactly the same as &quot;broad appeal&quot; I would say that the design decisions will always focus on &quot;newbies&quot; first. Statement 2Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.Unstated premise: modern design is necessary for broad appeal.This is really a core issue. Some aspects of modern design are good, and some are ... less well-suited for a &quot;traditionalist&quot; game with broad appeal like D&amp;D (a so-called &quot;big tent game&quot; with lots of different types of players). In other words, this was likely a deliberate choice- there are aspects of &quot;modern design&quot; that will never be a part of the game (just like there are aspects of modern design that are incorporated into the game). It's one of those difficult things- obviously, absent a counterfactual, you can't know what &quot;better system&quot; would have done as well. But not everything that is &quot;better&quot; (in terms of quality of product for some) is necessarily &quot;better&quot; in terms of the product's broad appeal or use to bring in &quot;newbies.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8731970, member: 7023840"] So ... it's not that I necessarily disagree with you. But I also think that there are a few unstated premises in your statements that I think might be helpful to understand to see if your suggestions really argue for broader appeal! [U]Statement 1[/U] [I]My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up.[/I] Unstated premise: Focusing on "newbies" is not "broad appeal." My thought- There's a reason that most companies, in most categories, focus their efforts on young people ("newbies"). They are trying to form associations for life. Heck, most "grognards" today were introduced to the game when they were teens/tweens. So yeah, while not exactly the same as "broad appeal" I would say that the design decisions will always focus on "newbies" first. [U]Statement 2[/U] [I]Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.[/I] Unstated premise: modern design is necessary for broad appeal. This is really a core issue. Some aspects of modern design are [I]good[/I], and some are ... less well-suited for a "traditionalist" game with broad appeal like D&D (a so-called "big tent game" with lots of different types of players). In other words, this was likely a deliberate choice- there are aspects of "modern design" that will never be a part of the game (just like there are aspects of modern design that are incorporated into the game). It's one of those difficult things- obviously, absent a counterfactual, you can't know what "better system" would have done as well. But not everything that is "better" (in terms of quality of product for some) is necessarily "better" in terms of the product's broad appeal or use to bring in "newbies." [/QUOTE]

Verification