TheRPGSite

It seems pretty clear that D&D 5e is doing spectacularly well, and is more popular than ever, maybe than D&D has ever been in terms of raw numbers of people playing.

But is this a fad? Are a bunch of people playing now because of Stranger Things and other nostalgic nods to D&D, and will that pass?

I think it's the other way around. It took a few generations to bring creators into mass media that were D&D players in order to do the necessary nods in their tv shows, books, and so forth.

5E was engineered to be what it is now. There's also a lot of clever cross-licencing involved with D&D (board- and videogames) and you can feel the bleedover of its popularity in other mass media.

Peak mainstream nerd culture certainly helped it too and the acknowledgment of journalists, that it all started with D&D.

What I'm saying, is, that a lot of individual factors fell into place. Some of it deliberately.

Is it a fad? I'd say no. But it won't maintain its peak forever. That's how it always goes.

I think 5e is primarily a gateway game. I notice that people tend to move on to other games even if 5e was their first.

That doesn't mean 5e won't stay the most popular. It's probably bringing in more new people than it loses and retention for RPGs in general is poor. It's a difficult hobby to have.

The current spike very well may be; the hobby does tend to cycle a bit in terms of popular consciousness. WotC seems to have figured out how to ride this spike better than TSR did in the 80s or they did themselves with the 3E launch, but all things pass.

  It won't die unless something dramatically better at filling the niches comes along (and if MMOs haven't done that, I'm not sure what could), but it will probably recede again in time.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1048613It won't die unless something dramatically better at filling the niches comes along (and if MMOs haven't done that, I'm not sure what could), but it will probably recede again in time.

Also keep in mind that the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons" carries a lot of weight in terms of name recognition. Folks may not have heard of Pathfinder or Castles & Crusades or DCC RPG, but they've all heard of D&D.

having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

How are you defining Feat Bloat?

5e has no feat chains / prerequisites.
5e has and is intended to have fewer feats than 4e or 3.5e.
I think characters should have no more than 6 feats at maximum level (unless there are specific classes granting extra feats?).
Feats are GM-optional, so a campaign can be "by-the-book" without having them at all.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

Nope. You can choose between taking a feat or attribute boost every four class levels, the fighter being the exception as always. Technically, feats are optional in 5E, though I have yet to see a GM that didn't use them.

I suspect there is somewhat of a fad running on top of real interest and popularity--mixed in with people who simply want to try it, some of whom will lose interest over time--and the whole business having network effects as well.  I don't know how one would begin to tease out the proportions of each factor.  Or if it would matter, if you could tease them out.  If a fad causes a network effect that keeps other people interested in trying the game, for example, the results are the same in the long run.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

I've had 20+ characters, currently ranging in levels from 2nd to 9th.  I allow feats, including the "variant human" that can take one at 1st level.  The feats are solid options.  The mix of characters and levels translates to around 40+ opportunities to take feats.  Three characters have taken one feat each.  It may increase somewhat at higher levels, but I seriously doubt most characters will take more than 1.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

Feats in 5e are a means to customize your character a bit and give your character concept some mechanical consequences. They are not an entire complex optimization mini-game in themselves like they used to be.

Quote from: finarvyn;1048617Also keep in mind that the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons" carries a lot of weight in terms of name recognition. Folks may not have heard of Pathfinder or Castles & Crusades or DCC RPG, but they've all heard of D&D.

My players all call our games "D&D" even though I'm the only one who has ever played D&D. (And our home brew is not D&D.)

I wouldn't think 5E is anymore of a fad than D&D in general. Doesn't appear to be trending that way.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1048628I suspect there is somewhat of a fad running on top of real interest and popularity--mixed in with people who simply want to try it, some of whom will lose interest over time--and the whole business having network effects as well.  I don't know how one would begin to tease out the proportions of each factor.  Or if it would matter, if you could tease them out.  If a fad causes a network effect that keeps other people interested in trying the game, for example, the results are the same in the long run.

That is my take as well. People have heard that 'that D&D thing' is back and a big deal and are checking it out, but that doesn't change that major changes to the business have changed ('everyone's a geek now' is kind of a forgone conclusion in the era of Marvel blockbusters, and WotC is making a 'market to the casual gamer rather than the die-hard' push that I think would benefit them even if there were no Stranger Things or anything else).

Quote from: finarvyn;1048617Also keep in mind that the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons" carries a lot of weight in terms of name recognition. Folks may not have heard of Pathfinder or Castles & Crusades or DCC RPG, but they've all heard of D&D.

I suspect that what would replace current spike D&D would be future D&D, be that 5th edition or 6th, and the real question is if 10-year-from-now TTRPG is highly popular or more like during the non-fad 'holding pattern' eras like we're currently leaving.

If it was a fad it would have disappeared two years ago.

I think the reference to Stranger Things is a bit of a red herring. 5e was going to come out regardless of other factors, and be popular because of its mechanical accessibility.

What is different is the general acceptance of geek / nerd culture via Marvel movies, Settlers of Catan, etc. There has been mutual reinforcement because of the 1980s nostalgia kick, but that has as much to do with music (lots of 80's bands have been returning to the road in the past few years) as TV shows.

There has also been a virtuous circle of women joining in, because the game is accessible and their (female) friends are playing, and that has helped boost the numbers.

No, it's not a fad. Tabletop gaming has gone mainstream, and D&D's strong brand name in geek culture means it's enjoying a genuine upsurge in popularity. Will some of the bloom come off the rose when live streaming (which I do think might be a fad) fades in popularity? Probably. But the main trends making tabletop gaming more popular won't go away.

The biggest threat I see to D&D 5E's sustained popularity may be it's complexity. While it isn't especially complex by the standards of traditional RPGs, 5E is still more complicated than even heavy boardgames. When you're reaching into the non-hardcore gamer market, as D&D is now, you really have to make accessibility your overriding design principle. It wouldn't shock me to see some sort of stripped-down, basic edition of D&D released. But it won't be marketed as a kiddie or beginner game, it'll be D&D Core or something like that, and it'll be compatible with 5E adventures.

Quote from: Haffrung;1048651It wouldn't shock me to see some sort of stripped-down, basic edition of D&D released. But it won't be marketed as a kiddie or beginner game, it'll be D&D Core or something like that, and it'll be compatible with 5E adventures.

You know they already did that?

Quote from: HaffrungIt wouldn't shock me to see some sort of stripped-down, basic edition of D&D released. But it won't be marketed as a kiddie or beginner game, it'll be D&D Core or something like that, and it'll be compatible with 5E adventures.

Quote from: S'mon;1048656You know they already did that?

S'mon, I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is the Starter Set (ref (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/rpg_starterset)) - but that is clearly intended as a beginner game rather than a working version. There is also the Basic Rules (ref (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)), but that is a free PDF and doesn't seem to be intended as a working commercial game.

I think Haffrung is suggesting there be a fully viable commercial product that is compatible but much simpler. It's a little tricky to be fully compatible, I think, particularly because of spells, items, and monsters. But I think it's an interesting idea.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1048606I think 5e is primarily a gateway game. I notice that people tend to move on to other games even if 5e was their first.

That doesn't mean 5e won't stay the most popular. It's probably bringing in more new people than it loses and retention for RPGs in general is poor. It's a difficult hobby to have.

And that's a great place for the market leader to be for the health of the TTRPG industry. No one else has the $ & name recognition to appeal much to people who aren't already TTRPG gamers.  

And frankly - that's the way most markets dominated by a single product tend to work.  The market leader focuses their marketing on expanding the market, because they know that every person that comes into the market has a very good chance of picking their product, plus none of their competition doesn't have enough market share to be worth stealing it.

Everyone else tries to focus on stealing from the market leader - which isn't bad of the market either, as those unhappy with D&D will find a niche they prefer rather than leaving the market entirely - and potentially going back to D&D occasionally - so not all bad for WoTC either.

It's not a fad, but it will pass in time.  Until it gets reinvented, then it might take off again.  Who knows?  Should be a fun ride finding out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048600It seems pretty clear that D&D 5e is doing spectacularly well, and is more popular than ever, maybe than D&D has ever been in terms of raw numbers of people playing.

But is this a fad? Are a bunch of people playing now because of Stranger Things and other nostalgic nods to D&D, and will that pass?

D&D is a religion is all. See geek cultures.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1048677D&D is a religion is all. See geek cultures.

    No wonder I'm not clicking with the game--I have a religion, and don't need another one, especially not the bizarre variations of existentialist will-to-power thinking, Neutralist Symbiotic Henotheism, and rampant progressivism that inform most of the various streams of D&D. :D

Quote from: jhkim;1048661There is also the Basic Rules (ref (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)), but that is a free PDF and doesn't seem to be intended as a working commercial game.

Works fine, you just have to print the pdfs. Can be used with any number of 5e commercially published adventures.

Quote from: jhkim;1048661There is also the Basic Rules (ref (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)), but that is a free PDF and doesn't seem to be intended as a working commercial game.

Quote from: S'mon;1048686Works fine, you just have to print the pdfs. Can be used with any number of 5e commercially published adventures.

The Basic Rules is a free subset of the Player's Handbook - where the main thing missing is the a number of races, classes, and spells. It doesn't have any significant simplifications - for example, there are still opportunity attacks and most other complexities. For potential players who are put off by the complexity of the 320-page Player's Handbook, I don't think that using a print-out of the Basic Rules instead would make that much of a difference.

My impression of what Haffrung was talking about was something more like the original Basic D&D as released after AD&D, where the rules were significantly simpler and their own standalone but compatible set. I would picture more something without attacks of opportunity, with side-based initiative, etc.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1048672And that's a great place for the market leader to be for the health of the TTRPG industry. No one else has the $ & name recognition to appeal much to people who aren't already TTRPG gamers.  

And frankly - that's the way most markets dominated by a single product tend to work.  The market leader focuses their marketing on expanding the market, because they know that every person that comes into the market has a very good chance of picking their product, plus none of their competition doesn't have enough market share to be worth stealing it.

Everyone else tries to focus on stealing from the market leader - which isn't bad of the market either, as those unhappy with D&D will find a niche they prefer rather than leaving the market entirely - and potentially going back to D&D occasionally - so not all bad for WoTC either.

I'm pretty sure my main game, Savage Worlds, can only exist because of D&D marketing.

I was able to easily start up a group of noobs merely because they wanted to get into something like D&D. Hell, I still call what I do D&D night even though I refuse to play 5e again.

I expect it's a wave of new players. Some will keep liking it and some will move onto to try other games.

5e seems to me to have some issues for long-term interest for some tastes. There seem to be some pretty soft mechanics and gamey-ness, that I don't think will satisfy certain types of gamers for very long. Others won't notice or care, as always.

idk but if D&D had died in 1999 rather than the WotC buy-out being complete I'd still be sailing on just fine.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1048692I'm pretty sure my main game, Savage Worlds, can only exist because of D&D marketing.

I was able to easily start up a group of noobs merely because they wanted to get into something like D&D. Hell, I still call what I do D&D night even though I refuse to play 5e again.

Yep - and that's not all bad for WoTC either. Because while YOU might never pick up another 5e book, your "D&D nights" are keeping those players invested in TTRPGs, and they might well go back to 5e to either pick up another couple of books themselves, or when they recruit new players into the market, who will in turn likely buy a book or two of 5e.

I don't see it as a fad.

Certainly here in Australia, Queensland, Brisbane, there's lots of groups dedicated to DnD 5e specifically and have been for some years.
If anything, it's getting more popular and 5e has been out for some years now.
It seems to be going from strength to strength.

Will it peak and drop off in years to come?  
Yeah sure, but there'll probably be a new version of DnD as well.
Depending on how the new version goes, such as they don't turn it into a 4e, which felt like something that was unapproachable for the masses, then that may well get a huge following too.

Like has already been said here, the DnD name holds a lot of weight.

Dnd 5e doesn't have a lot of depth to it, but a lot of people know it, it's easy to get a group for and if you just look past its limitations, it's a lot of fun.
At the end of the day, that's why I play RPGs... To have fun and be with like minded people. :)

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

No, this was one of the key things I pushed to avoid in 5e.

You can absolutely play D&D using just the basic rules online.

Its not a fad. But it is riding a massive tsumami of a wave of players fed up with WOTC screwing things up one way or another with prior editions. Be that the 'five year plan', incompatibility, or just insulting the people you want to buy your damn game. Which prior to 5e WOTC had honed to an art form.

With 4e WOTC got the players hands on involved and that is something few companies have done. This really helped to garner the game goodwill even with those who might not like all its elements. (And the rest are just morons for hating it because someone told them to.) It just about hits all the good points and the bad points are easily swept aside or fixed with minimal trouble.

A fad is where fans latch tenaciously onto something that would otherwise be deemed stupid for a usually short span and then realize this was stupid and move on. Be it some false value or clever marketing. CCGs being the most telling one. In the span of 5 years it ascended and then crashed brutally hard and like Pet Rocks and Beanie Babies only a vanishingly few die hards cling tenuously to life yet.

That is not 5e D&D. Its not popular "because". It is popular because it works and works surprisingly well despite the flaws.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1048620having not looked at D&D since 3.5... is there still the "Feat Bloat" that was found in 3.5?

No. The "feats" in 5e are more like class options rather than widgets. They were a little moreso that in the playtest. So you could make a fighter that dabbled a little in magic for example. Or a wizard who trains to use armour and shield. Theres fewer of them and the PCs get usually fewer of them because each feat you take means you arent getting 2 stat points to spend.

I do not think WOTC added any new feats till around the third expansion book, Xanithars Guide, and those are mostly race related. Heck there hasnt even been much item or even monster bloat yet and they have not yet even added a new class. (We did playtest one but feedback has WOTC rethinking it.) And even new races and class paths have been fairly few.

It may be at a peak. But I'm pretty pleased that it's not a consumer-based fad based on buying loads of product. There are supplements but there doesn't seem to be a culture of groups needing to keep up with the latest release.

Quote from: The_Shadow;1048976It may be at a peak. But I'm pretty pleased that it's not a consumer-based fad based on buying loads of product. There are supplements but there doesn't seem to be a culture of groups needing to keep up with the latest release.

A question related to this: how much of the audience is being brought in and sustained by Organized Play? And what are the implications of that?

I wouldnt call 5e a fad, seems to be going strong still.

I would say shows like Critical Role are a fad, which are dramatically boosting 5e sales (my guess).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1048983A question related to this: how much of the audience is being brought in and sustained by Organized Play? And what are the implications of that?

Hard to say. One thing so far WOTC seems to be doing right that TSR eventually botched is avoiding the problems the RPGA eventually developed. Adventurers League seems to be working overall. WOTC might still botch it eventually somehow. But for now it is working.

The bigger question is what happens if/when WOTC cuts AL off? I think that as with the deserved death of the RPGA that things will coast along just fine and that DMs that were there for AL will continue and probably would have even without.

Quote from: Omega;1049022Hard to say. One thing so far WOTC seems to be doing right that TSR eventually botched is avoiding the problems the RPGA eventually developed. Adventurers League seems to be working overall. WOTC might still botch it eventually somehow. But for now it is working.

The bigger question is what happens if/when WOTC cuts AL off? I think that as with the deserved death of the RPGA that things will coast along just fine and that DMs that were there for AL will continue and probably would have even without.

What happened to the RPGA? When did it die? Weirdly I cannot find anything via Google.

Edit: continued googling found this from 2011 http://pixelatedgeek.com/2011/04/may-the-rpga-rest-in-peace/ - no reasons given though.

Quote from: S'mon;1049027What happened to the RPGA? When did it die? Weirdly I cannot find anything via Google.

My memory is sort of hazy on this, but the early RPGA was tied to a subscription to Polyhedron magazine and provided some nice perks in membership, such as access to certain non-public modules and the like.I joined in the mid 1980's and lost my membership card long ago, but still have my RPGA pin.  Somewhere along the way they switched to a free membership without any perks; I think that the switch to "free" made the whole thing not-so-special, and IMO that's what caused its eventual decline.

I'm not sure that the RPGA is technically "dead" since RPGA membership numbers were combined with WOTC's other product numbers (e.g. Magic players and the like) so that a person has one WOTC number instead of many individual game numbers. The current Adventurer's League is probably the descendent of the original RPGA "Living" campaigns (Living Greyhawk, Living Force, etc.).


EDIT: A little searching seems to confirm that WOTC issues a "DCI / RPGA Membership Number" so technically the RPGA is still around.

Quote from: Motorskills;1048641If it was a fad it would have disappeared two years ago.

This.  That's it.  The numbers don't lie.

Quote from: S'mon;1049027What happened to the RPGA? When did it die? Weirdly I cannot find anything via Google.

Edit: continued googling found this from 2011 http://pixelatedgeek.com/2011/04/may-the-rpga-rest-in-peace/ - no reasons given though.

When I first became an RPGA member it was pretty fun, Though by then Polyhedron was in progressive decline. But by the mid to late 90s there was alot of grumbling about how RPGA was running events and how it was becoming more and more about DMs getting points and making players fill out the damn form at the end of a session than actually, you know, run the session. Saw this myself even and yeah it IS fucking annoying as all hell. After 2001 lost track of it and after the mess with Dragon Storms RPGA-like guild Id pretty much had it.

Polyhedron was getting more and more anemic and eventually was folded into Dungeon and then apparently ended. For the span of about 10 issues, around Dungeon/Poly 91 to 101 though they were putting out some really nice mini settings for things like Planet Romance, X-files-esque investigation, Mecha, Music Band adventures, Cannonball Run-esque races and more.

At some point WOTC folded the RPGA membership into some sort of blanket membership.

The RPGA represented everything that I hated about convention style play. DMs who only wanted to get glowing reviews on the feedback forms, Players who traded out with DMs to run certain adventures in order to get certificates for powerful magic items or favors, and absolute plothammer railroad adventures that might as well have been video games with bad graphics.

The RPGA's bastard stepchild of the Adventurer's League I despise because my local branch has succumbed to the creeping SJW horror and it sucks what little fun there was left in organized play of 5E.

Now, the one shining example of worthwhile stuff that has survived from the RPGA is Polyhedron. Before Polyhedron became absorbed by Dungeon (in the same way that The Thing absorbed and consumed people), the 'zine produced some great stuff. I still go back and mine old issues for WEG d6 Star Wars material - back when they covered more than just D&D.

I do think it is a boom, which is part fad. I think it may not be purely a fad because a lot of other factors like the rise of social media and smart phones are probably also part of the equation. I do think anytime something like this happens, the pattern is the hobby expands, then contracts as the boom loses steam. The question is when it stops expanding and by how much it contracts. Also how much new blood continues to enter the hobby. I think enough elements are coming together that the hobby will likely be larger at the end of this and a lot of new platforms for generating excitement and recruitment will still be in place. So I am cautiously optimistic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048600But is this a fad? Are a bunch of people playing now because of Stranger Things and other nostalgic nods to D&D, and will that pass?

It's a fad, but just like the 3e boom, many players got hooked on the hobby and stuck around.

However, I'm quite sure those hardcore D&D community members whose total RPGing involves watching YouTube videos won't be around much longer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048944You can absolutely play D&D using just the basic rules online.

You can. But it's not the same as a published, marketed book you can buy on Amazon. It still feels like DIY. When you move beyond the hardcore in a hobby and into casuals - true casuals - convenience and ease of entry trump everything.

And a book designed from the ground up to introduce casual players into a basic, streamlined D&D would look dramatically different from the basic rules posted on line. It wouldn't be walls of text. It would be much more graphic heavy and text light, and it would use modern principles of instructional design - something WotC pretty much abandoned with 5E.

4E was actually miles ahead of 5E in presenting complex information in a usable and attractive manner. It was just the wrong system. 5E's system with 4E's presentation would be far more accessible and attractive to casual and new players.

NOT a "Fad" - as I said in other two recent threads about 5th edition D&D...

Its has been and still is an active mover on the shelves.

 Hell, I was shopping at a 'TARGET" store earlier tonight and they had 7 copies of the 5th edition beginners box on a promotional end cap. (Same price as at our store ...those bastards...)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1049419It's a fad, but just like the 3e boom, many players got hooked on the hobby and stuck around.

That's not a fad, that's a 'taste maker'.  Fads fade away.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1049419However, I'm quite sure those hardcore D&D community members whose total RPGing involves watching YouTube videos won't be around much longer.

Citation needed.

Quote from: Haffrung;10495084E was actually miles ahead of 5E in presenting complex information in a usable and attractive manner. It was just the wrong system. 5E's system with 4E's presentation would be far more accessible and attractive to casual and new players.

And yet it's extremely popular. So no, I don't agree with your assessment.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1049564And yet it's extremely popular. So no, I don't agree with your assessment.

There's actually some exceptionally poor presentation in the 4e PHB. The Powers by Level are clearly presented, but some of the class abilities you get at 1st are extremely hard to parse, I remember the Fighter's battlefield control abilities being especially bad. It's easy to fail when you don't use 'natural language' approach, bulletin-brief presentation is quite a technical skill.

Quote from: Haffrung;1049508And a book designed from the ground up to introduce casual players into a basic, streamlined D&D would look dramatically different from the basic rules posted on line. It wouldn't be walls of text. It would be much more graphic heavy and text light, and it would use modern principles of instructional design - something WotC pretty much abandoned with 5E.

Print out the Basic pdf in two or three booklets, include it in an expanded starter set, and they are three-quarters there.  Only thing that would be missing would be the graphic and additional instructions in those booklets.  Heck, Put the Basic PDF in a 2:1 ratio column layout, with commentary and graphics in the narrow column, and they are nine-tenths there.  

Whether that is ammo for your point or a counter-point, I don't know.  The pieces are all there for someone that wants it.  It's the easy assembly and final instructions that are missing.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1049564And yet it's extremely popular. So no, I don't agree with your assessment.

So if A is more popular than B, then all elements of A are superior to all elements of B?

Tabletop boardgames are more popular than tabletop RPGs. So is everything about tabletop boardgames better than everything about tabletop RPGs?

Quote from: Haffrung;1049597So if A is more popular than B, then all elements of A are superior to all elements of B?

Tabletop boardgames are more popular than tabletop RPGs. So is everything about tabletop boardgames better than everything about tabletop RPGs?

Implicit in my disagreement was my opinion of them already doing most stuff right. I don't think 5E is hard to grasp at all presentation-wise, even for absolute beginners. Not every single thing is better, sure, but it's all around better.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1049600Implicit in my disagreement was my opinion of them already doing most stuff right. I don't think 5E is hard to grasp at all presentation-wise, even for absolute beginners. Not every single thing is better, sure, but it's all around better.

Only in the tabletop RPG hobby do people still believe the best way to present instructions and rules is in blocks of texts, with vital content buried in paragraphs full of filler content. Anyone who works in information or instructional design would laugh at a 5E rule book as something straight out of the 80s.

I've been playing D&D since 1979, and 5E since the initial Next playtests. And I still have to make cheat-sheets when I make a character because class abilities and levelling processes are buried in text. I also have to make my own DM aid sheets to summarize rules and effects. I shouldn't have to make cheat-sheets to play a game - the rules should be cheat-sheets.

Quote from: Haffrung;1049602I've been playing D&D since 1979, and 5E since the initial Next playtests. And I still have to make cheat-sheets when I make a character because class abilities and levelling processes are buried in text. I also have to make my own DM aid sheets to summarize rules and effects. I shouldn't have to make cheat-sheets to play a game - the rules should be cheat-sheets.

This runs completely contrary to all my anecdotal experience observing several different groups learning 5e.  The basics of playing a class are super easy to get but to really make classes sing and make the party mesh takes some time.  That's exactly what I want from a game -- quick to pick up but hard to master.

I needed cheat sheets and such the first couple of times I played 5E, but by now most of the system is pretty intuitive to me and I think it's much better than the past few editions of the game. My experience tells me that most players figure out 5E pretty quickly, but not everyone. I think sometimes a person used to other editions tends to be at a disadvantage because they have to "unlearn" some things and then learn others.

I would like to see a better "intro" set of rulebooks, maybe the basic rules laid out in a pamphlet booklet format like what OD&D looked like. Something where player info and spells could be split apart. I know I could do a lot of this on my own, but it's a lot of work; if WotC did it for me I'd buy a couple of copies for my table. (I know a guy who had the basic rules PDF printed off with a fancy cover, probably through lulu or one of those places. It was nice and I wanted one.)

The biggest stumbling block I see is on the DM side in terms of whether something should be an Ability Check, a Skill Check, or a Saving Throw.  Published adventures don't help here either because the writers often confuse the three.  A pet peeve of mine is a Strength (Athletics) checks.  They are used way too much.  Also the difference between Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation).

In regards to the OP I don't think it is a fad.  I think it succeeded in terms of bringing the D&D groups back to WotC and brought a lot more TTRPG players both new and old to D&D.  The bullshit like coloring books and streaming games will disappear.  That's a fad.

Quote from: KingCheops;1049603This runs completely contrary to all my anecdotal experience observing several different groups learning 5e.  The basics of playing a class are super easy to get but to really make classes sing and make the party mesh takes some time.  That's exactly what I want from a game -- quick to pick up but hard to master.

My experience matches yours. Almost everyone finds 5e vastly easier to pick up than 4e.

I think anyone who has played D&D will find 5e vastly easier to pick up than 4e.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :P

Quote from: S'mon;1049614My experience matches yours. Almost everyone finds 5e vastly easier to pick up than 4e.

I didn't say 4E was easier to learn than 5E. I said it presented its rules better. Problem is there are a lot more of them.

There's no reason a double-sided sheet of cardstock couldn't contain all of the rules a player needs to play 5E, with general rules on one side and class-specific rules on the other, all presented in tables, clean bullet lists, and sequenced steps. The kind of thing every boardgame with more than about 12 pages of rules includes in the box.

The fact D&D doesn't includes such compressed summaries (and DM screens are woeful) is either incompetence on the part of the publishers, or a deliberate effort to safeguard the game from piracy. Either way, it's bad for the user, and puts as unnecessary load on players memorizing the rules, or having an uber-expert player at the table explaining the rules to everybody else each step of the way.

Quote from: Doom;1049617I think anyone who has played D&D will find 5e vastly easier to pick up than 4e.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :P

Exactly right.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1049062This.  That's it.  The numbers don't lie.

D&D isn't a fad. We just forgot how popular D&D was when 4E almost killed the hobby.

Quote from: Lurtch;1050029D&D isn't a fad. We just forgot how popular D&D was when 4E almost killed the hobby.

I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

   That's what I remember hearing from WotC staff--the entire first print run sold out in pre-orders, for example. It did well on release, it just didn't have legs for a variety of reasons. I still think people underestimate the combination of the prestige format and emphasis on accessories with the economic crash of Fall 2008.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

WoTC says the same things each time and we get no hard numbers. But third party publishers have talked about the hobby after 4E almost being killed. And not people that just relied on the OGL.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

I can believe that it sold well on release. A lot of people (like me) bought it sight unseen because it was the new edition of D&D. The WTF? reactions came after the money was already spent.

4e sold well at release but quickly fell off a cliff. There are bunch of data points out there; Amazon rankings, ICV2 reports, Pathfinder matching their sales then surpassing for awhile, the fact that the 5e PHB outsold the 4e one years ago (and 3e), etc.

Quote from: happyhermit;10500714e sold well at release but quickly fell off a cliff. There are bunch of data points out there; Amazon rankings, ICV2 reports, Pathfinder matching their sales then surpassing for awhile, the fact that the 5e PHB outsold the 4e one years ago (and 3e), etc.

  Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again. ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again. ;)

Like I said, it didn't start out that way, it sold well at release. AFAIR from looking at the numbers it was not extraordinarily well (even at release) perhaps better than 3e, but it fell off very quickly. I just don't have the energy to look it up right now.

On second thought, here is some stuff I read recently;
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?651747-4-years-of-5E-on-Amazon-same-old-same-old (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?651747-4-years-of-5E-on-Amazon-same-old-same-old)

QuoteIn honor of the anniversary and all, I thought I would bring back some comparative numbers.

From here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...=1#post6526238

I use to use the wayback machine to get numbers like this, but then amazon put bots on it to stop that. Oh well.

Here is what I got:

4E PHB

Started at 33

Fell to 54

After six months its at 2,390

After one year: 6,435

That’s a big drop off. One issue could be other ways of getting it—there was a three book box set, a deluxe version, the pdf, and of course the character builder—but still, that’s a big drop.

We can also look at 3.5 PHB

After about 1 month its at 122

After 6 months 274

At the one year point it has dropped to 4844

But then rebounds, hanging around 1000, and reaching 969 two years after launch

In comparison the lowest 5e has ever fallen is like 675 and it has been trending higher over time.

(https://i.imgur.com/U04IDQp.png)

Quote from: Dimitrios;1050060I can believe that it sold well on release. A lot of people (like me) bought it sight unseen because it was the new edition of D&D. The WTF? reactions came after the money was already spent.

Yeah, that happened to a lot of us. I bought 4E thinking "well, it's got to be an improvement over 3E" and to my surprise I was wrong.

The thing is, 4E might be a great RPG in its own right. It's just not D&D. My biggest stumbling block was putting 4E and D&D in the same thought. I bought a crapload of 4E stuff thinking that 4E was the future and I would eventually grow to love it, too. Still waiting. :(

4E achieves a significant amount of its excellence by being focused and relatively narrow, compared to other editions.  Which is great if you want to go with that focus, not so hot if you don't.  I would play 4E again before I'd play 3E again, on the grounds that 4E at least does a few more things better than 3E does.  But I don't particularly care to do what 4E or 3E does well, making the comparison moot for my practical purposes.  I can make either one of them do something I want, but it takes work.

In contrast, part of what is sustaining the interest in 5E is not that it is particularly great at anything, but that it does the core experience of playing D&D fairly well, and smoothly.  From there, you can tweak it to make it more like what you want, without having to fight the system in the process.  In effect, it is a lot like Basic/Expert and AD&D 1E in that respect--probably much more variety in how it is played at the various tables, as people have steered it into the game that they want.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;10501534E achieves a significant amount of its excellence by being focused and relatively narrow, compared to other editions.  Which is great if you want to go with that focus, not so hot if you don't.  I would play 4E again before I'd play 3E again, on the grounds that 4E at least does a few more things better than 3E does.  But I don't particularly care to do what 4E or 3E does well, making the comparison moot for my practical purposes.  I can make either one of them do something I want, but it takes work.

It definitely was a fun skirmisher. Especially on epic tier (or however it was called). And the two essentials books were cool.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again. ;)

It failed as a result of its presentation. It was initially presented as fantasy superheroes 24/7 with a focus on combat encounters over roleplaying. Eventually players got bored like most do with any type of wargame aside from a few classics. The new options on were variations on the same theme of fantasy superheroics.

The exception based design could have been utilized a lot better for follow on products. One reason Magic the Gathering developed legs is that Wizards was able to refresh how the game was played over successive releases without having to make a completely new game each time. D&D 4e could have done this with say a Dark Sun release, a Eberron release, or a swords & sorcery release. Each release would still use the same core mechanics as the initial release of D&D 4e but with a different set of classes and abilities to make that release a new experience.

But that not what happened. So very quickly (relative to other RPG editions and systems, people got bored. In addition the exception based design is more labor intensive to modify in a substantive manner. Coupled with the combat heavy focus, the fact that is was D&D in name only, marketing issues, etc meant it quickly faded to the point that the market leader changed hands for the first time.

This is a link I wrote about D&D 4e back in 2008

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2008/10/tale-of-two-4th-editions.html

From the mist of Alternate Earths

Fighting Giants is where AD&D went all wrong
Encouraged by the surprise success sales of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl and G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King along with the blockbuster movie Clash of the Gaints, Gygax calls the staff of TSR into his office.

QuoteFrom now on AD&D is going to be about fighting Giants.

For the next two years a flurry of adventures was released. All of them about fighting giants including the classic Under The Storm Giant's Castle. Greyhawk was shelved in favor of a new setting which had as it's centerpiece a war against the giants. Unearthed Giants was quickly written and released giving new classes and new races revolving around fighting Giants.

However what seemed like a surefire way to capitalize on D&D's popularity and the excitement over the new Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, it became its death knell. Within two years of it's release, sales plummeted as gamers tired of fighting giants all the time and flocked to other games like Chaosium's Runequest and SPI's newly released Dragonquest.

There is growing excitement over Palladium Fantasy as many say it restores the wide ranging fantasy enjoyed by fans of original Dungeon & Dragons.  Now a 2nd Edition of AD&D is has been announced that promises to be a toolkit to allow referees to create any fantasy setting they desire. TSR is quick to note that fans of the Giant Wars will still find support in the 2nd Edition.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

One of the reasons why I gave up on 4e was because of Essentials.

My perception of Essentials was that it was a concession to the persistent naysayers who didn't play and didn't want to.  It was attempting to cater to an audience that was never going to be a customer anyway.  Whether that perception was firmly based in reality or not, it was the perception I had.

There were more reasons, but as soon as Essentials hit shelves and effectively created an edition split, I was done.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1050383One of the reasons why I gave up on 4e was because of Essentials.

My perception of Essentials was that it was a concession to the persistent naysayers who didn't play and didn't want to.  It was attempting to cater to an audience that was never going to be a customer anyway.  Whether that perception was firmly based in reality or not, it was the perception I had.

There were more reasons, but as soon as Essentials hit shelves and effectively created an edition split, I was done.

That makes no sense they are the same game. Just a different package of options with D&D 4e Core having more.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1050383One of the reasons why I gave up on 4e was because of Essentials.

My perception of Essentials was that it was a concession to the persistent naysayers who didn't play and didn't want to.  It was attempting to cater to an audience that was never going to be a customer anyway.  Whether that perception was firmly based in reality or not, it was the perception I had.

There were more reasons, but as soon as Essentials hit shelves and effectively created an edition split, I was done.

Did you read or play any of the essentials materials? It was by far my favorite part of 4E and I owned the hard backs as well. It never created an edition split because as pointed out above the core rules were the same. It was streamlined, not rules lite, and presented to new players in a much easier to understand format. They tried to straighten out  the horrible encounter building guide lines and skill challenges mush.

I rather liked the digest size book for ease of handling.  And honestly I think it was at least a better than nothing attempt to save 4E from hour long combat encounters that made upper level play a laborious drag.

Plus Nentir Vale is one of the better "vanilla" campaign worlds out there with some interesting factions. Some of the monster builds for even common goblins were creative. And i still really like the mook and mob rules codified under "Next"

It just wan't enough. Most of the players at our tables would not buy Next after getting burned on 4E in general. And after ridiculously long combats trying to slog through a 4E conversion of Tomb of Horrors, must of us said "enough" and went running for the rules lite(r) OSR.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1050395Did you read or play any of the essentials materials?

Nope.  Like I said, it was a perception thing.

The buzz going around at the time was that Essentials had really changed the game.  The groups I knew that were playing were telling me that the new Essentials products completely invalidated the PHB/DMG/MM and swaths of later books.

And, to make myself sound even more superficial, I had no desire to buy the smaller softcover books.

Was it the only reason I quit?  No, not at all.  It was just a straw on the camel's back, not THE straw.  Was it an accurate perception?  Possibly not, but it was the perception WotC created, intentional or not.

I'm glad you liked 4e in the Essentials era.  I quite liked chunks of the game in the pre-Essentials time.  I do think 4e could have stood to be in the oven a bit longer before serving.

I agree with everything MonsterSlayer says here. I only got into 4E because of the Essentials format. It was the easiest edition of D&D to run at the table, with the possible exception of B/X. The rules were straightforward, the books were the best layed-out and designed of any RPG books I've seen, and the default setting was not Forgotten Realms, but a small-scale boots-on-the-ground setting with some very cool adversaries (Threats of the Nentir Vale is one of the best setting books released by TSR or WotC, and it's actually a monster manual). And the DM and MM sets contained all the pogs you would ever need, so you didn't have to go out and buy minis.

The Essentials-era adventures were much better too - Madness at Gardmore Abbey is an overlooked classic. I think if WotC had released 4E with the Essentials format and content, the game would have been a bigger success.

I was actually thinking of getting into 4e a bit after reading its DMG 2 and loving how it laid things out.

But it's so confusing figuring out where you are supposed to enter into the game. Even Essentials is kind of confusing since its ambiguous how compatible it is with other 4e stuff or what you're supposed to use.

I know Essentials is supposed to be "streamlined 4e," but does that sacrifice what made 4e fun? Is it better to just play the original 4e?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1050434I know Essentials is supposed to be "streamlined 4e," but does that sacrifice what made 4e fun? Is it better to just play the original 4e?

Same game presented different with more straight forward options. Think of it like a Magic the Gathering build that competitive with many traditional deck build but is considerably easier to learn and play because of the selection of specific cards.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1050434I know Essentials is supposed to be "streamlined 4e," but does that sacrifice what made 4e fun? Is it better to just play the original 4e?

I pretty much exclusively ran my 4e game using the Essentials rulebooks.  My players, except the one who struggled with basic arithmetic, played regular 4e characters and we had no problems.  The magic item system was better in Essentials than in 4e but it suffered from never being properly vetted -- they just said "everything in 4e is uncommon unless we note otherwise" IIRC.  But then magic items are a problem in 5e as well so nothing is perfect.

It's all interchangeable but I did notice that the 4e classes could do more than the Essentials ones when played well.

The only differences between 4E and Essentials are:

1) Monster HP have been reduced and damage increased, in order to make combats less grindy. This change was made to 4E monster stats even before Essentials, and only matters if you're using older 4E published adventures.

2) The new PC classes in Essentials have more narrowly prescribed abilities, rather than the completely open-ended character generation in 4E. However, the Essentials classes are completely compatible with the 4E classes.

3) Essentials doesn't have spell rituals.

The difficulty with getting into Essentials now is the availability of the material. The DM's Toolkit and Monster Vault are getting tough to find, especially with the pogs and adventures intact.

I still prefer running 5e over 4e, and players are a lot more prevalent. But I still have a soft spot for 4e and would run it or play it again if given the opportunity. It's really not hard to convert powers, magic items, monster abilities from 4e into 5e.

Quote from: Haffrung;1050446The only differences between 4E and Essentials are:

1) Monster HP have been reduced and damage increased, in order to make combats less grindy. This change was made to 4E monster stats even before Essentials, and only matters if you're using older 4E published adventures.

2) The new PC classes in Essentials have more narrowly prescribed abilities, rather than the completely open-ended character generation in 4E. However, the Essentials classes are completely compatible with the 4E classes.

3) Essentials doesn't have spell rituals.

The difficulty with getting into Essentials now is the availability of the material. The DM's Toolkit and Monster Vault are getting tough to find, especially with the pogs and adventures intact.

Good news if I ever decide to sell my "Essentials"* stuff since I have it all complete. But between the two, I would rather sell the original 4E stuff. Threats of the Nentir Vale is still
one of my favorite monster manuals.

*Edit: why do I keep saying "Next" when I mean "Essentials"?

Quote from: Gabriel2;1050430Nope.  Like I said, it was a perception thing.

The buzz going around at the time was that Essentials had really changed the game.  The groups I knew that were playing were telling me that the new Essentials products completely invalidated the PHB/DMG/MM and swaths of later books.

And, to make myself sound even more superficial, I had no desire to buy the smaller softcover books.

Was it the only reason I quit?  No, not at all.  It was just a straw on the camel's back, not THE straw.  Was it an accurate perception?  Possibly not, but it was the perception WotC created, intentional or not.

I'm glad you liked 4e in the Essentials era.  I quite liked chunks of the game in the pre-Essentials time.  I do think 4e could have stood to be in the oven a bit longer before serving.

Fair enough.

I didn't mean to come off too harsh, I'm not here to protect the virtues of "Essentials". I think in ways, at the time, it was the AD&D versus B/X argument all over again. As if "Essentials" was kiddy table which it was not.

Anyhow, its flogging a dead horse except there were some good ideas buried in the edition. Bu i have moved on to 5E as my mechanics of choice like many others.

4e lost about 2/3rds of D&D's customer base.

I've discussed here before my experiences with 4e some time back.

I was running and playing Pathfinder at the time (2010 maybe.. can't exactly remember)
One of my players had been pushing 4e for some time, but the rest of the players weren't that keen.
Over time though, I was trying to get one of the players to run something and a player volunteered to run 4e, so we decided to give  it a go.

So, I like Clerics. The 4e DM said, yeah no Clerics in 4e, so that was a big negative right there.

He ran a published scenario, which IMO didn't help.  It was a VERY linear scenario and any straying from the storypath just got us dragged right back into the story.  Also did not like..
Still early DnD stuff used to do this thing a lot, but it seemed a thing again in 4e perhaps?
 
I was asking about making magic items or loot that might be magic items and he said that you don't really find magic items anymore, but they're part of the story based character development.
Something about how magic items evolve in 4e, so that was a big strike against 4e too..  I don't mind the IDEA of that, but to blanket restrict items like that seemed off to me.

Then the Daily abilities, and abilities that recharge after a scene and unlimited use abilities.
It was a pain keeping track of it all at higher levels (we played about 10 sessions I think and I got to about level 3 or 4). He dished out various cards with our spells that got flipped over as we used them.
At that stage there were lots of abilities that recharged or didn't depending if it was a new scene, or full day or whatever.   But the abilities seemed all very samey really.
That and I REALLY noticed the fightery type abilities seemed very abstract and hard to visualise what they were ACTUALLY doing. These were observations from players running Fighters and stuff.

I had a Fey type elf who was a sort of Mage.

I noticed that you pretty much HAD to use a battle grid to play 4e, as range, position, facing etc  etc were very important and I felt like I was playing a small skirmish version of Warhammer, not an RPG.
Combat took AGES!,  Gah, I stopped caring after a while and just combat just seemed like one huge, boring grind fest.   But the way the published scenarios were written, you HAD to have all these boring fights, whittling down your enemies over time.  Each round taking ages and flipping over abilities and using abstract abilities that made no sense.

So anyway, after 10 sessions, we gave up and I never played 4e again.

FWIW,  I ran Pathfinder after that until the party hit about level 12 and the whole management of feats and abilities became a pain, so we dropped PF and I ran Runequest and Stormbringer for a while until I moved, which was fun.
 
As a final note for 4e, I think it's correct it was made to try and grab the MMORPG crowd.
Was it a bad RPG?  Well, I didn't like it, but I respect that others might like it and clearly did.

Does 5e take some stuff from 4e?  yeah a bit, but extremely cut down, simplified and combat is cut down and simplified too.
Feats have been heavily reduced and you don't even need them really.
5e combat caters to grid based combat if you want, but spells are made so it's not a requirement to use a grid.
So if you like abstract combat as opposed to a grid, NPS, it supports that.
Is 5e perfect?  No it has issues which I'm happy to discuss. But it's good enough and WAY better than 4e in my opinion and experience..

So no, I didn't like 4e and I gave it a good try. I think 10 sessions is a fair go.

Quote from: RPGPundit;10507434e lost about 2/3rds of D&D's customer base.

Did they lose them, or did Paizo steal them by keeping the 3.x model in circulation?

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790I noticed that you pretty much HAD to use a battle grid to play 4e, as range, position, facing etc  etc were very important and I felt like I was playing a small skirmish version of Warhammer, not an RPG.
Combat took AGES!,  Gah, I stopped caring after a while and just combat just seemed like one huge, boring grind fest.   But the way the published scenarios were written, you HAD to have all these boring fights, whittling down your enemies over time.  

The people who wrote 4E's early adventures didn't understand how to write for the system. 4E combat should be rare and eventful - 2, maybe 3 combats per session. There should be no grinding in 4E, no trash fights. Only important, cinematic, climactic battles. Instead, WotC published a bunch of adventures for 4E that were 1E D&D style dungeon-crawls.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050798Did they lose them, or did Paizo steal them by keeping the 3.x model in circulation?

I attribute any outflow to mismanagement of the edition (Essentials wasn't really essential) and the murder-suicide that shelved the virtual table.

Quote from: Haffrung;1050807The people who wrote 4E's early adventures didn't understand how to write for the system. 4E combat should be rare and eventful - 2, maybe 3 combats per session. There should be no grinding in 4E, no trash fights. Only important, cinematic, climactic battles. Instead, WotC published a bunch of adventures for 4E that were 1E D&D style dungeon-crawls.

Or perhaps those who wrote the system didn't know how to write D&D?

Quote from: The_Shadow;1050824Or perhaps those who wrote the system didn't know how to write D&D?

I think James Wyatt certainly lacked an intuitive sense of what most people wanted from D&D. He seems much more a skirmish wargamer at heart. Mearls, bless his heart, has a much better understanding, and the 5e 'three pillars' approach gets it right I think.

Quote from: S'mon;1050829I think James Wyatt certainly lacked an intuitive sense of what most people wanted from D&D. He seems much more a skirmish wargamer at heart. Mearls, bless his heart, has a much better understanding, and the 5e 'three pillars' approach gets it right I think.

Mearls sucks at design but he really knows how to sell and self-promote. I'll give you that.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790So, I like Clerics. The 4e DM said, yeah no Clerics in 4e, so that was a big negative right there.

But... there are clerics in 4e. They're in the first Player's Handbook. There's none in Dark Sun, but that's a setting conceit, not part of the core rules.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790He ran a published scenario, which IMO didn't help.  It was a VERY linear scenario and any straying from the storypath just got us dragged right back into the story.  Also did not like..
Still early DnD stuff used to do this thing a lot, but it seemed a thing again in 4e perhaps?

On that, I have to agree. The adventure modules for 4E weren't designed for the system they were published in at all.
 

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790I was asking about making magic items or loot that might be magic items and he said that you don't really find magic items anymore, but they're part of the story based character development.
Something about how magic items evolve in 4e, so that was a big strike against 4e too..  I don't mind the IDEA of that, but to blanket restrict items like that seemed off to me.

Also not part of the default 4e rule set. There's an optional rule for evolving items in the DMG2, I believe, but there's a magic item creation ritual in the core PHB. And the loot per level chart has slots for magic items in it.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790Combat took AGES!,  Gah, I stopped caring after a while and just combat just seemed like one huge, boring grind fest.   But the way the published scenarios were written, you HAD to have all these boring fights, whittling down your enemies over time.  Each round taking ages and flipping over abilities and using abstract abilities that made no sense.

Yeah, the monster math for MM1 and MM2 were messed up, only really got corrected around when the Essentials line came out. Before then, they all had too much HP and did too little damage.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790So anyway, after 10 sessions, we gave up and I never played 4e again.

Honestly, it sounds like a lot of your problems came from the GM playing with a bunch of optional rules, in a style you didn't enjoy, with the old (shitty) monster stats.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790So, I like Clerics. The 4e DM said, yeah no Clerics in 4e, so that was a big negative right there.

Wow. I am not pushing 4e or anything (been years since I ran it and I prefer 5e) but that's just not the case. 4e definitely has clerics, they're as prominent in the core rules as any other version of D&D, and I have no idea where that came from in your game but it's not representative of that game. I ran and enjoyed a 4e cleric for years.

@ Mistwel , Broken Twin .

Ah ok thanks for those clarifications. I didn't buy the 4e books or read them much, so I just went on what the 4e GM told me was available.
Although I made a specific point in my discussions with him I thought it was crap there were no Clerics in 4e.
Ok, well that sux a bit they were removed by that DM.

Regarding loot, yeah he did make a specific point that magic items were only available as a sort of progression. I didn't like it, but it wasn't a big deal either.. Strange ruling to make though.

I concede those points, as clearly this was the DM's take on 4e on these issues. Slightly annoying that it was touted as 4e core, not his own take on the rules.

I know he didn't use Essentials, just the original 4e core hardback books that came out and he made a specific point about using no revisions to the 4e rules. Presumably that included the monster stats too.

Still, either way, even ignoring the Cleric issue and the magic items issue, which was a minor point really (the No Cleric ruling was annoying though!), I still didn't like 4e on other points and saying "just use Essentials", well, that's a 4e revision or newer edition or whatever, but really WotC were selling 4 as it was first released and that's what I judged it on.
Still, it didn't help the DM was so set on using some strange 4e rules decisions.

I think if I HAD bought 4e (the original rules) and then was expected to upgrade 4e to their Essentials variant, I probably would have dumped DnD at that stage and gone elsewhere.
Actually after a while of running 2nd ed many years ago, when I migrated from ADnD (1st ed), I pretty much stopped playing DnD at all until Pathfinder (sometimes called 3.75). So I skipped 3e and 3.5 completely.
I didn't really return to DnD until 5e.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050908I think if I HAD bought 4e (the original rules) and then was expected to upgrade 4e to their Essentials variant, I probably would have dumped DnD at that stage and gone elsewhere.

Essentials was anything but essential.

Quote from: KingCheops;1050930Essentials was anything but essential.

It also never sold that well.
People seemed kind of pissed off at it at the time....

- Ed C.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1050809I attribute any outflow to mismanagement of the edition (Essentials wasn't really essential) and the murder-suicide that shelved the virtual table.

I will give you mismanagment but not it wasn't 4e's.  Which was mismanaged, but no...

Given how well Paizo was able to pull the exact same move that WoTC did when they moved 3e to 3.5 and yet, get NONE, and I mean 0%, of the backlash, I contend that 4e was stillborn.  It wouldn't have matter how good it was, Paizo won that round with clever promotion and using the OGL, which was the real thing that killed 4e, there was no way 4e was going to happen in any way without a major fight.

Quote from: KingCheops;1050930Essentials was anything but essential.

I lost interest in 4e after I tried the original version of 4e out, so yeah, they lost me after that and I never saw Essentials.

Essentials was, like the rest of 4E, horribly promoted. It took way too long for me to figure out whether it was 4.5, completely compatible with Core, a 4E spinoff, or something else entirely. Which was a shame, because it really did have some interesting bits, and the Monster Vault was incredible. If Hasbro hadn't fucked up so badly in 4E's promotion and early stages, I think a 4.5 could have really done well. I'm still fighting the idea of making my own 4E heartbreaker.

Still, it definitely wasn't for everyone, and I don't begrudge anyone who honestly tried it and didn't like it. The shear amount of vitriol from people who hated it for what they perceived it to be was insane though. Of course, that was also my first time witnessing an edition war, so...

Edit: And while I'm okay with most of 5E, their changes to the gnoll lore compared to how 4E fleshed them out was downright criminal.

Part of the problem Essentials had was that it was intended as an evergreen set for the bookstore market ... just at the time the chain bookstores were collapsing.

4E had a lot of problems within the community, but I think the external factors of the times it launched and tried to do a soft relaunch are often underestimated.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1051011Part of the problem Essentials had was that it was intended as an evergreen set for the bookstore market ... just at the time the chain bookstores were collapsing.

And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

Quote from: Haffrung;1051016And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

   Not just 5E--there were books on the schedule for 4E in Essentials format that were hurriedly repackaged in the big hardcovers, such as Heroes of Shadow.

The only reason why Paizo was able to outmaneuver WotC and the D&D brand was because of gaffes made on the part of the latter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050943I will give you mismanagment but not it wasn't 4e's.  Which was mismanaged, but no...

Given how well Paizo was able to pull the exact same move that WoTC did when they moved 3e to 3.5 and yet, get NONE, and I mean 0%, of the backlash, I contend that 4e was stillborn.  It wouldn't have matter how good it was, Paizo won that round with clever promotion and using the OGL, which was the real thing that killed 4e, there was no way 4e was going to happen in any way without a major fight.

Paizo was only able to outmanuever WotC because of the gaffes made by the latter.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1051032Paizo was only able to outmanuever WotC because of the gaffes made by the latter.

Oh, absolutely, the OGL was the killer and the only way they could have gone after that cock up was down.

Mearls listened to the right people.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051265Mearls listened to the right people.

and then the wrong people...

Quote from: Omega;1051274and then the wrong people...

True. Though I know nobody pushed him to hire me. I'm not too sure the people he's listening to now is something he's doing by choice.

Quote from: Haffrung;1051016Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

Apart from the tiny, tiny font they used for the index at the back, I don't have a problem with the 5e layout.

You can easily run a 5e campaign with just the PHB and character gen is a breeze. It's laid out in the correct order, the tables are large and easy to read.
Equipment, mechanics, spells etc are laid out in an easily readable format.

Even the optional rules aren't scattered throughout the book, they're easily accessible at the back where they should be.
 
The 5e system isn't without it criticisms of course IMO.
Off the top of my head ;
I don't like the Concentration rules
I don't like the Toolset skill rules

Quote from: Haffrung;1051016And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

I really hated how heavy 5th ed books were, probably due to glossy paper. Publishers please take note, some people do use gaming books for actual gaming, and have to carry them in a backpack. They should be as light as possible.

Quote from: Claudius;1051595I really hated how heavy 5th ed books were, probably due to glossy paper. Publishers please take note, some people do use gaming books for actual gaming, and have to carry them in a backpack. They should be as light as possible.

I mostly use a rolling luggage case, the kind that fits in plane overhead racks. Even then I normally keep it to two 5e hardbacks (PHB & MM) plus the minis case, dice bag, flipmats and adventure & campaign material. I print out the DMG magic items from the SRD.

I really love the smaller format RPGs such as White Star and 4e Essentials, but only Essentials' Monster Vault is really a good book IMO. The others look nicer than the 4e PHB but I don't much like most of their classes in play.

Quote from: Haffrung;1051016And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Agreed. Regardless of what one thinks of the rules, the 4E Essentials digest-size softcovers are some of the best designed RPG products in the history of the hobby (form factors, production values, and physicality). I often consider giving 4E (Essentials) another try.

Thats akin to what some, myself included, said of the d20Modern Gamma World DMG and some parts of the PHB. The DMG is full of advice on many different ways to DM and gives tables and examples to help. Now if only the rest had been so.

I disagree with the notion that 4E was a MMO, vidya game, and/or a boardgame. I'm willing to run games for people who think otherwise but so far none has shown up to be proven wrong.

Well, it's unfair to MMOs, vidya or boardgames.

None... and counting.

Quote from: Claudius;1051595I really hated how heavy 5th ed books were, probably due to glossy paper. Publishers please take note, some people do use gaming books for actual gaming, and have to carry them in a backpack. They should be as light as possible.

Meanwhile I hate buying books without glossy pages unless they are books that are meant to look old with lots of Black and White art.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1051010Essentials was, like the rest of 4E, horribly promoted. It took way too long for me to figure out whether it was 4.5, completely compatible with Core, a 4E spinoff, or something else entirely. Which was a shame, because it really did have some interesting bits, and the Monster Vault was incredible. If Hasbro hadn't fucked up so badly in 4E's promotion and early stages, I think a 4.5 could have really done well. I'm still fighting the idea of making my own 4E heartbreaker.

Still, it definitely wasn't for everyone, and I don't begrudge anyone who honestly tried it and didn't like it. The shear amount of vitriol from people who hated it for what they perceived it to be was insane though. Of course, that was also my first time witnessing an edition war, so...

Edit: And while I'm okay with most of 5E, their changes to the gnoll lore compared to how 4E fleshed them out was downright criminal.

Isn't 13th Age essentially 4.5?

Quote from: Apparition;1052333Isn't 13th Age essentially 4.5?

   No, it's more a 3E/4E/storygame/gonzo 1E hybrid.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051554True. Though I know nobody pushed him to hire me. I'm not too sure the people he's listening to now is something he's doing by choice.

He's telling people to learn to run a game by watching critical role and other shows like that. He's giving really bad advice.

Quote from: Aglondir;1051706Agreed. Regardless of what one thinks of the rules, the 4E Essentials digest-size softcovers are some of the best designed RPG products in the history of the hobby (form factors, production values, and physicality). I often consider giving 4E (Essentials) another try.

I agree that the "Essentials" line was well done, even if I wasn't a fan of the edition. I noticed that Pathfinder has put out several of their rulebooks in a similar sized layout (maybe with no art or limited art, I'm not sure) and I'd like to see some 5E products like that as long as font size doesn't suffer too much.

Quote from: Aglondir;1051706Agreed. Regardless of what one thinks of the rules, the 4E Essentials digest-size softcovers are some of the best designed RPG products in the history of the hobby (form factors, production values, and physicality). I often consider giving 4E (Essentials) another try.

I agree that the "Essentials" line was well done, even if I wasn't a fan of the edition. I noticed that Pathfinder has put out several of their rulebooks in a similar sized layout (maybe with no art or limited art, I'm not sure) and I'd like to see some 5E products like that as long as font size doesn't suffer too much.

Quote from: Lurtch;1052422He's telling people to learn to run a game by watching critical role and other shows like that. He's giving really bad advice.

I've had a woman interested in playing come to me and ask me how to play 5E because her DM just told her to download an app and then watch Critical Role. That poor woman was so fucking lost thanks to her lazy DM.

According to WotC, half of the people who have played 5E were introduced to the game through live play streams like Critical Role.

Quote from: S'mon;1051678I really love the smaller format RPGs such as White Star and 4e Essentials, but only Essentials' Monster Vault is really a good book IMO. The others look nicer than the 4e PHB but I don't much like most of their classes in play.

They really missed a trick with Essentials.  They went from overly complex non-casters to overly simple.  I don't think it really would have been too difficult - given the basic engine of 4E - to design for emergent complexity so the player of fighter type classes could up the tactical complexity to a level they were comfortable with.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052689According to WotC, half of the people who have played 5E were introduced to the game through live play streams like Critical Role.

I would be interested in how many of those had never played any D&D before versus how many had played earlier editions and Critical Role etc. just got them interested in taking it up again.

That - and being inspired to play by such things is a VERY different thing from learning to play from them.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052689According to WotC, half of the people who have played 5E were introduced to the game through live play streams like Critical Role.

I was inspired to play baseball by watching the Oakland A's.

Also I don't believe them when they say that because the numbers don't add up. I want the full market research or I think they are lying. Corporations lie all the fucking time, especially stupid Seattle game developers. I want the core data or they are lying.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1052700I would be interested in how many of those had never played any D&D before versus how many had played earlier editions and Critical Role etc. just got them interested in taking it up again.

That - and being inspired to play by such things is a VERY different thing from learning to play from them.

I started a group of new people for Savage Worlds that were easier to convince because of the buzz around RPGs because of things like critical role.

In the square of public opinion, Critical Role did more to sell 5E (and RPGs in general) than 5E did on its own merits.

QuoteOn that, I have to agree. The adventure modules for 4E weren't designed for the system they were published in at all.

Bingo.

Trash fights in OSR games are fine because they'll be over in a few minutes and they serve a useful purpose (attritioning away party resources). Trash fights in 4ed are freaking stupid because they drain off a lot of time wtihout adding much fun and it's a lot harder for them to attrition off resources (since parties can blast through them with encounter powers and find ways to do bits of healing without spending much/any healing surges). So they're just boring filler. This kind of stupid shit was already cropping up in 3.5ed play with the 15 minute adventuring day and handfuls in CLW wands allowing players with dumb GMs to negate attrition which made any fight that wasn't a tactical challenge in and of itself a boring waste of time.

With 4ed rules you have to just have one or two big climactic fights per session and it works so much better. The thing is you have to teach players to play like that or 4ed is horrifically boring, you can't just play D&D the way it's traditionally been played. We can see this was a huge problem because people were willing to check out 4ed (huge initial sales) then they played 4ed in a normal D&D way as laid out in the intro adventure and got bored to tears.

4ed is basically an OK ruleset if you play it right.

It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

Quote from: Daztur;1052817It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

I agree. The problem I think is that while it is not an insult to say 4e is not D&D (as D&D is commonly understood), WoTC certainly didn't want to market it as 'not D&D'.

Quote from: Daztur;1052817Bingo.

Trash fights in OSR games are fine because they'll be over in a few minutes and they serve a useful purpose (attritioning away party resources). Trash fights in 4ed are freaking stupid because they drain off a lot of time wtihout adding much fun and it's a lot harder for them to attrition off resources (since parties can blast through them with encounter powers and find ways to do bits of healing without spending much/any healing surges). So they're just boring filler. This kind of stupid shit was already cropping up in 3.5ed play with the 15 minute adventuring day and handfuls in CLW wands allowing players with dumb GMs to negate attrition which made any fight that wasn't a tactical challenge in and of itself a boring waste of time.

With 4ed rules you have to just have one or two big climactic fights per session and it works so much better. The thing is you have to teach players to play like that or 4ed is horrifically boring, you can't just play D&D the way it's traditionally been played. We can see this was a huge problem because people were willing to check out 4ed (huge initial sales) then they played 4ed in a normal D&D way as laid out in the intro adventure and got bored to tears.

4ed is basically an OK ruleset if you play it right.

It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

Yep.  

And 4E fights should never take place in an empty room.  You need to put in a big pit of lava you can push people into and some archers on a ledge, possibly a big cauldron of something hot, like in the conan movie that you can push over and wipe out some mooks, mark where the tables are so you can ram people against them, have reinforcements arrive halfway through the fight, have a third faction arrive 2 rounds in and just take on everyone, have the PCs trying to rescue a prisoner while the enemy are trying to move them away etc.

4E works well for a big Indiana Jones style set piece.

Quote from: Daztur;1052817Bingo.

Trash fights in OSR games are fine because they'll be over in a few minutes and they serve a useful purpose (attritioning away party resources). Trash fights in 4ed are freaking stupid because they drain off a lot of time wtihout adding much fun and it's a lot harder for them to attrition off resources (since parties can blast through them with encounter powers and find ways to do bits of healing without spending much/any healing surges). So they're just boring filler. This kind of stupid shit was already cropping up in 3.5ed play with the 15 minute adventuring day and handfuls in CLW wands allowing players with dumb GMs to negate attrition which made any fight that wasn't a tactical challenge in and of itself a boring waste of time.

With 4ed rules you have to just have one or two big climactic fights per session and it works so much better. The thing is you have to teach players to play like that or 4ed is horrifically boring, you can't just play D&D the way it's traditionally been played. We can see this was a huge problem because people were willing to check out 4ed (huge initial sales) then they played 4ed in a normal D&D way as laid out in the intro adventure and got bored to tears.

4ed is basically an OK ruleset if you play it right.

It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1052813In the square of public opinion, Critical Role did more to sell 5E (and RPGs in general) than 5E did on its own merits.

Somebody is lying. I checked the viewership for Critical Role on Twitch ant it's ~100,000 viewers there and on YouTube its roughly ~400,000 viewers. Because the show is a drama I'm assuming the bulk of the audience watches week to week. We are being told that D&D 5E is the "best selling D&D ever!" And if that's true and that's due to critical role....not that many people watch it. 500,000 is nothing! More people watched the D&D cartoon than watch critical role.

Where critical role has power is on social media and in the Seattle clique. Too much focus is put into social media, like Twitter, when very few people actually use Twitter. This is a bubble talking to each other.

If D&D is the best selling D&D it has almost nothing to do with critical role. If critical role is the main driver of D&D sales then it isn't the best selling D&D EVER!!!!

Quote from: Lurtch;1052830Somebody is lying. I checked the viewership for Critical Role on Twitch ant it's ~100,000 viewers there and on YouTube its roughly ~400,000 viewers. Because the show is a drama I'm assuming the bulk of the audience watches week to week. We are being told that D&D 5E is the "best selling D&D ever!" And if that's true and that's due to critical role....not that many people watch it. 500,000 is nothing! More people watched the D&D cartoon than watch critical role.

Where critical role has power is on social media and in the Seattle clique. Too much focus is put into social media, like Twitter, when very few people actually use Twitter. This is a bubble talking to each other.

If D&D is the best selling D&D it has almost nothing to do with critical role. If critical role is the main driver of D&D sales then it isn't the best selling D&D EVER!!!!

  If it's a strictly 1:1 relationship, you're right. But if Critical Role creates new DMs who recruit new players, some of whom go on to DM in their turn and recruit more, it may have an outsized effect. It may be like that saying about Velvet Underground: "Only [X] number of people bought the record, but every one of them started their own band."

I think we should go for the most likely outcome: fans of the show are very active on social media and the employes for WoTC are very active on social media so they are putting two and two together.

It's like that old Pauline Kael quite "how did Nixon win? I don't know anybody that voted for him!" We have a lot of folks that watch and everybody they know watches or is a fan.

WotC won't release the actual market research and Fat Mearls and the SJW brigade don't actually get to read the research from Hasbro.

I could see the streamrrs having an outsized impagt on the adventure and splat books. The reason 5E is as successful as it is: the genral board game and table top boom/fad, 4E sucked so bad that 5E had cannibalized the Pathfinder sales and brought in a lot of folks that left the hobby, the general 'nerd culture' fad happening where products don't matter as much as the brands and we all love to buy our pre faded 'nerd' t shirts at target

Quote from: Daztur;1052817With 4ed rules you have to just have one or two big climactic fights per session and it works so much better. The thing is you have to teach players to play like that or 4ed is horrifically boring, you can't just play D&D the way it's traditionally been played. We can see this was a huge problem because people were willing to check out 4ed (huge initial sales) then they played 4ed in a normal D&D way as laid out in the intro adventure and got bored to tears.

I had one of my better D&D campaigns playing 4E in just that way. Lots of roleplaying and investigation involving factions, and a couple big important combats per session. Frankly, there's more combat in the 5E campaigns I've played and run, and it's less fun combat.

There's nothing at all about 4E that says you can't spend most of the session in non-combat play. It's no different from 1E or 2E in that respect; just because most of the rules are about combat doesn't mean you have to spend most of the game in combat.

Quote from: Daztur;1052817It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

WotC has a long-standing problem supporting its systems with the right types of adventures for that system. It supported 3/3.5 with adventures that relied on mix-maxing and gamy strategies like wands of cure light wounds. It supported 4E with a bunch of dungeon-crawls, which are lame in 4E. And it's supporting 5E with a bunch of epic mega-campaigns, which become a grind because they have to be stuffed with trash-fights. 4E would have been better with epic storylines, and 5E would be better with dungeon-crawls.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052829Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

Yeah, I'm starting to see 5E shudder from the problems with its engine. To challenge the PCs with the threat of death, you have to pump encounter after encounter after encounter at them. Solos get roasted, so you needs lots of monsters in those attritional combats. Makes a game session either a cakewalk or a tedious grind.

Quote from: Daztur;1052817With 4ed rules you have to just have one or two big climactic fights per session and it works so much better. The thing is you have to teach players to play like that or 4ed is horrifically boring, you can't just play D&D the way it's traditionally been played.

My 4E campaign was one of the best I've ever run, and it was mostly roleplaying factions, with a couple important combats per session. No sustained dungeon-crawling, no trash fights.

Quote from: Daztur;10528174ed is basically an OK ruleset if you play it right.

It's just that they made a game that needs to be played very differently from how D&D is normally played and they didn't tell anyone that. That was a bit dumb.

WotC has a long-standing problem supporting its systems with the wrong kind of adventures. They supported 3/3.5 with adventures that required mix-maxing and gamey crap like wands of magic missile, and then wondered why the game was taken over by twinks. They supported 4E with combat-heavy dungeon crawls when the system is best suited to small numbers of climactic combats. And they're supporting 5E with epic story-driven mega-campaigns, which become a huge grind because you have to stuff them with trash fights in order to attrit the PCs. They should have supported 4E with epic quest stuff like Out of the Abyss and Tomb of Annihilation, and they should be supporting 5E with encounter-dense locales like Thunderspire Labyrinth and Madness at Gardmore Abbey.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052829Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

5E is really starting to creak under the imperatives of the encounter structure. In order to challenge the PCs, you have to throw encounter after encounter after encounter at them. And solos get roasted, so lots of big encounters. It gets tedious.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052853WotC has a long-standing problem supporting its systems with the wrong kind of adventures.

Quotes for truth. People buy the adventures and think "this is how you design/play", which leads to more garbage.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1052863Quotes for truth. People buy the adventures and think "this is how you design/play", which leads to more garbage.

It's difficult to design an early adventure in a particular style to fit a game when the writers of the game system have mutually incompatible ideas about how the system works (or in the case of 3E and 4E, three or four mutually incompatible ideas, depending upon how you count).  Part of 5E's success in this respect is that it still has mutually incompatible ways to play, but at least the designers are aware of that enough to sometimes call it out (though not always).  With 5E, they are beginning to show that they at least know what they don't know.

Given that I'm being subtly accused of lying, I'll just retort by stating that Lurtch doesn't know what he's talking about.

In fact, I'll take the opportunity to double down and expand my position and state that, despite all its faults, SJWs have done more to popularize the hobby than most veteran gamers.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1052878Given that I'm being subtly accused of lying, I'll just retort by stating that Lurtch doesn't know what he's talking about.

In fact, I'll take the opportunity to double down and expand my position and state that, despite all its faults, SJWs have done more to popularize the hobby than most veteran gamers.

I never said you're lying. I said WoTC is lying.

What is your evidence that they've done more to popularize the hobby?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1052878Given that I'm being subtly accused of lying, I'll just retort by stating that Lurtch doesn't know what he's talking about.

In fact, I'll take the opportunity to double down and expand my position and state that, despite all its faults, SJWs have done more to popularize the hobby than most veteran gamers.

Hate movements primarily complain about things.

So I really doubt SJWs are popularizing anything let alone D&D.

Appeasing them is a waste of marketing. They don't exist to enjoy things. As soon as they do something human like that, the SJW mob mentality is turned off for awhile.

The people popularizing D&D with live play streams aren't SJWs themselves. But given their demographics, they're likely useful idiots for the SJWs - the kind of people who don't buy into the dogma in their private thoughts, but who feel it socially useful to nod and agree with the zealots.

It's like in Victorian England when a white-gloved Christian read aloud from the psalms and denounced the sin rampant in the world, while respectable friends and neighbors would sing along wearing a mask of piety, in their hearts scarcely believing a word of it.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052689According to WotC, half of the people who have played 5E were introduced to the game through live play streams like Critical Role.

WOTC loves to pull these numbers out of the void. Reality says otherwise.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052829Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

For us fights in 5e tend to warp along fairly fast. As noted in other threads they rarely last longer than 5 minutes. And as long as the group is prepared yes they can handle more than two fights per long rest. Maybee even unprepared.

Doesnt anyone bring potions of healing with them anymore???

I've had 5e sessions with 6 fights and sessions with one fight and they both seem to work fine, so not seeing the problem really.

Quote from: S'mon;1052948I've had 5e sessions with 6 fights and sessions with one fight and they both seem to work fine, so not seeing the problem really.

Did your level have 2 digits?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052956Did your level have 2 digits?

At any level. Which was surprising. Some fights would end a little faster, some a little longer. But the majority were around 5 rounds.

I feel like the Duffer brothers probably did more for 5e than anything, or anyone else.   I am sure Critical roll probably had its viewership sky rocket after they released their show.  I am also sure the show hit a nostalgia nerve with former players of the 1st edition and 5e is closer to that than 3 or 4e.  I do think critical roll had a place in helping sales, but I think it was the Duffer Brothers WOC should thank for their success.  

   But is it really a success if you had the most popular rpg and totally screwed yourself (4e) and now show a smashing success as finally recovering from a massive blunder?

Quote from: oggsmash;1052999But is it really a success if you had the most popular rpg and totally screwed yourself (4e) and now show a smashing success as finally recovering from a massive blunder?

The Dogbert school of business says "Yes!".

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052956Did your level have 2 digits?

The recent 6 fight session had PCs .ca 6th-7th level, but I have gm'd 5e pcs up through 20th and not seen a general problem. There are occasional sloggy fights like one with a bunch of 57 hp  ogres. But not the systemic issues I see with 4e.

Quote from: S'mon;1053025The recent 6 fight session had PCs .ca 6th-7th level, but I have gm'd 5e pcs up through 20th and not seen a general problem. There are occasional sloggy fights like one with a bunch of 57 hp  ogres. But not the systemic issues I see with 4e.

I'm not going argue that following the standard encounter pacing works.

It's the mono/two encounter days that the system can't handle.

And I would consider 5 rounds of fighting for the one combat you do that night handling things poorly.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1053036I'm not going argue that following the standard encounter pacing works.

It's the mono/two encounter days that the system can't handle.

And I would consider 5 rounds of fighting for the one combat you do that night handling things poorly.

Except the system can very easily handle several combats per "day".

And we did in one section of the adventure about 8 combat encounters due to it being an enemy stronghold.

Try again please.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1053036I'm not going argue that following the standard encounter pacing works.

It's the mono/two encounter days that the system can't handle.

And I would consider 5 rounds of fighting for the one combat you do that night handling things poorly.

I'm not sure what you mean about the 5 round fight - too long?

I noticed a problem with 1 fight days and lack of attrition so I went over to 1 week long rests. That works great IME.

Quote from: Omega;1053062Except the system can very easily handle several combats per "day".

And we did in one section of the adventure about 8 combat encounters due to it being an enemy stronghold.

Try again please.

Maybe Rhedyn meant that 1-2 encounters heavily favor classes with more short-rest mechanics that can "nova" more often vs. Classes that save long rest options for later?

Not sure though, I haven't experienced many issues with the 1-10 levels

Rhedyn will have to explain, as I am not figuring out his comments myself either. 5e can handle quite a bit of combat per day, in fact, a bit much in my estimation, with RAW full heal per Long Rest. The comments about party needing long rest after surviving two combats, but combats should not take longer than 5 rounds... strange. Not from actual play I've seen and done.

A sort of "nova 15 minute day" carry over from 3e? How? And why?

Quote from: S'mon;1053091I noticed a problem with 1 fight days and lack of attrition so I went over to 1 week long rests. That works great IME.

Extractly. The system requires attrition, which IMHO, is boring. Previous systems handle mono encounter days better (and not ending too early in 5 rounds).

For a group that may go dungeon crawling one day and then fight a dragon on a mountain the next day, our group can't really switch between 1 day long rest and 1 week long rest to fit the narrative. But neither of those would help a boss fight when we are fully rested work better.

I'm running ToA right now and often they'll only have 1 encounter per day during their jungle exploration.  I just ramp up the difficulty to Deadly+ and that usually solves things.  Encounters become Combat as a Puzzle at that point but that's fine.  Sometimes it's a nice change from Fantasy Fucking Vietnam.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1053106Extractly. The system requires attrition, which IMHO, is boring. Previous systems handle mono encounter days better (and not ending too early in 5 rounds).

For a group that may go dungeon crawling one day and then fight a dragon on a mountain the next day, our group can't really switch between 1 day long rest and 1 week long rest to fit the narrative. But neither of those would help a boss fight when we are fully rested work better.

That's what we've found as well. You can play RAW and the party destroys solos and random monsters with ease while in travel mode. Or you can house rule long rest 1/week and a traditional dungeon-crawl becomes screwy. The recovery/attrition ratio is so deeply embedded in 5E that it's just not very flexible. The attritional nature of D&D has often made combat a bit of a slog. But 5E dialed it up to 11.

Why not use the built in Turn mechanic to tweak things?  If you are in Wilderness Turns you long rest 1/week or only at a point of light or something.  In Dungeon Turns you long rest in 8 hours.  I suspect that Short Rests were changed to 1 hour because 1 hour = Short Rest = 1 Dungeon Turn = 1 Wandering Monster roll.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1053106For a group that may go dungeon crawling one day and then fight a dragon on a mountain the next day, our group can't really switch between 1 day long rest and 1 week long rest to fit the narrative.

I find one week long rest works perfect for both, though for the dungeon crawl it's important to keep short rests at one hour.

For dragon fight: group rests a week, goes up mountain & fights dragon, rests a week.
For dungeon crawl: group goes down dungeon, has 4-8 fights in a day (with 1-3 short rests), then leaves the dungeon & rests a week.

1 week rest also means I can obey Gygax's enjoinder to progress real time & game time at the same rate. I can look at the real world date & see what the date is in-game. Eg it's 16th of month 8 2018 IRL so it's 16th of month 8 4448 in my Wilderlands game.

Edit: While I originally went to 1 week long rest to better handle wilderness adventures, it's even better for traditional Gygaxian dungeon crawling. It means that my PC groups delving Stonehell have been launching expeditions down there for months both IRL and in-game - although checking my notes I remember I did do a 6 month time jump to match game & real dates up perfectly rather than be 6 months out; the first expedition was in September 2017, which was M3 4447 in my Wilderlands, whereas it's now M8 2018/M8 4448. So 11 real months vs 17 game months.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052829Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

LOLwut?

It can definitely handle a lot more than 2 combats per long rest.  We're running through Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan right now in 5e, and we've almost cleared an entire level on a single long rest we had prior to entering the dungeon. We did pull off one short rest, but it wasn't a great short rest as some of us took damage from the poison air during the rest.

[Edit - I see what you mean now, you think it doesn't work well if your intent is 1-2 encounters per long rest. Ah, OK. Well we've had those as well. Two really tough encounters worked fine. Legendary creatures with lairs that have lair actions are really splendid.]

Easiest fix is not to lengthen the time rate of Short & Long Rests but to remove full HP healing after a Long Rest entirely. That way Hit Dice becomes the mechanism to heal, and eventually has attrition due to the "only 1/2 HD regain per Long Rest (round down, min. 1 HD)" limit. Then it becomes an issue of hoarding as much of your max Hit Dice to the juicy adventuring parts.

Quote from: TJS;1052823Yep.  

And 4E fights should never take place in an empty room.  You need to put in a big pit of lava you can push people into and some archers on a ledge, possibly a big cauldron of something hot, like in the conan movie that you can push over and wipe out some mooks, mark where the tables are so you can ram people against them, have reinforcements arrive halfway through the fight, have a third faction arrive 2 rounds in and just take on everyone, have the PCs trying to rescue a prisoner while the enemy are trying to move them away etc.

4E works well for a big Indiana Jones style set piece.

Yup, exactly. 4ed is fun like that. It would've been a good idea to tell people that ahead of time instead of tell people to engage in a boring grindfest (Keep on the Shadowfell). Of course big fancy set pieces can be fun in any edition, but only 4ed NEEDS them to function.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052829Man, I feel like trash fights take too long in 5e while at the same time the system can't really handle two combats per long rest.

Agreed completely. 3.5ed and 5ed run into the same problems, just not to the extent that 4ed does.

The best way to hack around them in 5ed is to use some the alternate long rest rules that make it a lot harder to get a long rest so that it's easier to pack in more combats per long rest.

In that vein I wonder how 4ed would be if you put in incredibly punitive rest rules so that a long rest requires a HUGE amount of downtime so that you'd normally play a couple of sessions per long rest so that attrition finally rears its head.

At least in 3e you could just fight one CR = APL+5 encounter and not need the trash fights.

I feel like 5e expects you to be a little worn before you ever see the boss.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1053186Easiest fix is not to lengthen the time rate of Short & Long Rests but to remove full HP healing after a Long Rest entirely. That way Hit Dice becomes the mechanism to heal, and eventually has attrition due to the "only 1/2 HD regain per Long Rest (round down, min. 1 HD)" limit. Then it becomes an issue of hoarding as much of your max Hit Dice to the juicy adventuring parts.

This is what I do, along with being a little harsher with the exhaustion mechanics, and tying both the hit dice and exhaustion into the death saves and environmental factors.  I've had a lot of good results producing the same feel of the AD&D resource drain, in adventures set up similarly.  That was my intent when I selected those modifications.  

Or rather, a fully rested party feels like they can take on anything, not quite to 4E or upper level 3E extent, but still potent "fantasy superheroes".  As they take damage and need to use hit dice or otherwise hit those exhaustion/death saves, they very rapidly start to feel the pressure.  If they get in too deep or make too many mistakes, it can get to the point where everyone feels like an AD&D low-level game would be easier. :D

One of my measuring sticks for achieving this kind of feel is to what extent the party hoards consumable magic items.  I've got mostly those types of players that will save them for a rainy day.  When an adventure is chewing up consumable items as fast as they find them, I know I've hit the balance that I want.  When I make them so desperate that they decide it is a good idea for the wizard to use that scroll that was intended to go into the spell book, I know I've got them really sweating.  

Last session, I had some unambiguous feedback in our sandbox, though the players didn't realize it.  The players picked a course of action because several of them agreed that, "We need to scout this area, before we picked a target.  We can't afford to tangle with a group of local monsters on our way to or from the targets, even if we can find a place to rest out in the wild."

Quote from: Daztur;1053214Yup, exactly. 4ed is fun like that. It would've been a good idea to tell people that ahead of time instead of tell people to engage in a boring grindfest (Keep on the Shadowfell). Of course big fancy set pieces can be fun in any edition, but only 4ed NEEDS them to function.

I don't know about big fancy sets, we use a dry-erase board and minis (but that's every edition) and it works out well. I think the issue is that the early 4e Adventures really shied away from using LOTS of minions to full-fill those grindfest encounters AND when they were used, often they were distinguished from other monsters. Which means that any AoE power pretty much makes their application to the encounter pointless. Mix them in with the bad guys, keep them spread out and use as support and they provide a much better job at both keeping players honest AND spreading out the damage from AoEs.

Quote from: Daztur;1053214In that vein I wonder how 4ed would be if you put in incredibly punitive rest rules so that a long rest requires a HUGE amount of downtime so that you'd normally play a couple of sessions per long rest so that attrition finally rears its head.

.

It would certainly make some classes exceedingly more useful and powerful vs. original classes. For example he Essential classes: Knight, Slayer, Thief, Executioner, Hexblade, and Sorcerer derivatives are going to be FAR more beneficial to your survival than the classes that rely on Daily powers to maintain effectiveness. And this goes doubly true for Psionic classes that treat at-wills like encounter when they put in more power points into them.

it would, however, make everyone play the game significantly different. When a Long Rest is 1 week (just an example) and encounter powers are say 6 hours, players are going to sneak past or parlay a lot of those lesser encounters that are "filler" vs. expending resources that will take a long time to recoup. And it'll drastically effect combat encounters, making them much longer because most people will be going with Melee Basic Attacks or At-will powers which don't deal a whole lot of damage.

To do this and make it more functional, here's my suggestions:

- Up the damage of all at-will powers or basic attacks by 1 die or drop creatures hit points by 1/3 of their overall total (assuming Monster Vault or Monster Manual 3 stats as they're mathematically better).
- Make encounter powers reset every 6 hours and daily powers reset every 48.
- Reduce the number of healing surges each class gets by about 1/4.
- Allow players to use Action Points to either take an extra action OR recoup 1 encounter power of their choice.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052853My 4E campaign was one of the best I've ever run, and it was mostly roleplaying factions, with a couple important combats per session. No sustained dungeon-crawling, no trash fights.

WotC has a long-standing problem supporting its systems with the wrong kind of adventures. They supported 3/3.5 with adventures that required mix-maxing and gamey crap like wands of magic missile, and then wondered why the game was taken over by twinks. They supported 4E with combat-heavy dungeon crawls when the system is best suited to small numbers of climactic combats. And they're supporting 5E with epic story-driven mega-campaigns, which become a huge grind because you have to stuff them with trash fights in order to attrit the PCs. They should have supported 4E with epic quest stuff like Out of the Abyss and Tomb of Annihilation, and they should be supporting 5E with encounter-dense locales like Thunderspire Labyrinth and Madness at Gardmore Abbey.

5E is really starting to creak under the imperatives of the encounter structure. In order to challenge the PCs, you have to throw encounter after encounter after encounter at them. And solos get roasted, so lots of big encounters. It gets tedious.

Yeah good points here. Giving the right kind of adventures makes so much of a difference with newbies. I always strugged with TSR-D&D as a kid because I ran it in Frustrated Novelist mode and all of the regular problems cropped up, I thought I was just doing it wrong so I tried to do Frustrated Novelist better and harder and purer. Was like flipping a switch when I started running things differently.

5ed's basically OK as a cleaned up 3.5ed for me (in terms of how it plays) but combat is still to slow to be an ideal fit for me. There are workarounds and the game is OK just not what I want exactly.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1052877It's difficult to design an early adventure in a particular style to fit a game when the writers of the game system have mutually incompatible ideas about how the system works (or in the case of 3E and 4E, three or four mutually incompatible ideas, depending upon how you count).  Part of 5E's success in this respect is that it still has mutually incompatible ways to play, but at least the designers are aware of that enough to sometimes call it out (though not always).  With 5E, they are beginning to show that they at least know what they don't know.

Apparently 4ed was playtested mostly with RPGA people who apparently like grindy crap or something. I don't know...

Quote from: Batman;1053243I don't know about big fancy sets, we use a dry-erase board and minis (but that's every edition) and it works out well. I think the issue is that the early 4e Adventures really shied away from using LOTS of minions to full-fill those grindfest encounters AND when they were used, often they were distinguished from other monsters. Which means that any AoE power pretty much makes their application to the encounter pointless. Mix them in with the bad guys, keep them spread out and use as support and they provide a much better job at both keeping players honest AND spreading out the damage from AoEs.

Don't mean fancy minis and crap, just a complex environment in-game.

QuoteIt would certainly make some classes exceedingly more useful and powerful vs. original classes. For example he Essential classes: Knight, Slayer, Thief, Executioner, Hexblade, and Sorcerer derivatives are going to be FAR more beneficial to your survival than the classes that rely on Daily powers to maintain effectiveness. And this goes doubly true for Psionic classes that treat at-wills like encounter when they put in more power points into them.

it would, however, make everyone play the game significantly different. When a Long Rest is 1 week (just an example) and encounter powers are say 6 hours, players are going to sneak past or parlay a lot of those lesser encounters that are "filler" vs. expending resources that will take a long time to recoup. And it'll drastically effect combat encounters, making them much longer because most people will be going with Melee Basic Attacks or At-will powers which don't deal a whole lot of damage.

To do this and make it more functional, here's my suggestions:

- Up the damage of all at-will powers or basic attacks by 1 die or drop creatures hit points by 1/3 of their overall total (assuming Monster Vault or Monster Manual 3 stats as they're mathematically better).
- Make encounter powers reset every 6 hours and daily powers reset every 48.
- Reduce the number of healing surges each class gets by about 1/4.
- Allow players to use Action Points to either take an extra action OR recoup 1 encounter power of their choice.

Don't necessarily want THAT many combats per long rest, just one or two combats per session and often a couple sessions per long rest.

To use The Hobbit as an example no long rests until Rivendell then no long rests until Bjorn then no long rests until the far side of Mirkwood. So basically only long rests at points of light, not random campsites. That way long overland travel can involve Oregon Trail-style attrition without having to pack in a bunch of combats each day. You can still get the players ground down even if days pass between each fight.

None of that helps when the party is suppose to fight one big encounter when fully rested.

Quote from: Haffrung;1052689According to WotC, half of the people who have played 5E were introduced to the game through live play streams like Critical Role.

I have a bit of trouble believing that. But let's say it's true: the really important question will be "how many of these people are still playing D&D 3 years from now"?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053563I have a bit of trouble believing that. But let's say it's true: the really important question will be "how many of these people are still playing D&D 3 years from now"?

Hopefully a lot move on to other games. 5ed is fine and all but it doesn't set my mind on fire and more people thinking about making good games is always a good thing.

Quote from: Daztur;1053570Hopefully a lot move on to other games. 5ed is fine and all but it doesn't set my mind on fire and more people thinking about making good games is always a good thing.

From other publushers that isn't happening like it did in prior booms. I think that's more due to the death of RPG retail. 18 years ago with 3E or 30 years ago with 2E or 40 years ago with 1E if folks got bored they stopped by their hobby shop and have a choice of new games to choose from.

Now and days folks have PDFs and discovery/retail sales help doesn't exist.

Quote from: Lurtch;1053594From other publushers that isn't happening like it did in prior booms. I think that's more due to the death of RPG retail. 18 years ago with 3E or 30 years ago with 2E or 40 years ago with 1E if folks got bored they stopped by their hobby shop and have a choice of new games to choose from.

Now and days folks have PDFs and discovery/retail sales help doesn't exist.

Complete wild guess here:  I bet that in a couple of years, we will find some small percentage but sizable chunk of 5E players did migrate to other games, similar to what happened in the AD&D 1E boom.  However, because of the internet replacing stores, the other games will be more dispersed.  That is, you won't have a clear second-tier of games gathering the lion's share of people ready to jump from 5E.  A few good games will gain a boost that means something tangible to the sellers, but there will not be the sales equivalent of a RQ or GURPs in the mix.  (Though it would be hilarious if the games that do gain the most of the dispersal are the TFT and RQ 2nd ed. reprints.)

Quote from: Daztur;1053570Hopefully a lot move on to other games. 5ed is fine and all but it doesn't set my mind on fire and more people thinking about making good games is always a good thing.

Obviously, I didn't mean to imply "3 years from now a million D&D players will have moved on to play other rpgs". I meant to imply "3 years from now a million D&D players will have moved on to the next fad and won't be roleplaying at all".