Hard, but really hard, disagree. What some people felt for 4th edition DnD I have for Paradox Interactives take on the WoD. Squared.
Objectively they *are* doing better now. That said, they aren't doing as well as they did back when they also had their own TV series, wrestler and computer games but appearantly quite a few people disagree with you. Just like people disagreed about 4E, I guess. :)
So I said I'm not going to go into the details why I find V5 a roaring dumpster fire of mythical proportions, as this is a dnd forum, but you lot make it difficult.
To continue from the "no king rules forever" quote earlier, most commonly attributed to World of Warcraft, there's something else attributed to that game: the only thing that will kill WoW is WoW. Even the surge of popularity its rival Final Fantasy XIV has seen was only one part (albeit a very significant one) to WoW's cataclysmic loss in popularity.
I think the same of the colossus that is Dungeons & Dragons: anything that surpasses D&D, especially in the long term, is going to be in part due to its license holders' consistent and staggering incompetence, rather than just a competitor doing the same but better. Even then, it'll be a long time before people stop referring to the tabletop as "D&D" after its demise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Hard, but really hard, disagree. What some people felt for 4th edition DnD I have for Paradox Interactives take on the WoD. Squared.
Objectively they *are* doing better now. That said, they aren't doing as well as they did back when they also had their own TV series, wrestler and computer games but appearantly quite a few people disagree with you. Just like people disagreed about 4E, I guess. :)
So I said I'm not going to go into the details why I find V5 a roaring dumpster fire of mythical proportions, as this is a dnd forum, but you lot make it difficult.
No-one is forcing you to go into any details and I don't think anyone has even really disagreed with you. Fact is though, that VtM is doing better now than they did a few years ago so appearantly enough people like it well enough to actully buy it. That's not something that's going to change just because you personally don't like it. And that fine I guess. I've never really enjoyed any D&D editions before 5th but that doesn't mean other people didn't.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
The trend towards oversimplification is painful, and the 2024 edition looks like it's going to take that to the extreme. Having some actual alternatives would be nice, but DnD is so popular that finding a group for anything else isn't possible.
I prefer less crunchy, but I can understand if some people prefer the opposite.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
But "more complexity" == "rules heavy".
More customisable characters == more rules.
How else would you add complexity?
The Comrade is hoping for a slightly more crunchy alternative. There's a whole lot of middle ground between "a bit more complexity" and "far too rules heavy" (which I disagree with for 3E, but that's not a discussion to be had here).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's also a difference between crunchy at the table and crunchy when leveling. A game can be crunchy and complex when you gain a new level and have lots of choices to make, but then be really streamlined when playing at the table. Or it can be streamlined and pre-packaged when leveling but expose complexity when running the game itself. I wish D&D leaned a little more to the former than the latter than it currently does.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
But "more complexity" == "rules heavy".
More customisable characters == more rules.
How else would you add complexity?
There is an absolutely massive gap between late 3.5, and current 5e in complexity. It's not a binary one or the other.
I like the bounded accuracy. I like the advantage/disadvantage. I like the casting not being vancian anymore. I like there not being several hundred classes. I like not having to add up 50 different + and - modifiers for every single roll I do.
I'd essentially just like 5e, with a few more classes, large/tiny player species. And a few more small changes like that.
Though I don't want DnD to die, I hope that a slightly more crunchy alternative becomes as popular as DnD is.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
Google for "Pathfinder Nexus". They're in early access but it's supposed to become the dndbeyond for Pathfinder 2... *and* it has a lfg feature where DMs post their open games for people to join, both paid and free.
If you don't have friends who'd be interested in the game that could be a way for you to find players. :-)
Or look at Pathfinder Society. If you're in the U.S. there's probably one near you. Or join the next Paizo Con, they have several tables to try out the game (last year it was online via Discord), where you might find people for a longer campaign.
There's enough people who play the game, but you'll probably not find them in a D&D forum. ;-)
D&D is a pretty big fish in a small pond. That being said, while I of course wish no such situation on anyone whose products I consume and have enjoyed for forty years, I can see D&D falling hard (and someone stepping in), if the Blizzard situation happens to WotC/Hasbro. I never would have guessed that would be it, but I've had conversations about the same thing.
"Will an MMO ever de-throne WoW?" My answers was always, "Blizz will have to somehow kill it themselves." Seems to me, they might be going that route.
Yes, Microsoft stepped in which I think is a good thing, but it may have already been the nail for WoW.
D&D is a pretty big fish in a small pond. That being said, while I of course wish no such situation on anyone whose products I consume and have enjoyed for forty years, I can see D&D falling hard (and someone stepping in), if the Blizzard situation happens to WotC/Hasbro. I never would have guessed that would be it, but I've had conversations about the same thing.
"Will an MMO ever de-throne WoW?" My answers was always, "Blizz will have to somehow kill it themselves." Seems to me, they might be going that route.
Yes, Microsoft stepped in which I think is a good thing, but it may have already been the nail for WoW.
I think you overestimate how much "outrage" transposes into actual action. I know plenty of people, male and female, outraged with Blizzard, who then still happily play its games because they love them. You can look through history and see companies that where found out for poor behaviour that continued growing strong because in general people don't want to make the real sacrifice to make a point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I said I'm not going to go into the details why I find V5 a roaring dumpster fire of mythical proportions, as this is a dnd forum, but you lot make it difficult.
To continue from the "no king rules forever" quote earlier, most commonly attributed to World of Warcraft, there's something else attributed to that game: the only thing that will kill WoW is WoW. Even the surge of popularity its rival Final Fantasy XIV has seen was only one part (albeit a very significant one) to WoW's cataclysmic loss in popularity.
I think the same of the colossus that is Dungeons & Dragons: anything that surpasses D&D, especially in the long term, is going to be in part due to its license holders' consistent and staggering incompetence, rather than just a competitor doing the same but better. Even then, it'll be a long time before people stop referring to the tabletop as "D&D" after its demise.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
No-one is forcing you to go into any details and I don't think anyone has even really disagreed with you. Fact is though, that VtM is doing better now than they did a few years ago so appearantly enough people like it well enough to actully buy it. That's not something that's going to change just because you personally don't like it. And that fine I guess. I've never really enjoyed any D&D editions before 5th but that doesn't mean other people didn't.
I prefer less crunchy, but I can understand if some people prefer the opposite.
Why not stick with 3.5 if you want more crunchy?
The more recent additions have been removing the crunch to give it more appeal to the masses.
3.5 was far too rules heavy and generally unpleasant to learn. Base 5e was pretty nice though I'd prefer a bit more complexity like more classes and more customisable characters. Also things like tiny/large player characters. But the game is heading towards further simplification.
As a whole I prefer 5e way way more than 3.5, and it's much closer to where I'd rather be.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty ideal, but good luck finding a group with all 7 people who play it.
But "more complexity" == "rules heavy".
More customisable characters == more rules.
How else would you add complexity?
The Comrade is hoping for a slightly more crunchy alternative. There's a whole lot of middle ground between "a bit more complexity" and "far too rules heavy" (which I disagree with for 3E, but that's not a discussion to be had here).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes, things can change very quickly in the game industry.
MDC
A punk band from Austin, Texas?
There's also a difference between crunchy at the table and crunchy when leveling. A game can be crunchy and complex when you gain a new level and have lots of choices to make, but then be really streamlined when playing at the table. Or it can be streamlined and pre-packaged when leveling but expose complexity when running the game itself. I wish D&D leaned a little more to the former than the latter than it currently does.
There is an absolutely massive gap between late 3.5, and current 5e in complexity. It's not a binary one or the other.
I like the bounded accuracy. I like the advantage/disadvantage. I like the casting not being vancian anymore. I like there not being several hundred classes. I like not having to add up 50 different + and - modifiers for every single roll I do.
I'd essentially just like 5e, with a few more classes, large/tiny player species. And a few more small changes like that.
Google for "Pathfinder Nexus". They're in early access but it's supposed to become the dndbeyond for Pathfinder 2... *and* it has a lfg feature where DMs post their open games for people to join, both paid and free.
If you don't have friends who'd be interested in the game that could be a way for you to find players. :-)
Or look at Pathfinder Society. If you're in the U.S. there's probably one near you. Or join the next Paizo Con, they have several tables to try out the game (last year it was online via Discord), where you might find people for a longer campaign.
There's enough people who play the game, but you'll probably not find them in a D&D forum. ;-)
more likely a reference to Mega-Damage Capacity (a term from the Rifts ttrpg system)
Someone said it well.
D&D is a pretty big fish in a small pond. That being said, while I of course wish no such situation on anyone whose products I consume and have enjoyed for forty years, I can see D&D falling hard (and someone stepping in), if the Blizzard situation happens to WotC/Hasbro. I never would have guessed that would be it, but I've had conversations about the same thing.
"Will an MMO ever de-throne WoW?" My answers was always, "Blizz will have to somehow kill it themselves." Seems to me, they might be going that route.
Yes, Microsoft stepped in which I think is a good thing, but it may have already been the nail for WoW.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I think you overestimate how much "outrage" transposes into actual action. I know plenty of people, male and female, outraged with Blizzard, who then still happily play its games because they love them. You can look through history and see companies that where found out for poor behaviour that continued growing strong because in general people don't want to make the real sacrifice to make a point.