I don't know, maybe it won't be so grim, but there is nothing in ... Wizards of the Coast's corporate history that would suggest anything to the contrary, so if history is our way to measure the future, D&D and its community is entering a whole new world of BS.
That's untrue. I did specifically remove Hasbro from that.
I have a hate on for the card games. I watched what little spare change we had evaporate as my boys sucked it down for cards, lol. Resentment is deep. Never shall I ever...
But the folks behind Wizards of the Coast were all D&D players who created Magic as a homebrew expansion of their game. There is a lot of assorted BS of the same sort that underlies the development of D&D, but the basic truth is still that. ANd for years, they demonstrated pretty much NOT what you are talking about. Then Hasbro bought them.
Hasbro has to answer to about a third of all the 401k plans out there, a bunch of rich people, and a ton of mutual funds. Legally, they have a responsibility to maximize shareholder revenue. At 70 bucks a share on NASDAQ as of this writing, they did their shareholders a big one by buying WotC, and then screwed up when they took on (and now have sold) eOne. Trendline is a pretty healthy curve since 99 for a company that's been around that long.
So yes, they will milk the cow, but I don't think they will milk it in the way you describe, lol.
1,000-dollar skins on their VTT
special one-time-only "deals" when you buy your digital copy of X book
special collectors sub-classes
special DLC's
That last one? D&D doesn't have DLCs, lol. And all the shortchange games in videogames except AAA have tanked. Even Destiny is struggling with it.
And the whole "dogpile on the DM" bit? Nah. Now let me tell you what I see:
More "buy this subclass/species/monster, magic item for 5 bucks" just like they do now. Because WotC doesn't see a DM shortage, they see a DM breakage. They know they won't get DMs to spend more, and even acknowledged that. THey want players to spend more. So the VTT will likely charge for skins -- but not 1000 dollar ones, even allowing for ridiculous hyberbole. Probably the same nickel and dime stuff they have done since B/X was released and modules were five bucks under TSR on sale.
Because they have been clear that the goal is to increase monetization of the folks who can play the game for free -- but not by turning them away from it, so there will always be a free way to play. Just, not here.
I see the VTT as an add-on to the exting tiers system, sure, and that will burn the DM, but I also see them charging a tier for those who want to use the VTT as players. THey have that already because they didn't need to develop it out -- Roll20 and WorldAnvil and others did that for them.
I don't know who you've been listening to, or why you hate Hasbro and WotC so much. Given the games list you gave, I would suspect it is some leftover animosity from the OGL horsehockey. Fine. hate them. Spit on them and piss on them and call everyone who loves their card game and their TTRPGs folks that "are swallowing the defecation like its liquid chocolate" without realizing that doing so sorta turns you into That Guy.
I mean, I see being called a shit eater politely as a personal attack on all D&D players, but meh.
And I do get your cynical, pessimistic worldview about the possible future and what "monetizing the player base" means. I mean, this is a company that has created cards that private traders are selling for hundreds of dollars -- and that pissed them all off by flooding the market with cards that undercut them and shifted the way that decks were made (not liking, not playing, doesn't mean I don't pay attention), that is owned by a company that by all reports is furious at the success of the arch-enemy Barbie movie and that basically owned the whole idea of toy licensing for year and seems to have forgotten how to do it now that Disney and Mattel do it better. They are the folks wo made Monopoly a game that is localized in a dozen places after suing some small town folks who had been doing into the dust. This is the company that buried Avalon Hill.
According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, Wizards of the Coast accounts for 22% of Hasbro's annual revenue, but produces 72% of Hasbro's profit as of 2021. They did 5.86 Billion dollars in revenue last year -- and an operating profit of $407.7 million dollars of which we can estimate that 294 million came from WotC. They want that 15% operating margin that is the current platinum standard all those investing agencies demand, and they already know they can only squeeze so much out of D&D because they are becoming overly reliant on it in terms of product mix. That means they are being pressured way more and by more "important" people that D&D players to get off their hind end and fix the rest of the gazillion segments of their behemoth (such as Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers and Nerf, and all those IP fountains like MLP, G I Joe, and Power Rangers that they haven't touched successfully yet) as well as to make better licensing deals so they can make more money from crappy transformers movies.
That's the reality. But you only see that reality if you look at the whole picture -- like the fact that all the old school games combined are still less than 3% of the total hobby market.
Even allowing for drift, the theme here is still "are DMs having fun" and the bulk of responses indicate that yes, while they all have pet peeves, they are indeed having fun.
I am sorry to hear that you are not, and I hope that things get better for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They won't do it because the game is making all the money. Even though all signs point to needing something COMPLETELY new, they'll milk this game till the very last dollar is wrung out.
I don't think anyone's happy with mediocrity. But there's a degree of realism that's needed in the discussion. 5e is open license. Publish your own revised version.
Well theory crafting aside, as a business I would not expect them to do anything but continue to milk the golden cow and from all official reports from the company, they intend to test the spending tolerance of the D&D community. We can expect the same level of crazy we have seen in Magic: The Gathering the last year. 1,000-dollar skins on their VTT, special one-time-only "deals" when you buy your digital copy of X book and I wouldn't put it past them to sell special collectors sub-classes, special DLC's and stuff like that.. what is referred to as whale hunting. I don't think it's a question of if D&D is about to get a lot more expensive, it's more a question of how much more of this sort of corporate BS we have seen from WotC this community will take. Right now, they are swallowing the defecation like its liquid chocolate!
I think what we shouldn't expect and there is no evidence that would suggest otherwise is a focus on quality, the future is going to be all about quantity with each release one-upping the last to ensure the community shells out the cash for the latest and greatest toys on a monthly basis players can deploy on unsuspecting DM's on the VTT platform. In some way they are going to need to have control over the DM's on the VTT because if there is an option to not allow "purchased content" in a game, most DM's will want to do that to maintain the stability of their game, but that means players would be buying stuff that you can't use, a very unfair circumstance that will need remedy so its likely DM's will be forced to allow "anything a player owns" in their VTT game as a matter of policy. No Turtle people in your game... want to bet, Bob just bought the new Turtle Ninja Race/Class combo, he gets to play it!
There are of course darker scenarios as well, though I wouldn't put it past them. For example D&D books will likely have content excluded from them that is available in the online VTT, aka, VTT exclusives to push people online. You can smell that one in the air already, they have all but said this is coming at this point.
I don't know, maybe it won't be so grim, but there is nothing in Hasbro or Wizards of the Coasts corporate history that would suggest anything to the contrary, so if history is our way to measure the future, D&D and its community is entering a whole new world of BS.
You seem to have made it clear a page or two back that you aren't even playing this game anymore. And as always comes up in these threads, this is a luxury product. It is not food. It is not clear air or clean water or housing or any necessity at all.
And it is a private company. So, the complaint seems to be 'Producer of luxury products is making more than some who do not even use their products think they should'
Alert the press?
I'm sorry but calling a game book a "luxury" is a bit over the top. Luxury used to be reserved for expensive diamond and gold jewelry, ivory letter openers and crap in the tens of thousands... Now it seems toilet paper is a f***ing luxury as it's not essential to wipe you a** to live.
I think it's completely ok to hold a company accountable for what it produces, and when it produces crap, it should be taken to task for it.
Issue I have with 5e is that you simply can't do that. You can't just let players find stuff, which is crazy as its one of the joys of the game. It is absolutely vital to the balance of the game that magic items are strictly assessed and controlled by the DM in 5e. In my game, if a guy gets lucky and finds a +3 Flametongue Longsword at 1st level... so be it, has zero impact on balance, just evens the odds a bit, gives them a fighting chance. In fact I'm always hopeful this happens, I'm always rooting for them during random treasure rolls. In 5e it would be catastrophically bad for a 1st level character to find powerful magic items, you sure as shit can't just give them random treasure.
Sure you can; it won't be any more disruptive than it was in 1e or Basic -- in either edition it will let you overcome foes that you would be unlikely to beat without it. The main significant difference is that in B/X and AD&D you died at 0 hp so characters died more.
You seem to have made it clear a page or two back that you aren't even playing this game anymore. And as always comes up in these threads, this is a luxury product. It is not food. It is not clear air or clean water or housing or any necessity at all.
And it is a private company. So, the complaint seems to be 'Producer of luxury products is making more than some who do not even use their products think they should'
Alert the press?
Gate Keep much? Look I understand in the absence of a defendable position, the tradition is to attack, but understand that I'm a D&D fan, have been for over 3 decades, far longer than Wizards of the Coast has even been around. I'm not a fan of this current edition, but I have been of every edition until the last two. I have earned my stripes and will call always call WotC on their BS because this is my game far more than it is there. They control it but I will judge them on how they do it.
They don't get a pass from me and I'm not going to "be silent" for you or them. It's the fandom, which includes me that keeps them in their billions, private company or not, they have to answer to their consumers and if they do or say things about or with this game I don't like, they are going to hear about it.
I realize that this makes me "that guy" as AEDorsay so eloquently put it, but I rather be enemy number one in defense of the game for its own good and the good of the hobby even if it makes the bad guy who disagrees with the disappointing way this community blindly supports the outrageous way they WotC has handled the franchise, then be silent. I realize silencing me would be preferable, and I recognize that at least on these forums that makes me the outcast, but I'm not really bothered by it.
Even allowing for drift, the theme here is still "are DMs having fun" and the bulk of responses indicate that yes, while they all have pet peeves, they are indeed having fun.
I am sorry to hear that you are not, and I hope that things get better for you.
I'm really surprised that with your analytical talents, you could with a straight-face claim that the bulk of the responses on this forum represent "DM's having fun". I think you should look again, this entire forum is effectively a list of complaints and DM's seeking help in problem games which shouldn't be the case I agree given that this is largely a 5e forum. I would expect most of the posts around here to be made by people who love 5e D&D, but it doesn't take more than a cursory look to realize that is not the case.
I however am I very happy DM, though I don't run or play 5e, so I don't really have any problems in my game to complain about.
If 5e is 5/5 complex, I’m curious about your thoughts on Palladium Fantasy or Rifts. When my group moved on from that crazy system, we literally had a 2’ ring binder full to the nuts with codified house rules. By comparison, our house rules are less than a page for our 5e game.
As far as magic items go, my DM, who’s been at it for over 40 years, adores the attunement system. It’s fire and forget when it comes to loot. He doesn’t have to meter anything beyond the overall group wealth because the attunement system keeps us in check internally. Though there are small handful of exceptions (Illusionist’s Bracers I’m looking at you), it’s virtually impossible to break the game with loot in 5e, which was simply not the case in previous editions and is generally untrue of any other TTRPG’s I have played. Personally, I don’t understand how this problematic rather than a laudable, elegant feature.
Issue I have with 5e is that you simply can't do that. You can't just let players find stuff, which is crazy as its one of the joys of the game. It is absolutely vital to the balance of the game that magic items are strictly assessed and controlled by the DM in 5e. In my game, if a guy gets lucky and finds a +3 Flametongue Longsword at 1st level... so be it, has zero impact on balance, just evens the odds a bit, gives them a fighting chance. In fact I'm always hopeful this happens, I'm always rooting for them during random treasure rolls. In 5e it would be catastrophically bad for a 1st level character to find powerful magic items, you sure as shit can't just give them random treasure.
I’m sorry but what?? A +3 Flametongue longsword at level 1 in ANY edition is highly unbalancing. That is high level treasure intended for high level characters. The idea that +3 to strike and damage at the very beginning of a game doesn’t completely trivialize level appropriate encounters and require a huge amount of tinkering from the DM to offer challenge to its possessor is utterly ludicrous.
Your experience with loot is clearly nothing like mine as my entire point is that all my DM ever does is give us random loot. It doesn’t matter what we find, we can only ever have three truly powerful items in use at any one time, unlike any other edition of D&D. How the bloody hell is the D&D with the most restrictive level of loot stacking and combos the edition that it is the most important in which to meter the loot characters receive? That makes ZERO sense. 5e loot comes with a built-in limiter that does not depend on the DM. Logically, this makes it the LEAST important edition for the DM to meter loot.
I must say that expecting someone with the user name "OSR4Ever" to not be an OSR grognard seems unreasonable and the main mystery is why he's on DDB to start with.
I’m sorry but what?? A +3 Flametongue longsword at level 1 in ANY edition is highly unbalancing. That is high level treasure intended for high level characters. The idea that +3 to strike and damage at the very beginning of a game doesn’t completely trivialize level appropriate encounters and require a huge amount of tinkering from the DM to offer challenge to its possessor is utterly ludicrous.
Your experience with loot is clearly nothing like mine as my entire point is that all my DM ever does is give us random loot. It doesn’t matter what we find, we can only ever have three truly powerful items in use at any one time, unlike any other edition of D&D. How the bloody hell is the D&D with the most restrictive level of loot stacking and combos the edition that it is the most important in which to meter the loot characters receive? That makes ZERO sense. 5e loot comes with a built-in limiter that does not depend on the DM. Logically, this makes it the LEAST important edition for the DM to meter loot.
I use Old School Essentials at least for the last few years, BECMI for years before that. Literally zero problems, it has absolutely no effect on balance at all.
I use Old School Essentials at least for the last few years, BECMI for years before that. Literally zero problems, it has absolutely no effect on balance at all.
Old-school games had no concept of balance and therefore there were no metrics for whether something was balanced. That doesn't mean it was balanced, it just means there's no way of detecting whether it's balanced.
I’m sorry but what?? A +3 Flametongue longsword at level 1 in ANY edition is highly unbalancing. That is high level treasure intended for high level characters. The idea that +3 to strike and damage at the very beginning of a game doesn’t completely trivialize level appropriate encounters and require a huge amount of tinkering from the DM to offer challenge to its possessor is utterly ludicrous.
Your experience with loot is clearly nothing like mine as my entire point is that all my DM ever does is give us random loot. It doesn’t matter what we find, we can only ever have three truly powerful items in use at any one time, unlike any other edition of D&D. How the bloody hell is the D&D with the most restrictive level of loot stacking and combos the edition that it is the most important in which to meter the loot characters receive? That makes ZERO sense. 5e loot comes with a built-in limiter that does not depend on the DM. Logically, this makes it the LEAST important edition for the DM to meter loot.
I use Old School Essentials at least for the last few years, BECMI for years before that. Literally zero problems, it has absolutely no effect on balance at all.
Ok, so in one hand you are holding up a sign complaining that PC's in 5e are too powerful for DM's to handle and in the other hand, a sign insisting 'A +3 flame tongue is not too powerful to give a level 1 character"
If I am misunderstanding you on either, please clarify.
That is the point. Old school games were never designed to be "balanced". They did not have CR ratings. An encounter table might include a badger and a hill giant. 5e is all about "balance" with CR ratings, all chars progressing at the same time, and umpteen other mechanics. A low level Old School char with a +3 weapon can wreak havoc, until 1 bad roll and that char is toast. In 5e, magic items are force multipliers, on a massive scale.
Ok, so in one hand you are holding up a sign complaining that PC's in 5e are too powerful for DM's to handle and in the other hand, a sign insisting 'A +3 flame tongue is not too powerful to give a level 1 character"
If I am misunderstanding you on either, please clarify.
It's really not that difficult to understand, I'm not sure I understand your confusion but sure I'll bite.
Basically in B/X having a +0 or a +3 to an attack roll or to damage, doesn't really impact the results all that much. You don't have multiple attacks, special powers to trigger, advantage dice or any other nonsense or anything else that works from that bonus. An attack boils down to a single roll, you hit or you don't. The impact on the game is quite minimal and since at 1st level monsters typically have between 2-8 hit points and relatively low AC anyway, you are only slightly more likely to hit and kill a monster with a powerful magic weapon than you are with a regular one, it really doesn't change much about the outcome of the fight. Yeah you are slightly more successful than you would be without the weapon but the impact on the game as a whole is almost nothing.
If there are 3 Orcs for example, you might kill one but the other two will still get you. Like it doesn't change the tactics of the fight or result in some sort of dramatic unexpected event because you have this powerful weapon. You are slightly more likely to kill 1 Orc.. which you probobly would have done magic weapon or not.
The balance is inherent in the games structure, monster design and general sequence of play. A powerful magic weapon won't allow you to suddenly change how you play.. you can't suddenly charge Ogres at 1st level and expect to suddenly be a badass superhero... that ogre is still going to kill a 1st level character even with that sword in your hand.
Edit: As Justfarmer points out and I can't imagine you would disagree, the combination of powerful class abilities and too many magic items is the problem with 5e, that is why they have this meta-system called attunement. They couldn't figure out how to balance the game so they added this cheesy forced mechanic as a jury-rigged fix. It's just a sloppy game design indicative of 5e.
Pathfinder is not easier to run. Not even close, not even a little bit factual. I may think it is a bloated warthog unworthy of a good haggis, but it is way harder on DMs who try to be creative, and relies on systems and tools that are cumbersome, degenerative, and not linked to each other. “Easier” in that regard places it on the level of World of Darkness, which dumps 60% of running the game on the players. Easiest game to run I have ever played was called Paranoia. And it is a mostly comedic game (was? I dunno if it is still around and ain’t on a google right this sec).
Paranoia's still around. While it's easy to run at a base level -- just give the players a shove and let them murder each other (which is literally what it was designed to do), I think it's really hard to run well -- comedy, especially dark comedy, is quite tricky. I haven't run it since I was a teenager, and the idea of doing it now scares me.
But it's illustrative of why GMing is so hard. By being a comedy game where the characters are explicitly doomed, and have no control over their lives, many of the harder tasks of the GM can be handwaved away. The players are the primary source of conflict. Fight's too hard or too easy? It has very little effect on whether you live or die, or succeed on your mission. The railroad is the expected method of story management, backed with ludicrous violence if the players insist on going off-track. The players aren't even allowed to know the rules. Nothing matters, and then you run out of clones, and are replaced by another expendable citizen.
It's absolutely a great game (The Computer says so, and Friend Computer wouldn't lie to you), but it's also very much an odd duck. (Knowledge of ducks is restricted to Ultraviolet clearance, citizen.)
As with Vampire, most other easier to run games do so by offloading to the players (although usually in a far more formalized manner), sometimes to the extent that there's no GM at all. This is not to everyone's taste, and putting more creative load onto the players has its own failure modes.
I'm really surprised that with your analytical talents, you could with a straight-face claim that the bulk of the responses on this forum represent "DM's having fun". I think you should look again, this entire forum is effectively a list of complaints and DM's seeking help in problem games which shouldn't be the case I agree given that this is largely a 5e forum. I would expect most of the posts around here to be made by people who love 5e D&D, but it doesn't take more than a cursory look to realize that is not the case.
Dude, that's a hefty sampling bias. People don't come to forums to say "Everything is fine". They ask for help because they have a problem. Sometimes they're system problems, sometimes they're table problems, sometimes they're table problems that they think are system problems. Sometimes they're just a need for ideas.
You have a dislike for 5e, so you see people asking for help and assume it's the norm.
I'm really surprised that with your analytical talents, you could with a straight-face claim that the bulk of the responses on this forum represent "DM's having fun". I think you should look again, this entire forum is effectively a list of complaints and DM's seeking help in problem games which shouldn't be the case I agree given that this is largely a 5e forum. I would expect most of the posts around here to be made by people who love 5e D&D, but it doesn't take more than a cursory look to realize that is not the case.
Dude, that's a hefty sampling bias. People don't come to forums to say "Everything is fine". They ask for help because they have a problem. Sometimes they're system problems, sometimes they're table problems, sometimes they're table problems that they think are system problems. Sometimes they're just a need for ideas.
You have a dislike for 5e, so you see people asking for help and assume it's the norm.
I know I harp on 5e quite a bit and in particular on WotC, and it may appear that I have some sort of major problem with the system, but it only appears that way. There are many redeeming qualities of the game I'm happy to acknowledge but right now the future of the game is at stake, so now is the time to be vocal if the game is to ever return to a more enlightened state. I consider myself a full-fledged member of this community and I reject the premise that I don't belong here because I'm not a die-hard 5e fan. I have been a fan of D&D for 3 decades and I plan to remain a fan until the day I die and I'm buried with my 1e DMG clutched in my hands. I won't be ushered out of the community because I refuse to conform.
What I see on the forums are so many, like a ridiculous amount of DM's with very core and fundamental problems caused directly by the design and evolution of the game since its release, problems that are not only being solved by better designers in the OSR in modern renditions of D&D but by supporting supplements outside of WotC like MCDM for example with Flee Mortals.
These DM's are getting terrible advice from the community in my opinion and while I have to deal with the hostility, I have helped steer 3 generations of DM's with my advice and I plan to help steer the next one. I can put up with some gatekeeping and hostility, it will be worth it if a few worthy DM's are born out of it.
I realize that this makes me "that guy" as AEDorsay so eloquently put it, but I rather be enemy number one in defense of the game for its own good and the good of the hobby even if it makes the bad guy who disagrees with the disappointing way this community blindly supports the outrageous way they WotC has handled the franchise, then be silent. I realize silencing me would be preferable, and I recognize that at least on these forums that makes me the outcast, but I'm not really bothered by it.
Even allowing for drift, the theme here is still "are DMs having fun" and the bulk of responses indicate that yes, while they all have pet peeves, they are indeed having fun.
I am sorry to hear that you are not, and I hope that things get better for you.
I'm really surprised that with your analytical talents, you could with a straight-face claim that the bulk of the responses on this forum represent "DM's having fun". I think you should look again, this entire forum is effectively a list of complaints and DM's seeking help in problem games which shouldn't be the case I agree given that this is largely a 5e forum. I would expect most of the posts around here to be made by people who love 5e D&D, but it doesn't take more than a cursory look to realize that is not the case.
I however am I very happy DM, though I don't run or play 5e, so I don't really have any problems in my game to complain about.
Defense of the game for its own good does not entail encouraging abandonment of the game, though. That's cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. Or foot shooting. Or, well, you get the idea.
It is those analytical talents that I applied that showed me such -- specifically why I noted that they *all* have peeves and gripes, but they are still having fun. I scrolled back and read every response and made a tally. (ok that wasn't a really good use of my analytical talents, but meh).
I confess that "love" is a really strong word for me to use -- I wouldn't say I have loved any edition of D&D -- I have simply liked the game as a whole more than other options, save one, and that one is dust (I was a huge fan of MSHAS, and still am, and if I *did* create my own D&D style game, I would be looking to it to get a baseline metrics). And that does color my perspective, but even then I wouldn't say there is anyone who truly would argue they love a game if we share the same underlying concept for what "love" is and means.
But the majority of folks here have been saying what essentially boils down to "I got issues with it, but I'm still playing it" and you don't play iit if you don't like it., so...
yeah. Analysis shows exactly that, although I rarely say anything with a straight face. It is an issue.
I note you havent walked back the reference to D&D players, lol. And that you ignored the real world facts presented. Which is cool and all -- I mean, you have a goal here, and those interfere with it. I get it. Hell, I have my own nefarious motivations for participating in this thread, so not exactly my place to condemn it.
But you aren't That Guy because you are defending D&D from the degradations and poor design choices of the corporation that owns it. No, you became that when you attacked anyone who plays it or isn't actively calling Hasbro and their subsidiary the Evil Empire.
D&D has over half the market share. The global market size for Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPG) was valued at USD 1539.52 Million in 2022, with a predicted doubling of that by 2028 that I seriously doubt since the estimate was based on numbers skewed by the pandemic. Ore like a 40% growth by then, I'd say. That's not just the games, mind you, That's all the stuff to support them (dice, battle map sheets, accessories, blah blah). That also doesn't segment by type of game, which really makes you realize the sheer scale of D&D when it has half the market share of ALL the millions of ttrpgs out there globally, and they still can't make DDB work in the metric system, lol.
Yet according to you, WotC has failed in their stewardship of the game even as they have grown its reach and increased its uptake and even despite multiple major failings (4e, OGL, plenty of others) they have held onto that market share for close to 8 years -- after building it back up from around 40 at the time of 5e's release.
Given the metric to "prove that they did the right thing" is an increase in number of people playing the game (and if you disagree with that, fine, but give me a metric that you are using), well, then by that basis, everything you are arguing is false. Because you can't be bad stewards and increase the number of people playing the game.
You and I might have some problems with the way they got there (which was creating a game that exactly like every edition before it is smacked upside the head by folks saying they could have done this better or they didn't like the design choices or whatever, and that includes X/B and 1e, so do not claim that griping about the game is some sort of evidence it sucks when griping about games is at least a third of the normative conversation among players and GMs -- I would say it is tradition!), but the fact remains that they got there by creating a product that appealed to the largest number of people.
Something TSR was never able to do -- and wouldn't have been even if they had survived (and these days a struggling company like that would be snagged by a leveraged buyout group and shattered).
There is a difference between disliking some mechanics or thematic design choices and disliking an entire game. Don't try to make the two seem like they are the same thing. You tried to shift a goalpost and argue that someone (me) was saying that McDonald's was popular because they had good food -- and yet they are as big as they are and as successful as they are because they are doing something right. It may not be good food, but it sure as hell is good enough food for literally millions of people from most nations and all stratas of social groups.
Dammit, now I want a double quarter pounder with cheese, but that would be the sum total of all I could eat today, lol.
Don't like the McDonald's measure? Try Coca-Cola and Pepsi, then. Same thing. And for longer, too. Fast food as a whole would never have succeeded in the 1800's -- it remains dependent on mobility because it was created around the mobility of the day. (Side note: isn't it odd that McDonalds and Taco Bell both started in the same county that Erin Brockovich went out and learned all those names, faces, needs, illnesses, and so forth? I mean, yeah, it is the largest county in the US in square miles, but, still, wow...)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Attunement was a thing even back in Rolemaster. It is not new to RPG's.
And 'back in the day' one DM ran campaigns where we basically had everyone in the club interested in playing it (usually a dozen or more) starting at level 2, IIRC, and taking on the Against the Giants series.
Massed firepower was scary even back in 1e and that was with normal weapons. A normal 4 to 6 character 1 or 2e party of 1st's armed with +3 flame tongues could take on ogres. Especially if they used good tactics and hit hard and fast. Not sure what system you would advocate for where it would be otherwise.... so, you want parties to have fancy but essentially useless gear?
Rolemaster is hardly a shining example of good game design or even a particularly notable example of old-school gaming.
Sure, a party of 6 characters all wielding +3 Flametongues would be a very potent crew with a reasonable shot at taking things on above their level in a 1e game but note that you are using a very unlikely and extreme example to make your point.
In 5e, all adventuring parties are always this powerful, ready to dish out death on a mass scale against opponents of much higher level than they are. This is the norm, they don't even need +3 Flametongues to do that... they just are that.
As usual in these discussions, I find the sides are too polarised to be able to be taken at face value.
5e is not awful. On the other hand, a lot of its success does not come from it being the most amazingest amazing amazer since amazingness amazinglesness amazed itself into existence. A lot of its success does come from the same place that McDonald's does - not from the high quality or even value for money. It comes from being familiar. A lot of people's experiences TTRPGS before playing them consist completely of D&D. The last few years have seen a significant growth and mainstreamisation of the hobby - and D&D has been the biggest beneficiary of it. People come to 5e because it's the most familiar, like McDonalds. Why do I go to McDonalds? Because my local kebab house might be better. Or I might find a Daddy Long Legs in my kebab, like I did last night. Don't find those very often in my Big Macs. People come to 5e because it's familiar. They stay because they're invested in it.
5e is not a bad engine. I quite like it. It has it's strengths and does certain things very well. There's a very good reason why half my TTRPG collection is 5e, the other half is divided among two other TTRPGs. It's not better than those other TTRPGs though, nor worse. Different toolsets for different jobs.
5e is pretty good, but it's not as spectacular as some present it to be. Nor is it as bad as others like to claim. It has a strengths and flaws. Like every engine I've played.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In 5e, all adventuring parties are always this powerful, ready to dish out death on a mass scale against opponents of much higher level than they are. This is the norm, they don't even need +3 Flametongues to do that... they just are that.
Try putting a 5e adventuring party up against an equal number of equal CR monsters and see what happens. Sure, 4 PCs whomp an equal-CR monster, but 4 PCs in B/X or AD&D whomped a monster with HD equal to their level. Honestly, 5e PCs are less capable than 1e PCs of similar level, if you were to take a set of 5e PCs and send them into the Caves of Chaos, swapping the monsters 1:1 with their 5e counterparts, they'll get obliterated.
But you aren't That Guy because you are defending D&D from the degradations and poor design choices of the corporation that owns it. No, you became that when you attacked anyone who plays it or isn't actively calling Hasbro and their subsidiary the Evil Empire.
Enablers are often far worse than the offenders, so if calling the community on blind devotion to a company that is crapping in my and their cheerios ruffles a few feathers, so be it.
D&D has over half the market share. The global market size for Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPG) was valued at USD 1539.52 Million in 2022, with a predicted doubling of that by 2028 that I seriously doubt since the estimate was based on numbers skewed by the pandemic. Ore like a 40% growth by then, I'd say. That's not just the games, mind you, That's all the stuff to support them (dice, battle map sheets, accessories, blah blah). That also doesn't segment by type of game, which really makes you realize the sheer scale of D&D when it has half the market share of ALL the millions of ttrpgs out there globally, and they still can't make DDB work in the metric system, lol.
I haven't responded to your stats of how many billions of dollars Hasbro and WotC makes because its not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form. Your talking about how much money they're making, I say they're making it on crappy design. Hasbros ability to sell it, doesn't make it good, nor does the fact that people buy as we already established that the masses can and often are quite blind. Your point is taken, Hasbro makes lots of money, I get it, so does ****, it doesn't mean it's a good thing or proof of quality.
Yet according to you, WotC has failed in their stewardship of the game even as they have grown its reach and increased its uptake and even despite multiple major failings (4e, OGL, plenty of others) they have held onto that market share for close to 8 years -- after building it back up from around 40 at the time of 5e's release.
Essentially yes that is what I'm saying. Despite years of abusing this community, the disaster that was 4e, countless fumbles that should have shaken this community into action like the OGL and many other kerfuffles, this community is unbothered. Like I'm pretty sure WotC can get away with just about anything at this point and it wouldn't change their bottom line and you wonder why I challenge the communities sanity? At the end of the day, 5e isn't some wonderous design, its a mediocre game at best, I think even you recognize that else you wouldn't have spent 5 years altering it, I think most 5e players realize that its far from so good that we should just lay down and take it from WotC. Yet people do, they shell out ungodly amounts of money on outrageously atrocious content like SpellJammer and Dragonlance, so bad, the community should be filing civil lawsuits.
I know you think you're explaining it by showing sales figures, but I don't buy that this speaks to the quality of the product, its a very Americanized metric that has no impression on me at all. To me Forbidden Lands, that was a success, a small team designed a game that won RPG of the year and rightfully so. They produced something truly great and timeless something to be proud of. 5e.. meh.. its definitely better than 4e, but they have a long way to go before we can even call it "good".
In 5e, all adventuring parties are always this powerful, ready to dish out death on a mass scale against opponents of much higher level than they are. This is the norm, they don't even need +3 Flametongues to do that... they just are that.
Try putting a 5e adventuring party up against an equal number of equal CR monsters and see what happens. Sure, 4 PCs whomp an equal-CR monster, but 4 PCs in B/X or AD&D whomped a monster with HD equal to their level. Honestly, 5e PCs are less capable than 1e PCs of similar level, if you were to take a set of 5e PCs and send them into the Caves of Chaos, swapping the monsters 1:1 with their 5e counterparts, they'll get obliterated.
9 HD Bulette in 1e could take on 4 9th level PCs and it would be a coin flip. Determining factors would be rolls and how the DM played the bulette. Straight head to head, limited tactics, bulette loses, use the bulette's abilities and it would be a very different battle -- same with a neo-otyugh, come to think of it. Catoblepas was nerfed to hell, too.
They increased HP, nerfed XP, increased damage, and then gave it a CR of 5. That would take 8 of them in 5e against the same group to give the same kind of outcome probability. Or 6 and a lair. Lair's make a huge difference, based on the "hunt it down in its lair" principle.
One major difference is that the monsters were revised to make them work for a certain level character, and were set up to not be Solo -- they should have help.
Rot Grubs are still nasty, and they added the swarm feature to them, which makes them more of a threat at any level. WHich undermines my point. Dang nabbit.
1e, however, didn't give a damn. You might round a corner and be face to face with something way above you and would have t run or figure out how to end it (and players, well, they rarely ran unless you didn't want them to). 5e does give a damn -- and that makes encounters more reliable in a lot of ways.
Probably why I re-did the whole CR table and then went in and adjusted monsters for my campaign, since I needed challenges to always be 1.5 total hp and 1.25 average damage done versus the party. Then determined number based on comparative CR vs Level using CR as an equivalent -- super high CR versus super high party still needs .25 monsters per party member -- and it gives the overall encounter design something that really makes 5e PCs work for it while finding a blend of that old style risk and the new style powers stuff.
Four first level PCs meet five goblins is a fairly equitable match in my game, gets a bit iffy in 1e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Essentially yes that is what I'm saying. Despite years of abusing this community, the disaster that was 4e, countless fumbles that should have shaken this community into action like the OGL and many other kerfuffles, this community is unbothered.
Wizards lost a lot of customers with 4e. They got them back, with interest, when 5e came out. This tells us that, contrary to what you believe, people liked the changes.
And it's not like they didn't have a choice. It's entirely possible to find every prior edition of D&D, and it isn't even particularly expensive. If people are playing 5e rather than, say, OSR games, it's because they think 5e is better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's untrue. I did specifically remove Hasbro from that.
I have a hate on for the card games. I watched what little spare change we had evaporate as my boys sucked it down for cards, lol. Resentment is deep. Never shall I ever...
But the folks behind Wizards of the Coast were all D&D players who created Magic as a homebrew expansion of their game. There is a lot of assorted BS of the same sort that underlies the development of D&D, but the basic truth is still that. ANd for years, they demonstrated pretty much NOT what you are talking about. Then Hasbro bought them.
Hasbro has to answer to about a third of all the 401k plans out there, a bunch of rich people, and a ton of mutual funds. Legally, they have a responsibility to maximize shareholder revenue. At 70 bucks a share on NASDAQ as of this writing, they did their shareholders a big one by buying WotC, and then screwed up when they took on (and now have sold) eOne. Trendline is a pretty healthy curve since 99 for a company that's been around that long.
So yes, they will milk the cow, but I don't think they will milk it in the way you describe, lol.
That last one? D&D doesn't have DLCs, lol. And all the shortchange games in videogames except AAA have tanked. Even Destiny is struggling with it.
And the whole "dogpile on the DM" bit? Nah. Now let me tell you what I see:
More "buy this subclass/species/monster, magic item for 5 bucks" just like they do now. Because WotC doesn't see a DM shortage, they see a DM breakage. They know they won't get DMs to spend more, and even acknowledged that. THey want players to spend more. So the VTT will likely charge for skins -- but not 1000 dollar ones, even allowing for ridiculous hyberbole. Probably the same nickel and dime stuff they have done since B/X was released and modules were five bucks under TSR on sale.
Because they have been clear that the goal is to increase monetization of the folks who can play the game for free -- but not by turning them away from it, so there will always be a free way to play. Just, not here.
I see the VTT as an add-on to the exting tiers system, sure, and that will burn the DM, but I also see them charging a tier for those who want to use the VTT as players. THey have that already because they didn't need to develop it out -- Roll20 and WorldAnvil and others did that for them.
I don't know who you've been listening to, or why you hate Hasbro and WotC so much. Given the games list you gave, I would suspect it is some leftover animosity from the OGL horsehockey. Fine. hate them. Spit on them and piss on them and call everyone who loves their card game and their TTRPGs folks that "are swallowing the defecation like its liquid chocolate" without realizing that doing so sorta turns you into That Guy.
I mean, I see being called a shit eater politely as a personal attack on all D&D players, but meh.
And I do get your cynical, pessimistic worldview about the possible future and what "monetizing the player base" means. I mean, this is a company that has created cards that private traders are selling for hundreds of dollars -- and that pissed them all off by flooding the market with cards that undercut them and shifted the way that decks were made (not liking, not playing, doesn't mean I don't pay attention), that is owned by a company that by all reports is furious at the success of the arch-enemy Barbie movie and that basically owned the whole idea of toy licensing for year and seems to have forgotten how to do it now that Disney and Mattel do it better. They are the folks wo made Monopoly a game that is localized in a dozen places after suing some small town folks who had been doing into the dust. This is the company that buried Avalon Hill.
According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, Wizards of the Coast accounts for 22% of Hasbro's annual revenue, but produces 72% of Hasbro's profit as of 2021. They did 5.86 Billion dollars in revenue last year -- and an operating profit of $407.7 million dollars of which we can estimate that 294 million came from WotC. They want that 15% operating margin that is the current platinum standard all those investing agencies demand, and they already know they can only squeeze so much out of D&D because they are becoming overly reliant on it in terms of product mix. That means they are being pressured way more and by more "important" people that D&D players to get off their hind end and fix the rest of the gazillion segments of their behemoth (such as Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers and Nerf, and all those IP fountains like MLP, G I Joe, and Power Rangers that they haven't touched successfully yet) as well as to make better licensing deals so they can make more money from crappy transformers movies.
That's the reality. But you only see that reality if you look at the whole picture -- like the fact that all the old school games combined are still less than 3% of the total hobby market.
Even allowing for drift, the theme here is still "are DMs having fun" and the bulk of responses indicate that yes, while they all have pet peeves, they are indeed having fun.
I am sorry to hear that you are not, and I hope that things get better for you.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm sorry but calling a game book a "luxury" is a bit over the top. Luxury used to be reserved for expensive diamond and gold jewelry, ivory letter openers and crap in the tens of thousands... Now it seems toilet paper is a f***ing luxury as it's not essential to wipe you a** to live.
I think it's completely ok to hold a company accountable for what it produces, and when it produces crap, it should be taken to task for it.
Sure you can; it won't be any more disruptive than it was in 1e or Basic -- in either edition it will let you overcome foes that you would be unlikely to beat without it. The main significant difference is that in B/X and AD&D you died at 0 hp so characters died more.
Gate Keep much? Look I understand in the absence of a defendable position, the tradition is to attack, but understand that I'm a D&D fan, have been for over 3 decades, far longer than Wizards of the Coast has even been around. I'm not a fan of this current edition, but I have been of every edition until the last two. I have earned my stripes and will call always call WotC on their BS because this is my game far more than it is there. They control it but I will judge them on how they do it.
They don't get a pass from me and I'm not going to "be silent" for you or them. It's the fandom, which includes me that keeps them in their billions, private company or not, they have to answer to their consumers and if they do or say things about or with this game I don't like, they are going to hear about it.
I realize that this makes me "that guy" as AEDorsay so eloquently put it, but I rather be enemy number one in defense of the game for its own good and the good of the hobby even if it makes the bad guy who disagrees with the disappointing way this community blindly supports the outrageous way they WotC has handled the franchise, then be silent. I realize silencing me would be preferable, and I recognize that at least on these forums that makes me the outcast, but I'm not really bothered by it.
I'm really surprised that with your analytical talents, you could with a straight-face claim that the bulk of the responses on this forum represent "DM's having fun". I think you should look again, this entire forum is effectively a list of complaints and DM's seeking help in problem games which shouldn't be the case I agree given that this is largely a 5e forum. I would expect most of the posts around here to be made by people who love 5e D&D, but it doesn't take more than a cursory look to realize that is not the case.
I however am I very happy DM, though I don't run or play 5e, so I don't really have any problems in my game to complain about.
I’m sorry but what?? A +3 Flametongue longsword at level 1 in ANY edition is highly unbalancing. That is high level treasure intended for high level characters. The idea that +3 to strike and damage at the very beginning of a game doesn’t completely trivialize level appropriate encounters and require a huge amount of tinkering from the DM to offer challenge to its possessor is utterly ludicrous.
Your experience with loot is clearly nothing like mine as my entire point is that all my DM ever does is give us random loot. It doesn’t matter what we find, we can only ever have three truly powerful items in use at any one time, unlike any other edition of D&D. How the bloody hell is the D&D with the most restrictive level of loot stacking and combos the edition that it is the most important in which to meter the loot characters receive? That makes ZERO sense. 5e loot comes with a built-in limiter that does not depend on the DM. Logically, this makes it the LEAST important edition for the DM to meter loot.
I must say that expecting someone with the user name "OSR4Ever" to not be an OSR grognard seems unreasonable and the main mystery is why he's on DDB to start with.
I use Old School Essentials at least for the last few years, BECMI for years before that. Literally zero problems, it has absolutely no effect on balance at all.
Old-school games had no concept of balance and therefore there were no metrics for whether something was balanced. That doesn't mean it was balanced, it just means there's no way of detecting whether it's balanced.
That is the point. Old school games were never designed to be "balanced". They did not have CR ratings. An encounter table might include a badger and a hill giant. 5e is all about "balance" with CR ratings, all chars progressing at the same time, and umpteen other mechanics. A low level Old School char with a +3 weapon can wreak havoc, until 1 bad roll and that char is toast. In 5e, magic items are force multipliers, on a massive scale.
It's really not that difficult to understand, I'm not sure I understand your confusion but sure I'll bite.
Basically in B/X having a +0 or a +3 to an attack roll or to damage, doesn't really impact the results all that much. You don't have multiple attacks, special powers to trigger, advantage dice or any other nonsense or anything else that works from that bonus. An attack boils down to a single roll, you hit or you don't. The impact on the game is quite minimal and since at 1st level monsters typically have between 2-8 hit points and relatively low AC anyway, you are only slightly more likely to hit and kill a monster with a powerful magic weapon than you are with a regular one, it really doesn't change much about the outcome of the fight. Yeah you are slightly more successful than you would be without the weapon but the impact on the game as a whole is almost nothing.
If there are 3 Orcs for example, you might kill one but the other two will still get you. Like it doesn't change the tactics of the fight or result in some sort of dramatic unexpected event because you have this powerful weapon. You are slightly more likely to kill 1 Orc.. which you probobly would have done magic weapon or not.
The balance is inherent in the games structure, monster design and general sequence of play. A powerful magic weapon won't allow you to suddenly change how you play.. you can't suddenly charge Ogres at 1st level and expect to suddenly be a badass superhero... that ogre is still going to kill a 1st level character even with that sword in your hand.
Edit: As Justfarmer points out and I can't imagine you would disagree, the combination of powerful class abilities and too many magic items is the problem with 5e, that is why they have this meta-system called attunement. They couldn't figure out how to balance the game so they added this cheesy forced mechanic as a jury-rigged fix. It's just a sloppy game design indicative of 5e.
Paranoia's still around. While it's easy to run at a base level -- just give the players a shove and let them murder each other (which is literally what it was designed to do), I think it's really hard to run well -- comedy, especially dark comedy, is quite tricky. I haven't run it since I was a teenager, and the idea of doing it now scares me.
But it's illustrative of why GMing is so hard. By being a comedy game where the characters are explicitly doomed, and have no control over their lives, many of the harder tasks of the GM can be handwaved away. The players are the primary source of conflict. Fight's too hard or too easy? It has very little effect on whether you live or die, or succeed on your mission. The railroad is the expected method of story management, backed with ludicrous violence if the players insist on going off-track. The players aren't even allowed to know the rules. Nothing matters, and then you run out of clones, and are replaced by another expendable citizen.
It's absolutely a great game (The Computer says so, and Friend Computer wouldn't lie to you), but it's also very much an odd duck. (Knowledge of ducks is restricted to Ultraviolet clearance, citizen.)
As with Vampire, most other easier to run games do so by offloading to the players (although usually in a far more formalized manner), sometimes to the extent that there's no GM at all. This is not to everyone's taste, and putting more creative load onto the players has its own failure modes.
Even GURPS, which tries so, so, hard
Dude, that's a hefty sampling bias. People don't come to forums to say "Everything is fine". They ask for help because they have a problem. Sometimes they're system problems, sometimes they're table problems, sometimes they're table problems that they think are system problems. Sometimes they're just a need for ideas.
You have a dislike for 5e, so you see people asking for help and assume it's the norm.
I know I harp on 5e quite a bit and in particular on WotC, and it may appear that I have some sort of major problem with the system, but it only appears that way. There are many redeeming qualities of the game I'm happy to acknowledge but right now the future of the game is at stake, so now is the time to be vocal if the game is to ever return to a more enlightened state. I consider myself a full-fledged member of this community and I reject the premise that I don't belong here because I'm not a die-hard 5e fan. I have been a fan of D&D for 3 decades and I plan to remain a fan until the day I die and I'm buried with my 1e DMG clutched in my hands. I won't be ushered out of the community because I refuse to conform.
What I see on the forums are so many, like a ridiculous amount of DM's with very core and fundamental problems caused directly by the design and evolution of the game since its release, problems that are not only being solved by better designers in the OSR in modern renditions of D&D but by supporting supplements outside of WotC like MCDM for example with Flee Mortals.
These DM's are getting terrible advice from the community in my opinion and while I have to deal with the hostility, I have helped steer 3 generations of DM's with my advice and I plan to help steer the next one. I can put up with some gatekeeping and hostility, it will be worth it if a few worthy DM's are born out of it.
Defense of the game for its own good does not entail encouraging abandonment of the game, though. That's cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. Or foot shooting. Or, well, you get the idea.
It is those analytical talents that I applied that showed me such -- specifically why I noted that they *all* have peeves and gripes, but they are still having fun. I scrolled back and read every response and made a tally. (ok that wasn't a really good use of my analytical talents, but meh).
I confess that "love" is a really strong word for me to use -- I wouldn't say I have loved any edition of D&D -- I have simply liked the game as a whole more than other options, save one, and that one is dust (I was a huge fan of MSHAS, and still am, and if I *did* create my own D&D style game, I would be looking to it to get a baseline metrics). And that does color my perspective, but even then I wouldn't say there is anyone who truly would argue they love a game if we share the same underlying concept for what "love" is and means.
But the majority of folks here have been saying what essentially boils down to "I got issues with it, but I'm still playing it" and you don't play iit if you don't like it., so...
yeah. Analysis shows exactly that, although I rarely say anything with a straight face. It is an issue.
I note you havent walked back the reference to D&D players, lol. And that you ignored the real world facts presented. Which is cool and all -- I mean, you have a goal here, and those interfere with it. I get it. Hell, I have my own nefarious motivations for participating in this thread, so not exactly my place to condemn it.
But you aren't That Guy because you are defending D&D from the degradations and poor design choices of the corporation that owns it. No, you became that when you attacked anyone who plays it or isn't actively calling Hasbro and their subsidiary the Evil Empire.
D&D has over half the market share. The global market size for Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPG) was valued at USD 1539.52 Million in 2022, with a predicted doubling of that by 2028 that I seriously doubt since the estimate was based on numbers skewed by the pandemic. Ore like a 40% growth by then, I'd say. That's not just the games, mind you, That's all the stuff to support them (dice, battle map sheets, accessories, blah blah). That also doesn't segment by type of game, which really makes you realize the sheer scale of D&D when it has half the market share of ALL the millions of ttrpgs out there globally, and they still can't make DDB work in the metric system, lol.
Yet according to you, WotC has failed in their stewardship of the game even as they have grown its reach and increased its uptake and even despite multiple major failings (4e, OGL, plenty of others) they have held onto that market share for close to 8 years -- after building it back up from around 40 at the time of 5e's release.
Given the metric to "prove that they did the right thing" is an increase in number of people playing the game (and if you disagree with that, fine, but give me a metric that you are using), well, then by that basis, everything you are arguing is false. Because you can't be bad stewards and increase the number of people playing the game.
You and I might have some problems with the way they got there (which was creating a game that exactly like every edition before it is smacked upside the head by folks saying they could have done this better or they didn't like the design choices or whatever, and that includes X/B and 1e, so do not claim that griping about the game is some sort of evidence it sucks when griping about games is at least a third of the normative conversation among players and GMs -- I would say it is tradition!), but the fact remains that they got there by creating a product that appealed to the largest number of people.
Something TSR was never able to do -- and wouldn't have been even if they had survived (and these days a struggling company like that would be snagged by a leveraged buyout group and shattered).
There is a difference between disliking some mechanics or thematic design choices and disliking an entire game. Don't try to make the two seem like they are the same thing. You tried to shift a goalpost and argue that someone (me) was saying that McDonald's was popular because they had good food -- and yet they are as big as they are and as successful as they are because they are doing something right. It may not be good food, but it sure as hell is good enough food for literally millions of people from most nations and all stratas of social groups.
Dammit, now I want a double quarter pounder with cheese, but that would be the sum total of all I could eat today, lol.
Don't like the McDonald's measure? Try Coca-Cola and Pepsi, then. Same thing. And for longer, too. Fast food as a whole would never have succeeded in the 1800's -- it remains dependent on mobility because it was created around the mobility of the day. (Side note: isn't it odd that McDonalds and Taco Bell both started in the same county that Erin Brockovich went out and learned all those names, faces, needs, illnesses, and so forth? I mean, yeah, it is the largest county in the US in square miles, but, still, wow...)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Rolemaster is hardly a shining example of good game design or even a particularly notable example of old-school gaming.
Sure, a party of 6 characters all wielding +3 Flametongues would be a very potent crew with a reasonable shot at taking things on above their level in a 1e game but note that you are using a very unlikely and extreme example to make your point.
In 5e, all adventuring parties are always this powerful, ready to dish out death on a mass scale against opponents of much higher level than they are. This is the norm, they don't even need +3 Flametongues to do that... they just are that.
Do you see the difference?
As usual in these discussions, I find the sides are too polarised to be able to be taken at face value.
5e is not awful. On the other hand, a lot of its success does not come from it being the most amazingest amazing amazer since amazingness amazinglesness amazed itself into existence. A lot of its success does come from the same place that McDonald's does - not from the high quality or even value for money. It comes from being familiar. A lot of people's experiences TTRPGS before playing them consist completely of D&D. The last few years have seen a significant growth and mainstreamisation of the hobby - and D&D has been the biggest beneficiary of it. People come to 5e because it's the most familiar, like McDonalds. Why do I go to McDonalds? Because my local kebab house might be better. Or I might find a Daddy Long Legs in my kebab, like I did last night. Don't find those very often in my Big Macs. People come to 5e because it's familiar. They stay because they're invested in it.
5e is not a bad engine. I quite like it. It has it's strengths and does certain things very well. There's a very good reason why half my TTRPG collection is 5e, the other half is divided among two other TTRPGs. It's not better than those other TTRPGs though, nor worse. Different toolsets for different jobs.
5e is pretty good, but it's not as spectacular as some present it to be. Nor is it as bad as others like to claim. It has a strengths and flaws. Like every engine I've played.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Try putting a 5e adventuring party up against an equal number of equal CR monsters and see what happens. Sure, 4 PCs whomp an equal-CR monster, but 4 PCs in B/X or AD&D whomped a monster with HD equal to their level. Honestly, 5e PCs are less capable than 1e PCs of similar level, if you were to take a set of 5e PCs and send them into the Caves of Chaos, swapping the monsters 1:1 with their 5e counterparts, they'll get obliterated.
Enablers are often far worse than the offenders, so if calling the community on blind devotion to a company that is crapping in my and their cheerios ruffles a few feathers, so be it.
I haven't responded to your stats of how many billions of dollars Hasbro and WotC makes because its not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form. Your talking about how much money they're making, I say they're making it on crappy design. Hasbros ability to sell it, doesn't make it good, nor does the fact that people buy as we already established that the masses can and often are quite blind. Your point is taken, Hasbro makes lots of money, I get it, so does ****, it doesn't mean it's a good thing or proof of quality.
Essentially yes that is what I'm saying. Despite years of abusing this community, the disaster that was 4e, countless fumbles that should have shaken this community into action like the OGL and many other kerfuffles, this community is unbothered. Like I'm pretty sure WotC can get away with just about anything at this point and it wouldn't change their bottom line and you wonder why I challenge the communities sanity? At the end of the day, 5e isn't some wonderous design, its a mediocre game at best, I think even you recognize that else you wouldn't have spent 5 years altering it, I think most 5e players realize that its far from so good that we should just lay down and take it from WotC. Yet people do, they shell out ungodly amounts of money on outrageously atrocious content like SpellJammer and Dragonlance, so bad, the community should be filing civil lawsuits.
I know you think you're explaining it by showing sales figures, but I don't buy that this speaks to the quality of the product, its a very Americanized metric that has no impression on me at all. To me Forbidden Lands, that was a success, a small team designed a game that won RPG of the year and rightfully so. They produced something truly great and timeless something to be proud of. 5e.. meh.. its definitely better than 4e, but they have a long way to go before we can even call it "good".
9 HD Bulette in 1e could take on 4 9th level PCs and it would be a coin flip. Determining factors would be rolls and how the DM played the bulette. Straight head to head, limited tactics, bulette loses, use the bulette's abilities and it would be a very different battle -- same with a neo-otyugh, come to think of it. Catoblepas was nerfed to hell, too.
They increased HP, nerfed XP, increased damage, and then gave it a CR of 5. That would take 8 of them in 5e against the same group to give the same kind of outcome probability. Or 6 and a lair. Lair's make a huge difference, based on the "hunt it down in its lair" principle.
One major difference is that the monsters were revised to make them work for a certain level character, and were set up to not be Solo -- they should have help.
Rot Grubs are still nasty, and they added the swarm feature to them, which makes them more of a threat at any level. WHich undermines my point. Dang nabbit.
1e, however, didn't give a damn. You might round a corner and be face to face with something way above you and would have t run or figure out how to end it (and players, well, they rarely ran unless you didn't want them to). 5e does give a damn -- and that makes encounters more reliable in a lot of ways.
Probably why I re-did the whole CR table and then went in and adjusted monsters for my campaign, since I needed challenges to always be 1.5 total hp and 1.25 average damage done versus the party. Then determined number based on comparative CR vs Level using CR as an equivalent -- super high CR versus super high party still needs .25 monsters per party member -- and it gives the overall encounter design something that really makes 5e PCs work for it while finding a blend of that old style risk and the new style powers stuff.
Four first level PCs meet five goblins is a fairly equitable match in my game, gets a bit iffy in 1e.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Wizards lost a lot of customers with 4e. They got them back, with interest, when 5e came out. This tells us that, contrary to what you believe, people liked the changes.
And it's not like they didn't have a choice. It's entirely possible to find every prior edition of D&D, and it isn't even particularly expensive. If people are playing 5e rather than, say, OSR games, it's because they think 5e is better.