If the topic of a post is a question, the answer is always No.

I'm pretty sure it has a larger player base than any previous edition ever had.  It's also made a lot of money.  Those are the only two reasonable criteria to answer the question.

That said, I've never cared for it personally, and I have yet to figure out why.  The mechanics look good.  The setting is ok, and it doesn't much matter because I make a lot of my own material.  But it just feels like it has no soul.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

Quote from: S'mon on September 25, 2024, 02:52:12 PM

Quote from: BadApple on September 25, 2024, 06:49:52 AMMike Mearls sabotaged it's cultural development by handing down rulings on rules interpretations.  I don't know if he didn't understand the damage to the community he was doing or if he got off on the social power it gave him but he was handing out decisions to things that should have been DM calls.  This took final authority from the DM and created a situation where players would argue with decisions.

That sounds like Jeremy Crawford. Mearls' only sin was to defer to Crawford as the "rules expert", which he really isn't. Mearls was at least as competent as Crawford, the early stuff where they posted joint opinions was vastly superior to Crawford's later brain farts. Mearls' big problem seems to be a lack of self confidence, where Crawford is pretty Narcissistic.

Yes. I can't say for sure whether Mearls shunted that off to Crawford out of a mere disinterest, or because of how much he didn't believe in the idea of having a single definitive judgment from authority on rules interpretations, but either way it turned out to be a big mistake. It created the impression that Crawford was much more important than he was.

Ok, so D&D 5E 2014 edition outsold AD&D 1st Edition.  But will it have the same kind of lasting impact upon the hobby?  Will it have the legs to keep on keeping on at gaming tables, for more than 4 decades to come?  Probably not.  Time will tell.

I think there will be players running 5.0 (and not 5.5) essentially forever.  Because it got so many people into the hobby, and because a really huge number (likely more than a quarter?) of TTRPG players have only ever played 5.0, there will simply be some people who want to run and play it in five years, twenty years, whatever.

As to how many, I sure couldn't guess.  But 5.5 will eventually be understood to be different enough- almost every open ended feature has been sealed off, and by that I don't mean rules ambiguity like "wait how to stealth?", but features that had reasonably open descriptors sorta don't much any more.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:39:51 AMIt was meant to be set up in such a way that you could modulate the deadliness. Except no one did that. Which made it even more prescient that I kept trying to convince Mike to default the game to moderate-mode rather than easy-mode.

And now fake 5e is even safer. The PCs start out notably more buffed out the gate than 5e.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 26, 2024, 02:39:52 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

You can't put a number to how immersive it is, but you can put a number to how immersed it makes players feel.  Poll players as to how immersive they felt the game is on a numeric scale.  Compare it to their impression of some others for comparison.  Pretty basic marketing research.

Quote from: Man at Arms on September 25, 2024, 11:16:06 PMOk, so D&D 5E 2014 edition outsold AD&D 1st Edition.  But will it have the same kind of lasting impact upon the hobby?  Will it have the legs to keep on keeping on at gaming tables, for more than 4 decades to come?  Probably not.  Time will tell.

If you watched my video, I suggest the same thing.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 26, 2024, 02:39:52 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

Immersion is a psychological state where the world becomes a real world and your character becomes a persona separate from yourself.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 26, 2024, 10:49:31 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 26, 2024, 02:39:52 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

Immersion is a psychological state where the world becomes a real world and your character becomes a persona separate from yourself.

Yet not everyone plays for immersion, nor do they enjoy immersion. One of the better things to come out of WotC's budget was research into the various player motivations and Immersion (what the researchers labeled The Actor) is only one of about eight primary types of player motivation.

Puzzle solving, blowing off steam, wish fulfillment, learning about a setting, and being part of a group are all equally valid reasons to want to engage in roleplaying and none of those require developing secondary personas nor losing yourself in a false reality.

Immersion CAN be a motivation and something to pursue, but it doesn't have to be and its absence doesn't mean something is an objective failure, just something that doesn't meet your particular preferences.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 26, 2024, 02:02:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 26, 2024, 10:49:31 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 26, 2024, 02:39:52 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

Immersion is a psychological state where the world becomes a real world and your character becomes a persona separate from yourself.

Yet not everyone plays for immersion, nor do they enjoy immersion. One of the better things to come out of WotC's budget was research into the various player motivations and Immersion (what the researchers labeled The Actor) is only one of about eight primary types of player motivation.

Puzzle solving, blowing off steam, wish fulfillment, learning about a setting, and being part of a group are all equally valid reasons to want to engage in roleplaying and none of those require developing secondary personas nor losing yourself in a false reality.

Immersion CAN be a motivation and something to pursue, but it doesn't have to be and its absence doesn't mean something is an objective failure, just something that doesn't meet your particular preferences.

Wrong. Of course some people don't play for immersion. There's people who just think of D&D as a party game, a fighting game, or are just there because their boyfriend made them. That doesn't change the INDISPUTABLE FACT that Immersion is the Peak Experience of RPG play. That's why it takes time and effort to reach.

Also, anyone who has an experience of deep immersion will never question this. The only reason you are arguing against it is either because you're a liar who is just determine to attack everything I say, so that if I said that 5 is more than 4 you'd deny it, or because you're a failure at RPGs who has never achieved serious immersion.

Now, this is not the topic of this thread. Don't continue to try to make the argument here, or you will be banned.

Are we back to "D&D as gateway to Real Occult Experience"?

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 26, 2024, 04:56:13 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 26, 2024, 02:02:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 26, 2024, 10:49:31 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 26, 2024, 02:39:52 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2024, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 25, 2024, 03:42:14 AMin terms of the RPG experience

The "RPG experience" is a very subjective thing, and its measure should be more qualitative than quantitative. Some players no doubt prefer multiple short stand alone campaigns rather than one extended campaign. For them, it very well could be a "better" RPG experience.

As for changing player demographics, I think it's important that the game be able to adjust to the people playing it than to expect the people playing it to adjust to old ideas of how to play it.

No, it's actually pretty objective: the creation of a living world, and the effect of immersion.

How do you objectively measure the effect of immersion?

Immersion is a psychological state where the world becomes a real world and your character becomes a persona separate from yourself.

Yet not everyone plays for immersion, nor do they enjoy immersion. One of the better things to come out of WotC's budget was research into the various player motivations and Immersion (what the researchers labeled The Actor) is only one of about eight primary types of player motivation.

Puzzle solving, blowing off steam, wish fulfillment, learning about a setting, and being part of a group are all equally valid reasons to want to engage in roleplaying and none of those require developing secondary personas nor losing yourself in a false reality.

Immersion CAN be a motivation and something to pursue, but it doesn't have to be and its absence doesn't mean something is an objective failure, just something that doesn't meet your particular preferences.

Wrong. Blah blah blah...

Brought to you by the folks who brought you "One True Wayism".

QuoteNow, this is not the topic of this thread. Don't continue to try to make the argument here, or you will be banned.

So much for a forum that claims its about free speech. Nothing like a moderator attacking users and then refusing to let the users respond.

And if 5E's capability to support immersion is one of the factors contributing to its success or failure, then how can it not be pertinent to the topic of this thread, which is about whether 5E was a failure?


Lou Prosperi