One of my hotter takes about recent #ttrpg history is who is responsible for the 5e golden age.
-
One of my hotter takes about recent #ttrpg history is who is responsible for the 5e golden age.
Look back at pre-launch interviews with Mearls and you see that he was, until weirdly late in the day, still considering quite a maximalist system with optional rule-modules.
My hot take is that, having conversations with two of the biggest arseholes in the hobby made him realise that 'not everyone who might conceivably buy a D&D book wants builds and battles'
-
One of my hotter takes about recent #ttrpg history is who is responsible for the 5e golden age.
Look back at pre-launch interviews with Mearls and you see that he was, until weirdly late in the day, still considering quite a maximalist system with optional rule-modules.
My hot take is that, having conversations with two of the biggest arseholes in the hobby made him realise that 'not everyone who might conceivably buy a D&D book wants builds and battles'
So Mearls stepped back from maximalism. Not all the way back, but far enough to make the system at least somewhat legible to people who weren't the legacy Pathfinder players that Hasbro were desperate to lure back.
White Wolf were successful because they realised that loads of people were excluded by the existing D&D funnel.
Pathfinder and 4e were bad for the hobby because they narrowed the funnel. 5e broadened it. Not a lot... But enough to make a difference.
-
So Mearls stepped back from maximalism. Not all the way back, but far enough to make the system at least somewhat legible to people who weren't the legacy Pathfinder players that Hasbro were desperate to lure back.
White Wolf were successful because they realised that loads of people were excluded by the existing D&D funnel.
Pathfinder and 4e were bad for the hobby because they narrowed the funnel. 5e broadened it. Not a lot... But enough to make a difference.
@Taskerland my gut instinct from the dnd next playtests has always been that mearls had two internal thoughts when makign 5e:
1. pathfinder has two audiences. one is build freaks, the other is "people who didn't like 4e". we only need to win back the people who didn't like 4e
2. cut off the nascent OSR at its head to avoid the "next" pathfinder from emerging down the line -
@Taskerland my gut instinct from the dnd next playtests has always been that mearls had two internal thoughts when makign 5e:
1. pathfinder has two audiences. one is build freaks, the other is "people who didn't like 4e". we only need to win back the people who didn't like 4e
2. cut off the nascent OSR at its head to avoid the "next" pathfinder from emerging down the line@vortiwife Yes... the idea of stepping back from maximalism as a defensive measure to try and drain some energy from the OSR makes perfect sense. It wasn't D20 mark 3 because they were worried about the OSR and it wasn't the OSR because they wanted at least a section of their base back.
-
So Mearls stepped back from maximalism. Not all the way back, but far enough to make the system at least somewhat legible to people who weren't the legacy Pathfinder players that Hasbro were desperate to lure back.
White Wolf were successful because they realised that loads of people were excluded by the existing D&D funnel.
Pathfinder and 4e were bad for the hobby because they narrowed the funnel. 5e broadened it. Not a lot... But enough to make a difference.
@Taskerland This is another take that can really only end with a sigh and "but Shadmocks only whistle"
Because you're left a decayed heap by White Wolf and Hasbro and only beloved by the rest of the monsters.
Actually maybe that's where we are comfortable.
