Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

[avin]

For good or bad, some people dislike innovation.

I'm not judging editions here, just pointing out that there was an uproar when 3E replaced 2E and again when 4E replaced 3E.

That will happen again, soon.

Some people will stop on 2E, some on 3E, some on 4E, some on PF... it's a tough job to understand who wants what and separate people who will buy 5E and people who will voice in RPG boards, but keep playing some former edition in all cases.

I'm on the opposite side of the rope, I will buy 5E no matter how it shapes and try it.

If I like I'll buy more stuff.
If I don't like it, I will play something else for a while.

Yes, Wotc is absolutely right trying to capture D&D's feeling... but 5E must be a new edition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

D&D needs to evolve, while keeping the core spirit of what D&D is... which is a social tabletop RPG. The physical mechanics do not necessarily the game make. New markets, new players are what will keep D&D alive. Does that leave grognards behind? Sure it does. Just like all the people who didn't want to give up LP's or 8-tracks. Sorry to them but they got left behind as life moved on. The same will and needs to happen with the RPG industry. Just because something "used to be" part of D&D (like Vancian magic), it doesn't mean it should remain a part of the game if there are other more progressive and better ways to handle mechanics.

They tried "evolving D&D" and it split the base. Most people dont want innovation for its own sake. They go to D&D because of things like vancian magic. There have always been alternatives out there for those who dislike the system (some of which are outstanding). D&D should be finetuned so the numvers work. They should make tweaks here and there to neaten it a bit, but they shoukdn't turn it into another game out of some vague desire to be at the cutting edge of game design (cutting edge isn't what D&D does well).

 

[MoxieFu]

Change + Success = Innovation
Change + Failure = Mistake

For an example, see New Coke.

 

[Ettin]

Things I Like = Innovation
Things I Like + Change = Meaningless Corporate Buzzwords

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Some new company pops up tomorrow with a tabletop fantasy role playing game. Nobody knows anything about it. There are no expectations, there is no history. We all refer to it as Brand new. People will compare it with existing systems, but will celebrate it if it has great innovation, and knock it if it just feels like a copy of games that already exist.

D&D has been around for about 40 years now. It has a history. People have a certain level of expectation. It is already a Brand. If it fixes or changes very little, people will knock a new version for being unnecessary. They will celebrate it if it fixes issues with previous versions, it has great innovation but it still feels like the game we already know. Stray too far so the feel is lost and people already invested in the brand won't accept it.

The hard part is to find the line between fixing and innovating and straying too far. That's why the designers get paid to do what they are doing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

Limitations often inspire creativity. Trying to maintain tropes of D&D and a certain "feel" is hardly antithetical to good game design. (Trying to balance the game to the point where it is idiot-proof, for example, is). What about the converse: would trying to design a game without having the history of D&D to work with limit its playability?

Certainly, none of the many non-D&D TTRPGS that have emerged in the past few decades has even approached the success of D&D. (That's discounting PF, which is D&D, arguably moreso than the game that currently carries the brand name). Which brings us to:

"D&D 4e does not feel like D&D to me" was a response I've read quite often on forums and heard others in game stores say. It's not an opinion that I personally share, however people felt this way and voted with feet/wallets.

Simply because 4e is "new" doesn't make it "better". The business environment you're describing shows that pretty clearly. I hope you're not equating dislike of 4e with some kind of intellectual conservativism or stubbornness. 4e is not what I would call innovation.

But 3e was. I think it's easily forgotten the state that D&D was in before 3e, and what the launch did to it. Are there some who feel that 3e is "not D&D"? I'm sure there are, and you can't please everyone. 3e nonetheless pleased a great number of people (including most of the people who play 4e today) by being adaptible and mechanically consistent. When I read the goals of 5e, basically what they're saying is they're trying to duplicate 3e, but better, simpler, more intuitive, and more balanced. While not easy by any means, this is an entirely feasible goal, and certainly a desirable one.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

 

[MoxieFu]

Limitations often inspire creativity.

[snip]

The sonnet is probably the most difficult of forms of poetry in the English language. Any old idiot can drabble off some free verse, but only a true poet can master the sonnet and that is exactly why it's beautiful.

It's a bit like logic too.

(edit to add) I do think the designers of 5e have a difficult task ahead of them, but not an impossible one. If they can pull it off I'll be very impressed. I'll be very happy as well.

 

[Lilaxe]

I think it will hurt innovation, and Shidaku makes a good point: why cater to folks that don't buy new books?

I spent $1000s on 1E and 2E back in the day. I spent $1000s on 3E and 3.5E when they came out. I was excited about 4E hoping it was a cleaned up version of 3.5E. When I saw it wasn't, I didn't buy a thing. I havnt, and won't spend 1 penny on 4E.

Maybe that's why they want to appeal to us people who "don't buy books", because maybe its actually truer to say we "don't buy books right now"

 

[Ahnehnois]

I spent $1000s on 1E and 2E back in the day. I spent $1000s on 3E and 3.5E when they came out. I was excited about 4E hoping it was a cleaned up version of 3.5E. When I saw it wasn't, I didn't buy a thing. I havnt, and won't spend 1 penny on 4E.

Maybe that's why they want to appeal to us people who "don't buy books", because maybe its actually truer to say we "don't buy books right now"

I've spent a signficant amount of money on D&D books since 4e came out. The secondhand market for 3e books was fantastic! I also diversified and bought a few other non-D&D rpg products. All kinds of good stuff on the cheap. Of course I haven't spent a dime on anything 4e related. Does that mean that I'm not relevant to WotC's business plan?

Besides, aren't they rereleasing 1e books to cater to those who won't buy anything new?

 

[Mattachine]

I spent $1000s on 1E and 2E back in the day. I spent $1000s on 3E and 3.5E when they came out. I was excited about 4E hoping it was a cleaned up version of 3.5E. When I saw it wasn't, I didn't buy a thing. I havnt, and won't spend 1 penny on 4E.

Maybe that's why they want to appeal to us people who "don't buy books", because maybe its actually truer to say we "don't buy books right now"

I was referring to people who haven't bought books from WotC, those who stopped with 2e. I thought I had implied that.

Anyway, the car design analogy is a great one: when car companies put out a radically different version of a long-time model, buyers don't warm up to it as well as a retooled, recognizable version of a classic. Radically different cars have to be new models unto themselves.