D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[thecasualoblivion]

You know, your above argument has made me realize that I am probably using the wrong descriptors here... let me try this...

Previous editions didn't require players to step into authorial stance... 4e requires one to switch back and forth from authorial to protagonist stances (regardless of whether it's 1st person, 2nd person or third person)... and when you don't you get the "fiction doesn't matter" or "dissassociated mechanics" arguments. And no I don't think D&D 4e is clear on when and where players take which stance, especially since it is called D&D, and with the name come certain expectations of gameplay (especially so when marketing is claiming "ze game remains ze same!!!")

EDIT: The other concern is that not every player wants authorial stnce or control forced upon them... and 4e tends to. Some players really just want to be players as opposed to demi-DM's and I don't think 4e accomodates them well.

Again, I don't see this as a general problem, but a problem for the specific perspective it conflicts with. Outside of people who want a strong focus on the first person experience, I don't see why 4E handing players authorial power is an issue.

 

[Imaro]

Again, I don't see this as a general problem, but a problem for the specific perspective it conflicts with. Outside of people who want a strong focus on the first person experience, I don't see why 4E handing players authorial power is an issue.

Well one... it's forcing a playstyle on people that is not traditionally associated with D&D. So I guess the general problem is/was the expectations set vs. reality... again, "Ze game remains ze same!!"... only it didn't.

I also have to wonder if the players gaining authorial stance is a more common preference than a distinct seperation between the two. If not then it is a general problem so far as D&D's general appeal is concerned. There's no way to get specific data but a start would be to look at the current best selling/most popular games and compare the number that give authorial stance to players vs. those who don't. Ultimately WotC is a business and if this type of gameplay appeals to less people... why would they continue making games that force this style?

Another general problem is that 4e, IMO, didn't do a very good job of explaining when and where the players have authorial stance or control vs. when it's in the DM's hands. In most games this is represented by something like a fate point or drama point which specifically calls out when and how it can be used for authorial stance... 4e doesn't do this. This could have caused more dislike of the game than would have been the case if 4e had given better advice and guidance as opposed to trying to tell people it was still the same D&D they had played in earlier iterations.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well one... it's forcing a playstyle on people that is not traditionally associated with D&D. So I guess the general problem is/was the expectations set vs. reality... again, "Ze game remains ze same!!"... only it didn't.

I also have to wonder if the players gaining authorial stance is a more common preference than a distinct seperation between the two. If not then it is a general problem so far as D&D's general appeal is concerned. There's no way to get specific data but a start would be to look at the current best selling/most popular games and compare the number that give authorial stance to players vs. those who don't. Ultimately WotC is a business and if this type of gameplay appeals to less people... why would they continue making games that force this style?

Another general problem is that 4e, IMO, didn't do a very good job of explaining when and where the players have authorial stance or control vs. when it's in the DM's hands. In most games this is represented by something like a fate point or drama point which specifically calls out when and how it can be used for authorial stance... 4e doesn't do this. This could have caused more dislike of the game than would have been the case if 4e had given better advice and guidance as opposed to trying to tell people it was still the same D&D they had played in earlier iterations.

1. It was only jarring to those with a specific 1st person perspective. A perspective which does not own D&D by itself.
2. It was something 4E did, not a selling point. At most it was one negative factor, not something that brought the game down all by itself.
3. Your third paragraph is something I would consider an example of taking things way too seriously.

 

[Imaro]

1. It was only jarring to those with a specific 1st person perspective. A perspective which does not own D&D by itself.
2. It was something 4E did, not a selling point. At most it was one negative factor, not something that brought the game down all by itself.
3. Your third paragraph is something I would consider an example of taking things way too seriously.

1. If that's the perspective the majority of gamers enjoy playing from... then it was a general problem.

2. It affects the entire playstyle of 4e, that's pretty big in the realm of things. The fact that it wasn't a selling point of 4e probably means it wasn't expected by most either, which makes it worse... thus again if the majority do not enjoy it, it will negatively impact their view of 4e and thus it is a general problem.

3. I would think that with the abundance of other games out there as well as previous editions if D&D that this isn't taking things to seriously but ensuring your product has the best chance for success in what has become a pretty competitive market... but I could be wrong.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well one... it's forcing a playstyle on people that is not traditionally associated with D&D. So I guess the general problem is/was the expectations set vs. reality... again, "Ze game remains ze same!!"... only it didn't.

I also have to wonder if the players gaining authorial stance is a more common preference than a distinct seperation between the two. If not then it is a general problem so far as D&D's general appeal is concerned. There's no way to get specific data but a start would be to look at the current best selling/most popular games and compare the number that give authorial stance to players vs. those who don't. Ultimately WotC is a business and if this type of gameplay appeals to less people... why would they continue making games that force this style?

Another general problem is that 4e, IMO, didn't do a very good job of explaining when and where the players have authorial stance or control vs. when it's in the DM's hands. In most games this is represented by something like a fate point or drama point which specifically calls out when and how it can be used for authorial stance... 4e doesn't do this. This could have caused more dislike of the game than would have been the case if 4e had given better advice and guidance as opposed to trying to tell people it was still the same D&D they had played in earlier iterations.

I can't XP, but the last couple of posts have been good. Thecasualoblivion is right in that it isn't a problem for those people who don't have a problem with it (when I word it like that, it sounds obvious); the flip side, of course, is that anyone who is used to playing the game from a first person perspective might feel awkward during the game. I'm not sure what percentage of players fall into this category, but I'm guessing it isn't some niche portion.

Thecasualoblivion is also correct in that D&D doesn't need to force players into actor stance, or that it ever really tried to. However, a set of ambiguous mechanics (where you could use them either way) seems better than making half your base (or whatever percentage) feel awkward when playing the game. Just my take, obviously. As always, play what you like

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. If that's the perspective the majority of gamers enjoy playing from... then it was a general problem.

2. It affects the entire playstyle of 4e, that's pretty big in the realm of things. The fact that it wasn't a selling point of 4e probably means it wasn't expected by most either, which makes it worse... thus again if the majority do not enjoy it, it will negatively impact their view of 4e and thus it is a general problem.

3. I would think that with the abundance of other games out there as well as previous editions if D&D that this isn't taking things to seriously but ensuring your product has the best chance for success in what has become a pretty competitive market... but I could be wrong.

1. I don't think there's any hard evidence of that, and I find it arrogant to make presumptions about it.

2. Here and in prior posts, it seems to me you are speaking solely from the 1st person narrative perspective as if that perspective was the sole way to play D&D.

3. I was speaking of people playing or speaking about the game taking things too seriously.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I can't XP, but the last couple of posts have been good. Thecasualoblivion is right in that it isn't a problem for those people who don't have a problem with it (when I word it like that, it sounds obvious); the flip side, of course, is that anyone who is used to playing the game from a first person perspective might feel awkward during the game. I'm not sure what percentage of players fall into this category, but I'm guessing it isn't some niche portion.

Thecasualoblivion is also correct in that D&D doesn't need to force players into actor stance, or that it ever really tried to. However, a set of ambiguous mechanics (where you could use them either way) seems better than making half your base (or whatever percentage) feel awkward when playing the game. Just my take, obviously. As always, play what you like

The problem with this, which I can say from my experiences with 4E, is that if you know what you want out of a game ambiguous mechanics are strictly inferior to mechanics purpose built for your purposes, and having played a game designed to deliver what you want, going back to ambiguity isn't an attractive prospect. On top of that, you have people who projected their own philosophy onto an ambiguous system and as a result don't see that system as ambiguous who know what they want and don't want a ambiguous system, at least one they aren't already accustomed to and already interpreted on their terms.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The problem with this, which I can say from my experiences with 4E, is that if you know what you want out of a game ambiguous mechanics are strictly inferior to mechanics purpose built for your purposes, and having played a game designed to deliver what you want, going back to ambiguity isn't an attractive prospect.

Yeah, you definitely don't have to convince me -I have my RPG, why would I need to rely on somebody else to create something even better for me? Going to any edition of D&D is something I'd only do as a player, and only because I'd play for a friend that prefers it.

But, if we're talking about appealing to the D&D base in a general sense, an ambiguous take on actor / 3rd person stance is probably a better idea than forcing half your base to feel awkward during the game. As always, play what you like

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Funny responding to xp, but here goes:

Experience Points

Shadeydm:
Weren't you just speaking of arrogant assumptions one post up and now you say this? LOL

Saying that 4E caters specifically to one specific style of play over others isn't something I'd call controversial, and saying that I have a specific preference and that this preference was catered to by 4E like it was specifically designed for it isnt arrogant. I was only stating commonly accepted facts(4E is designed to fulfill a specific style) and speaking for myself.

Saying that D&D as a whole is defined by one style of play, or that one group of players is more significant is arrogant.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah, you definitely don't have to convince me -I have my RPG, why would I need to rely on somebody else to create something even better for me? Going to any edition of D&D is something I'd only do as a player, and only because I'd play for a friend that prefers it.

But, if we're talking about appealing to the D&D base in a general sense, an ambiguous take on actor / 3rd person stance is probably a better idea than forcing half your base to feel awkward during the game. As always, play what you like

I would speculate that a lot of D&D players aren't part of the base in a general sense anymore, not after the polarization of the past few years, and are instead specific fans of a specific type of D&D. I fit that description, as do a lot of people I see posting on this and other forums.