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

[Ahnehnois]

Saying that 4E caters specifically to one specific style of play over others isn't something I'd call controversial,.

Some people sure would!

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.

No, it isn't.

I was only stating commonly accepted facts(4E is designed to fulfill a specific style) and speaking for myself.

Are you sure?

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.

I see a lot of statements about other people, including the assumption that they have "projected" and "don't see that system as ambiguous". The use of "ambiguous" as opposed to "open-ended" or "flexible" or "customizable" or "versatile" also seems to imply a judgment on said people.

 

[Imaro]

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

No presumptions are being made... that's why my statement started with an "if". I also think it's just as arrogant to presume the opposite.

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.

Again, we aren't talking about the "sole way to play D&D"... we are speaking to how the majority play it. I have made no definitive statement either way, but when I look at the top selling or most popular rpg's... they don't tend to have explicit mechanics that force or allow players into authorial stance... they tend to have a pretty hard divide.

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

The fact of the matter is roleplaying games cost money and more importantly tend to require alot of time (arguably the most valuable thing in the world)... there's too wide a variety in this day and age for people to choose to play something that doesn't vibe with what they like. WotC has to, as a business trying to be the market leader, be concerned with what the majority prefers plain and simple.

 

[Herschel]

... there's too wide a variety in this day and age for people to choose to play something that doesn't vibe with what they like. WotC has to, as a business trying to be the market leader, be concerned with what the majority prefers plain and simple.

Interesting thought, but I think these two points don't mesh and that it's not at all what WotC is shooting for because they can't and here's why:

There is a much larger variety these days and there's no way to actually have a game the majority wants because the majority don't all want the same things. They want to create a modular system that the majority can prefer simply because it offers options that a hard-coded system can't.

4E's actually a very modular system and the first real one of its type, but they almost introduced it backwards IMO. Had Essentials-style characters, which are very similar to 3E characters in a lot of ways, been introduced first, the transition would have been a LOT smoother.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, we aren't talking about the "sole way to play D&D"... we are speaking to how the majority play it. I have made no definitive statement either way, but when I look at the top selling or most popular rpg's... they don't tend to have explicit mechanics that force or allow players into authorial stance... they tend to have a pretty hard divide.



The fact of the matter is roleplaying games cost money and more importantly tend to require alot of time (arguably the most valuable thing in the world)... there's too wide a variety in this day and age for people to choose to play something that doesn't vibe with what they like. WotC has to, as a business trying to be the market leader, be concerned with what the majority prefers plain and simple.

What evidence to you have of said majority? In the absence of said evidence, why do you presume to speak for that majority?

 

[Imaro]

Interesting thought, but I think these two points don't mesh and that it's not at all what WotC is shooting for because they can't and here's why:

There is a much larger variety these days and there's no way to actually have a game the majority wants because the majority don't all want the same things. They want to create a modular system that the majority can prefer simply because it offers options that a hard-coded system can't.

4E's actually a very modular system and the first real one of its type, but they almost introduced it backwards IMO. Had Essentials-style characters, which are very similar to 3E characters in a lot of ways, been introduced first, the transition would have been a LOT smoother.

Even with a modular system... You still need a base. The base is exactly what most of the arguments going on now are about and as a business you want your base (in broad terms) to cater to the preferences of the majority... if that's a hardline between player and DM authorial stance, well then you want to go with that... that is what I am saying... not that they are going to create some uber system that gets each and everyone of the majority's wishes included.

As to your last paragraph... who knows, that's all speculation so I really can't comment.

 

[Imaro]

What evidence to you have of said majority? In the absence of said evidence, why do you presume to speak for that majority?

DO rpg's with mechanics for traditional DM/player divides sell more than those where this divide isn't present or is switched back and forth between players and DM's?

Edit: Also read my post... I haven't made a dfefinitive statement either way... but I honestly believe the market for traditional DM/player divide rpg's is alot larger than non-traditional DM/player divide rpg's.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think WotC wants the Pathfinder/3rd/2nd and 1st market as a priority over 4th with 5th Ed.

They could easily keep both going, 4th is basically all E now, so, works perfectly.

 

[Herschel]

Even with a modular system... You still need a base. The base is exactly what most of the arguments going on now are about and as a business you want your base (in broad terms) to cater to the preferences of the majority... if that's a hardline between player and DM authorial stance, well then you want to go with that... that is what I am saying... not that they are going to create some uber system that gets each and everyone of the majority's wishes included.

Very true, but I think the base may really need to be even more ....generic (?) in order to truly bring in a majority. I'm not sure they can though and still keep a fully functional "core" system that plays fully by itself with any set magic system. There's enough people that hate Vancian and don't want at-will, etc. that might short-circuit the whole shebang.

 

[Shadeydm]

Very true, but I think the base may really need to be even more ....generic (?) in order to truly bring in a majority. I'm not sure they can though and still keep a fully functional "core" system that plays fully by itself with any set magic system. There's enough people that hate Vancian and don't want at-will, etc. that might short-circuit the whole shebang.

It will be fun to find out. My gut feeling is that no matter what 5E ends up looking like my group will probably end up switching from 4E to 13th Age sooner or later.

 

[Someone]

I think WotC wants the Pathfinder/3rd/2nd and 1st market as a priority over 4th with 5th Ed.

They could easily keep both going, 4th is basically all E now, so, works perfectly.

I think WotC gives 4e players for granted and will automatically buy anything with the D&D brand on it, while at the same time trying to get back from the evil clutches of Paizo the market segment that thinks they are the devil and refused to continue buying from them, using a franskenstein monter-like set of rules based on tummy feeling.

I don't think it'll end very well.