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

[Emerikol]

There is no difference, heck, HP are so "disassociated" people can't even agree on what they actually mean. .../QUOTE]

Exhibit A.
Proof you don't know what you are talking about. Thank you.

Instead of trying to understand what these articles are saying instead you are guessing at it blindly.

 

[Emerikol]

What you describe are your personal opinions and tastes, but you then act as if they were objective facts, held by the majority, are the true definition of ad&D, and <b>superior/correct compared to other philosophies and tastes.</b>

I do think the majority prefers traditional D&D. If you consider the potential overall market for such things.

The bold part above is not true though. Superior for me yes. A game cannot be objectively superior. It's only as fun as the players enjoyment of it and I assume that varies across players. I do state things though from my own perspective so perhaps that is your confusion. You project a lot of things onto me I think.

I do get angry with groups of people when say that I dislike something and then someone says it doesn't even exist.

 

[stoloc]

I do think the majority prefers traditional D&D. If you consider the potential overall market for such things.

The bold part above is not true though. Superior for me yes. A game cannot be objectively superior. It's only as fun as the players enjoyment of it and I assume that varies across players. I do state things though from my own perspective so perhaps that is your confusion. You project a lot of things onto me I think.

I do get angry with groups of people when say that I dislike something and then someone says it doesn't even exist.

The majority of DnD grognards perhaps but if DnD next focuses on bringing them around and ignores the folks who have not played DnD then the game will stagnate which may be great for you but in the long term is bad for dnd.

I've spoken to folks I've tried to bring into DnD and the response has been overwhelming in favor of 4e compared to 3e and earlier editions. There is quite frankly to much quirkiness/clunkiness/fiddlieness to make learning the systems intuitive. Those same quirks may be great if you've been playing the game for 30 years and houseruled around them to make the game playable but they are inhibiting the growth of the game.

 

[Herschel]

There is no difference, heck, HP are so "disassociated" people can't even agree on what they actually mean. ...

Exhibit A.
Proof you don't know what you are talking about. Thank you.

Instead of trying to understand what these articles are saying instead you are guessing at it blindly.

Were HP a simple matter of a non-progressing "physical damage" measure, they could remain a simple abstraction, as in 'people can take a certain amount of physical punishment so to measure this we'll keep the essense of the concept represented by a quantitative unit we'll call Hit Points.'

But they aren't. The whole concept and use of them is far greater and broader. HP values change from not only level to level but revision to revision and edition to edition. They represent far more than "wounds" or conventional "damage". They are, quite literally, disassociated from real world expectations, meanings and perceptions of actual damage because they represent far more than just simple damage. Gary Gygax even wrote this.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I do think the majority prefers traditional D&D. If you consider the potential overall market for such things.

I also think 4E was the majority of the D&D market for the 1st half of its lifetime. That majority wasn't enough, and I don't think your traditional majority is enough today. The changes 4E left a mark, and aren't going to just disappear. A lot of people aren't going to want to go back, too many for things to go back to the way they were before. As I said before, Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together.

You project a lot of things onto me I think.

You don't speak opinions, you speak generalizations as if they were truth. Maybe you're just bad at communicating, but you should really try to speak your own mind without speaking for other people or D&D as a whole.

I do get angry with groups of people when say that I dislike something and then someone says it doesn't even exist.

We aren't saying it doesn't exist, we're saying it doesn't exist outside of your perspective. You also aren't just saying you dislike something, you are trying to objectively prove that what you dislike is wrong or "not D&D". People aren't taking issue with your dislike, but your trying to argue that your preference is correct or the "true D&D". Your evidence doesn't amount to much more than prejudice and personal feelings, which is fine for your personal feelings, but doesn't amount to much in terms of the D&D community as a whole and what is or isn't truly "D&D".

 

[Imaro]

The majority of DnD grognards perhaps but if DnD next focuses on bringing them around and ignores the folks who have not played DnD then the game will stagnate which may be great for you but in the long term is bad for dnd.

Who said anything about ignoring those who haven't played D&D? You seem to be assuming anyone who hasn't played D&D would automatically dislike traditional/pre-4e D&D... yet there's no evidence that these two things correlate. In fact, having an experienced base to promote games and teach new players is probably a bonus.

I've spoken to folks I've tried to bring into DnD and the response has been overwhelming in favor of 4e compared to 3e and earlier editions. There is quite frankly to much quirkiness/clunkiness/fiddlieness to make learning the systems intuitive. Those same quirks may be great if you've been playing the game for 30 years and houseruled around them to make the game playable but they are inhibiting the growth of the game.

I had the opposite reaction when I bought my son, 3 nephews and niece each their own Pathfinder Beginner Box and ran the included adventure... they loved it. In other words, your experiences aren't universal, or even enough to draw a conclusion from.

 

[Emerikol]

I also think 4E was the majority of the D&D market for the 1st half of its lifetime. That majority wasn't enough, and I don't think your traditional majority is enough today. The changes 4E left a mark, and aren't going to just disappear. A lot of people aren't going to want to go back, too many for things to go back to the way they were before. As I said before, Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together.

Not really. I was a buyer during that time. So were a ton of people who just hadn't experienced 4e fully. Not all the 4e haters started out that way. I for one was a pro as they come when it first came out.

You don't speak opinions, you speak generalizations as if they were truth. Maybe you're just bad at communicating, but you should really try to speak your own mind without speaking for other people or D&D as a whole.

When I say most or some or many, I mean what I say. But I'm not saying all. Nor am I saying that the majority is always right. I am merely saying from my perspective where I think various factions fall. You can disagree. I base my opinions on WOTC's behavior. You believe they've just went insane. I believe they know their market they've studied what happened with 4e and they've reacted as they always do. During 3e, they heard all the whining about balance and we got 4e. So I admit they are reactive. Sometimes they overreact. So now they are reacting to all the whining about 4e. And in 6e, they will be reacting to all the whining about 5e in all likelihood.

We aren't saying it doesn't exist, we're saying it doesn't exist outside of your perspective...

The problem with his attitude is that a ton of people have all said they see the same thing. Many have written independently about it. My entire blog about plot coupons was written without prior knowledge of any of these articles. To say that we are just prejudiced and have no commonality of thought on this matter really is amazingly ridiculous. And that's what some around here are saying.

You also aren't just saying you dislike something, you are trying to objectively prove that what you dislike is wrong or "not D&D". People aren't taking issue with your dislike, but your trying to argue that your preference is correct or the "true D&D". Your evidence doesn't amount to much more than prejudice and personal feelings, which is fine for your personal feelings, but doesn't amount to much in terms of the D&D community as a whole and what is or isn't truly "D&D".

I am saying that "traditional" D&D (you put in the word true yourself) has been a certain type of game. 4e edition was a completely different playstyle. All I'm arguing for is getting D&D back to it's roots and let it be what D&D has traditionally always been. If possible I'm for being additve and including as many playstyles as possible. If not possible then I'm for D&D sticking with an approach that has kept it on top of the sales market for over twenty years. If not possible though I'm assuming another game could be made (even by WOTC/Hasbro but by others too) that would cater specifically to the 4e crowd.

 

[Imaro]

I also think 4E was the majority of the D&D market for the 1st half of its lifetime. That majority wasn't enough, and I don't think your traditional majority is enough today. The changes 4E left a mark, and aren't going to just disappear. A lot of people aren't going to want to go back, too many for things to go back to the way they were before. As I said before, Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together.

Emphasis mine... isn't this one of those generalizations being spoken as truth??

 

[stoloc]

Who said anything about ignoring those who haven't played D&D? You seem to be assuming anyone who hasn't played D&D would automatically dislike traditional/pre-4e D&D... yet there's no evidence that these two things correlate. In fact, having an experienced base to promote games and teach new players is probably a bonus.



I had the opposite reaction when I bought my son, 3 nephews and niece each their own Pathfinder Beginner Box and ran the included adventure... they loved it. In other words, your experiences aren't universal, or even enough to draw a conclusion from.

I said something about grognards ignoring those who haven't played dnd. What I see requested, desired by many of them is nothing more than broken old mechanics that make no sense for no other reason than traditions sake because these things "feel" like DnD.

While I'm glad your nephews and niece enjoyed pathfinder nowhere in your statement do I see anything to compare it to. I DO have direct comparison from my attempts to introduce both 3.x and 4e to the same individual.

I'm not saying that any version of dnd CAN'T be fun for new folks but that in my experience with folks who have tried both 4e is superior for those who have no prior experience.

I also don't claim that my experiences aren't universal but they are as valid as any one else's and they are enough to inform my opinion.

edit - by the way I am not defending wotc's products compared to paizo- I'm sure the introductory set by paizo was an excellent product especially compared to some of the initial 4e modules which were quite frankly atrocious. However the system for 4e was much easier for me to introduce than 3.x.

 

[Imaro]

I said something about grognards ignoring those who haven't played dnd. What I see requested, desired by many of them is nothing more than broken old mechanics that make no sense for no other reason than traditions sake because these things "feel" like DnD.

While I'm glad your nephews and niece enjoyed pathfinder nowhere in your statement do I see anything to compare it to. I DO have direct comparison from my attempts to introduce both 3.x and 4e to the same individual.

I'm not saying that any version of dnd CAN'T be fun for new folks but that in my experience with folks who have tried both 4e is superior for those who have no prior experience.

I also don't claim that my experiences aren't universal but they are as valid as any one else's and they are enough to inform my opinion.

edit - by the way I am not defending wotc's products compared to paizo- I'm sure the introductory set by paizo was an excellent product especially compared to some of the initial 4e modules which were quite frankly atrocious. However the system for 4e was much easier for me to introduce than 3.x.

For the record I do play 4e and have introduced it to older players (though trying it with younger kids wasn't easy at all). I was mearly offering a counter point. In my experience it was easier teaching kids to play pathfinder than it was trying to teach them what each power did, the difference between at-will, encounter, daily... how to spend and track healing surges, how to manage and track conditions, and so on. But to each his own...