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

[Lokiare]

But then 3E and 3.5 must have been even worse to come out with a new version even faster. So I think you miss the point I was making.

They seem to expect not only numbers but a certain market share. They can still make good numbers but not their ecxpectation.

As far as the playtest goes, I think the majority of reason for doing it is marketing, not so much rules-based. There is some market research though as those afore-mentioned people who complained about 3E then complained when WotC actually made changes can be sifted through more also but generally the noise is irrelevent.

Exactly.

This can be proven when you look at how many people want an alternative to vancian casting as core for the Wizard, and how generally everyone is ok with having a module to change the casting style. Yet WotC won't change this. Its one of those forehead slap moments that make you wonder if 5E isn't fully designed and the play test is just a marketing trick...

 

[Emerikol]

I think there is something to the theory of dissociated mechanics even if I don't understand it. I think I don't understand it because I approach mechanics from a different perspective - more metagame, I think: a focus on the choices the players make instead of the choices of the PCs.

My first encounter with the theory went something like this (I think):

Me, reading the theory: 4E dissociates the choice the player makes from the choice the character makes.
Me: Is that a problem? The choice the player makes is the important thing. Since the character doesn't exist, you can decide what choice he made and why.

Me, reading the theory: But the 4E Daily/Encounter mechanics means that the PC can't make choices based on the game world.
Me: Is that a problem? The PC doesn't exist. You have to decide what the PC is actually thinking, so just make that something that works for you.

Me, reading the theory: But that means that the player can't interact with the game world. The player can't make choices based on what's happening in the fiction.
Me: Oh, okay. Yeah. I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Later on, after applying the lessons learned from dissociated mechanics to my own 4E hack - to the point of making it "not D&D" by my own standards:

Me: So if what's important is that the player can't interact with the game world - that is, make choices based on the in-game fictional details - how is that different from what's going on in older versions of D&D, with their abstract "to-hit" rolls, HP, turn-based initiative, saving throws, etc.?

(Playing 3E concurrently with my 4E Hack brings this point home. At one point we tried to resolve the actual actions my PC took in a sword duel, as we do in my hack, and it made no sense at all. Erm, that's not true - it did make sense. It was just that the actions that seemed to me, at the time, to be the "logical" option flowing from the details of the game world were made obviously and supremely sub-optimal by the mechanics of the game system. Much better to ignore the game world and just say "I hit him with my longsword held in two hands, power attack for 5".)

Now maybe dissociated mechanics have nothing to do with the choices the players make. Maybe that's where my misunderstanding lies. At that point I respond, "Is that a problem? The game is about the choices the players make." If that's true: Obviously some people do care about something other than the choices the players make, but that viewpoint is very alien to me, and that's why I struggle to understand the theory.

Despite the fact that we disagree I applaud this post. We can't reach any sort of consensus about anything until both sides understand the other side. So I appreciate your point of view and honesty on this matter.

I agree that for many people the dissociation between the player and the character is not a great concern. I can guess that this is true for a number of reasons. That is their experience. They play more casually and they think of it as a game just like monopoly. Now I'm not saying the game IS monopoly or that the game IS like a board game. I'm just saying that your commitment level and attitude is similar. That's all.

For me I've just always been the kind of DM and player who really loves a well detailed and immersive world. I like getting to the character. So perhaps this is why I see things my way. I'm not saying you can't enjoy a detailed world either. Just saying how I perceive maybe I came to my own preferences.

I'm not sure what the ultimate game solution is other than try to keep in mind people's preferences when doing design and when a particular goal is achievable with different approaches seek the least offensive one for all parties involved.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But then 3E and 3.5 must have been even worse to come out with a new version even faster.

I don't really regard these as two completely separate editions. They seem to share a lot more in common than 4e and 5e do. If you want to dig deep into .5's, then surely you must consider 4-Essentials to be 4.5, and thus we're back to 4.5e being the shortest of the editions (1 year?) and 4e to be close on its tails (2 years?). Whens speaking of market share, it wasn't 3e that saw them loose the spot as the world's #1 tabletop game.

But whatever. My point was ultimately that sales data can't be used as a metric for whether or not an edition was a solid ruleset enjoyed by millions. Game designers are inherently tinkerers, so when sales data comes to them that tells them to get started on the next e or next .5 because they need a new sales spike, they can't help but react to the game that exists and change it into something that reflects their own take on the goals for the redesign.

One of the lessons learned with 4e seems to be that if you only include the goals of one insular group of people in Washington State who play the game in a particular way (or think it can be marketed most profitably in a particular way), it's going to loose you a whole lot more than it gains. So one of the reactions to that is to make an expansive game. 5e is, by all the conversation so far, planned to be quite expansive.

As far as the playtest goes, I think the majority of reason for doing it is marketing, not so much rules-based. There is some market research though as those afore-mentioned people who complained about 3E then complained when WotC actually made changes can be sifted through more also but generally the noise is irrelevent.

That seems very cynical to me. I see no reason not to take what WotC says at face value. They're putting an insane amount of time and money on the line if it's just a marketing stunt, and what's more, the feedback seems to be heard and responded to (see: Combat Superiority).

You also seem to be conflating two groups of people. I don't think those who complained about 3e are, in most cases, the same people that complained about the changes that 4e brought.

This can be proven when you look at how many people want an alternative to vancian casting as core for the Wizard, and how generally everyone is ok with having a module to change the casting style. Yet WotC won't change this. Its one of those forehead slap moments that make you wonder if 5E isn't fully designed and the play test is just a marketing trick...

I think selection bias has perhaps clouded your view of all the people who want a Vancian Wizard, and also your view of all the ways WotC has at their disposal to give those who want a variant, a variant.

5e is modular, after all, and they've explicitly stated that alternate spell systems is something they want to include.

 

[Imaro]

But then 3E and 3.5 must have been even worse to come out with a new version even faster. So I think you miss the point I was making.

Uness you consider essentials, which can arguably be called a half edition or revision of the 4e rules (with new "evergreen" corebooks). Also, as noted by Monte Cook, 3.5 was planned before 3.0 was even released.

 

[Lokiare]

I don't really regard these as two completely separate editions. They seem to share a lot more in common than 4e and 5e do. If you want to dig deep into .5's, then surely you must consider 4-Essentials to be 4.5, and thus we're back to 4.5e being the shortest of the editions (1 year?) and 4e to be close on its tails (2 years?). Whens speaking of market share, it wasn't 3e that saw them loose the spot as the world's [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] tabletop game.

But whatever. My point was ultimately that sales data can't be used as a metric for whether or not an edition was a solid ruleset enjoyed by millions. Game designers are inherently tinkerers, so when sales data comes to them that tells them to get started on the next e or next .5 because they need a new sales spike, they can't help but react to the game that exists and change it into something that reflects their own take on the goals for the redesign.

One of the lessons learned with 4e seems to be that if you only include the goals of one insular group of people in Washington State who play the game in a particular way (or think it can be marketed most profitably in a particular way), it's going to loose you a whole lot more than it gains. So one of the reactions to that is to make an expansive game. 5e is, by all the conversation so far, planned to be quite expansive.



That seems very cynical to me. I see no reason not to take what WotC says at face value. They're putting an insane amount of time and money on the line if it's just a marketing stunt, and what's more, the feedback seems to be heard and responded to (see: Combat Superiority).

You also seem to be conflating two groups of people. I don't think those who complained about 3e are, in most cases, the same people that complained about the changes that 4e brought.



I think selection bias has perhaps clouded your view of all the people who want a Vancian Wizard, and also your view of all the ways WotC has at their disposal to give those who want a variant, a variant.

5e is modular, after all, and they've explicitly stated that alternate spell systems is something they want to include.

Yep they sure have. If you want a non-vancian Wizard you have to go play a Sorcerer or Warlock (they haven't stated which yet). In other words disappointment all around. Rather than doing what nearly everyone has called for and making a module that would allow vancian to be ripped out and your favorite system be put in its place, they are basically saying if you have a casting style you are limited to one or two classes....

Again they are just not listening to their fan base...

 

[Lokiare]

Uness you consider essentials, which can arguably be called a half edition or revision of the 4e rules (with new "evergreen" corebooks). Also, as noted by Monte Cook, 3.5 was planned before 3.0 was even released.

The difference between 3.0 to 3.5 and 4E to Essentials is a huge one.

3.5 was meant to overwrite and replace 3.0.

Essentials was merely an add-on that can be used side by side with 4E classes with no overwriting or replacement involved.

 

[Imaro]

The difference between 3.0 to 3.5 and 4E to Essentials is a huge one.

3.5 was meant to overwrite and replace 3.0.

Essentials was merely an add-on that can be used side by side with 4E classes with no overwriting or replacement involved.

Yet essentials were billed as the new evergreen corebooks... that seems like replacement to me... regardless of how you actually chose to use them.

EDIT: And outside of classes there were changes in the DC values, stealth rules, etc. compared to the original PHB, MM and DMG.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For me I've just always been the kind of DM and player who really loves a well detailed and immersive world. I like getting to the character. So perhaps this is why I see things my way. I'm not saying you can't enjoy a detailed world either. Just saying how I perceive maybe I came to my own preferences.

This is a thing that gets to me, because I, too, want a well-detailed and immersive world. I love getting into my character's head, too.

And yet, I also have no problem at all stepping back from my character, and saying, "You know what? The optimal / rational / smart in-character decision is probably [X]; but I think it will take the game in a more interesting direction if I do [Y] instead. Is [Y] something that makes me look like a jerk to the other players? Nope? Okay, can I come up with a reason why my character might do [Y]? Uh ... yeah, I can see that. Fine then - my character does [Y]."

It just boggles the mind that people not only will not do that themselves, but seem to think that it cannot be done at all without somehow transforming the experience into "not roleplaying."

Maybe it's because I largely got my start in RPGs via computer games where you create and play as a whole party at once? Who knows?

 

[Lokiare]

Yet essentials were billed as the new evergreen corebooks... that seems like replacement to me... regardless of how you actually chose to use them.

EDIT: And outside of classes there were changes in the DC values, stealth rules, etc. compared to the original PHB, MM and DMG.

Yeah, not really. Its a reprint of all the core rules with the errata included. Not entirely new rules like 3.5 was.

It would be akin to reprinting the rules every couple of years and including the few errata that pop up.

Whereas 3.5 is all about remaking the entire game with huge sweeping changes.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: And outside of classes there were changes in the DC values, stealth rules, etc. compared to the original PHB, MM and DMG.

So, errata means it's a new edition, then?