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

[Savage Wombat]

You know, I didn't think the OP's question had to be about anything other than whether striving for a classic feel limited the game designers.

It seems that several posters have decided this should be an edition war thread.

 

[mcintma]

It rubs me the wrong way when folks throw the word 'innovation' around and say (or imply) things like '4e is D&D evolved/modernized'. 4e is a different game, not an evolution, better at some things than 1-3e, worse in other aspects. Pick your favorite by all means, but please don't imply that some 'modern discovery' in gaming was incorporated into 4e that makes it an 'innovation' of D&D. BTW I'd say much the same thing to someone espousing 3e as a 'necessary' modernization of 1e ... and I play 3e/PF.

Game 'technology' and math is not new or wildly changed, it's not like Apple devices where the underlying tech is actually evolving measurably on a monthly basis.

Was The Phantom Menace an 'innovation' of Star Wars...? The word needs to be used very carefully IMO.

Want to be clear that I am not ed warring, only saying that equating CHANGED with Innovative/Better/Modern wrt any edition is a mistake

 

[hanez]

As DM I switched as soon as 4e came out. I made at least 10 people buy the players handbook. I subscribed to DDI for more than a year, we finished the first "adventure path".

We werent grognards. We were begging for innovation in D&D, the game can always be made better. See combat and tactics in 2e, or Arcana Unearthed for inspiration. We're just sick of people trying to redefine what the game is, what the classes represent, and focusing only on combat, balance, and minis.

This isnt an "edition war comment". I'm just hoping they will keep the classic feel, and the definition of the archetypes in D&D, while finding refined and more elegant ways to keep the game imaginative, engaging AND balanced, instead of saying "hey look this is better or at least fairer, and if you don't like it you can just "refluff".

 

[tlantl]

Innovation is killing D&D.

Innovation is why they're scrambling to stem the hemorrhage. People going else where to find their fun.

If D&D stayed true to itself over the years there wouldn't be such a great divide where the editions are concerned. All I've seen over the last ten or fifteen years is a fun and eccentric game being torn to shreds to appease some golden balance idol and changes mage for the sake of change.

Innovation should be taken out back and shot.

I think if the game isn't good enough for you as written go find another game. Stop messing with it.

I also think that the suits sitting in their offices looking at a string of numbers trying to find a way to make even more money from the game should realize that they are doomed to failure.

New editions have only proven to be losers in the long run. Produce a ton of junk to keep people buying books just pisses people off. Even if they make a beautiful game I'm still not going to buy a book a month for the next three or four years and I'm likely not going to buy into 6e when it's announced five years from now.

 

[Savage Wombat]

New editions have only proven to be losers in the long run. Produce a ton of junk to keep people buying books just pisses people off. Even if they make a beautiful game I'm still not going to buy a book a month for the next three or four years and I'm likely not going to buy into 6e when it's announced five years from now.

If you don't buy new books on a regular basis, the brand line and maybe the company dies. That's the problem. If you like new materials for your game, you have to support the company that makes them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you don't buy new books on a regular basis, the brand line and maybe the company dies. That's the problem. If you like new materials for your game, you have to support the company that makes them.

I think WOTC is actually losing sales by using a model built around splat books and new editions. They took the wrong lesson from TSR's failure. Flavor books, modules, settings etc are a great way to grow the game, keep people interested int he game, have sales, but without driving away customers or breaking the system. Even player option books are good if they are heavy on flavor and light on mechanics (a bit like the 2E complete books). But IMO wizards took a winning edition (3E) and drove it into the ground with a magic the gathering style release model. Sell us stuff we want, dont sell us stuff we "must have" to keep up.

 

[am181d]

When considering 5e, WotC had to make a decision. Either:

1) Figure out ways to make D&D run smoother and to make it more accessible to new audiences

-or-

2) Figure out ways to unify the base of D&D players and get everybody who plays D&D or used to play D&D buying the new edition

In other words, are you looking forwards or backwards? It appears that WotC chose "backwards."

Now, I'm sure that the WotC team will also look for ways to make the new rules accessible. They'll look for better ways to market the material, etc.

But if the choice is between a new/better rule and an older/more familiar one, it seems that they will come down on the side of the "safe" choice.

The folks at WotC have explicitly said they're not going after the Pathfinder players, but let's be honest: They're going directly for the Pathfinder players. They pretty much have to. If they're not focusing on bringing in new players, the Pathfinder player base is the largest chunk of currently-untapped D&D players.

 

[billd91]

I have to completely disagree.

From WotC's own description... What is D&D?
"D&D is an imaginative, social experience that engages players in a rich fantasy world filled with larger-than-life heroes, deadly monsters, and diverse settings."

THIS is what D&D is. D&D isn't classes, it isn't THACO vs. d20, etc. Those are simply game engines or mechanics. Pretty much the only mechanic you can even truly call purely D&D is the use of the full polyhedron dice set.

(snip)

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.

As Savage Wombat pointed out, that italicized description describes any number of FRPGs. I would submit that it is far too vague to identify D&D. As important in distinguishing D&D from any other FRPG is how players have The adventures in the game. Tossing them out leads to a different game, not D&D.

This isn't to say that there must be no change. 3e and PF both showed innovative change can be successful. Players Option: Skills and Powers and 4e illustrate that not all changes work for the D&D brand. It's important to figure out what elements are most important to keep, what elements are most amenable to change. This is why I think Monte's articles, while simple, are so important to the D&DNext process.

 

[billd91]

When considering 5e, WotC had to make a decision. Either:

1) Figure out ways to make D&D run smoother and to make it more accessible to new audiences

-or-

2) Figure out ways to unify the base of D&D players and get everybody who plays D&D or used to play D&D buying the new edition

In other words, are you looking forwards or backwards? It appears that WotC chose "backwards."

Now, I'm sure that the WotC team will also look for ways to make the new rules accessible. They'll look for better ways to market the material, etc.

But if the choice is between a new/better rule and an older/more familiar one, it seems that they will come down on the side of the "safe" choice.

Let's not forget that past versions of D&D were accessible enough to generate a fad and have a player base most likely larger than today's player base. New isn't necessarily more accessible.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think it certainly does, and to me personally, it has already. I know some people play older editions and love them, can't fault 'em for that. But the older editions are not without their faults, and catering to an audience that hasn't bought new D&D books for nearly 20 years doesn't seem like a particularly sound business strategy.

Except that audience stopped buying books for a reason. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

If that audience stopped buying books because of mistakes WotC/TSR made, then fixing those mistakes and catering to that audience does make for a good business strategy.

I think it's time to stop viewing fans who didn't simply follow along with things other fans think they should have, as not worthy of being listened too.