The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[Dausuul]

IMHO, you can't blame those who opted for status quo for the schism...and "reactionary" is a rather poor word to describe those people.

The schism- ANY schism- is caused by those who are not satisfied with the status quo and therefore move to implement change, for good or for ill.

But that said, I also think that the schism was inevitable because even in RPGs, change is pretty much inevitable.

That there would be people who disliked 4E and stayed with 3E--yes, that was inevitable. That there would, nevertheless, be a 4E--that, too, was inevitable. However, I don't think it was inevitable that the split would go right down the middle. If WotC had done things differently, 3.5E might have joined AD&D, BECMI, and OD&D as editions played by a handful of diehards but not making up a substantial fraction of the overall market.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

However, I don't think it was inevitable that the split would go right down the middle.

Agreed 100%.

I didn't speculate about the size of the split for a reason somewhat like what lutecius was alluding to earlier. Had 4Ed been more of a clean-up and streamlining rather than a wholesale slaughter of sacred cows, I think there would have been a MUCH smaller split in the community.

But that kind of change has been somewhat of a recurring theme in WotC's products. As a player of M:tG from Alpha, I've seen numerous cards get banned because of interactions with subsequently published cards or powers. Instead of only changing/banning the new stuff that caused the problem, they got rid of the older cards too.

"This bathwater is filthy!! Get rid of it...and the baby, too!"

 

[Shemeska]

before 4e, the vast majority of dnd players I knew online or IRL played the latest edition. sometimes it took them a year or so to switch but I don't see this happening now.

I think a 4e that fixed 3e issues without drastically changing the design philosophy could have appealed to current 4e players. but now they've embraced the new paradigm I don't see them coming back to a game that would also satisfy 3e players.

I think it all comes back to not just the killing of D&D sacred cows in 4e, but doing so with literal glee and pride. It was both the content of the changes, and the way in which they were presented that caused an even deeper fracture.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The problem is twofold. Biggest is the problem of rivalry.

When you look at most other fandoms, there's rivalries built in. Sports teams against other sports teams. My TV show versus your TV show. PC gaming master race vs sad console peasantry*.

We had a good run with rivalry, you know, and you can thank White Wolf for it. Come on, we've all seen it - someone talks about a more dramatic game or mentions Vampire and sooner or later it turns into "Hah hah hah, that Vampire drama! Hah hah! Ahhhh!" Before and after that, we had LARPing to make fun of. Who hasn't seen the video of "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" amongst us?

But it couldn't last. And it didn't last.

We're fans. We love having a rivalry. Nevermind that we're human beings and adore having in-group and out-group, we're fans of a relatively niche market that is nonetheless large enough to hold differing opinions. That's pretty much made perfectly for rivalries.

There was three things that could've happened.

1) The change is rediculously minute, and I mean rediculously. To put it in perspective, Pathfinder changed an absurdly small amount, and is closer to being 3.55 then it is 3.75, and there's still people who hate it for changing too much.

2) No new edition. Just keep chugging along in 3.x. Except that too was getting heated. Just try talking about Tome of Battle and see if you can get everyone to peacefully agree on it. How long do you think it'll go until someone cries out that anime is ruining his game?

3) Make a new edition. Boom, schism.

And that's the second problem: we hate change. Fans abhor change. It runs anathema to our very souls. Fantasy has for a long time been a very bizarrely conservative genre, and as tabletop gamers, we're the niche amongst that. Just look at the fights that grew out of 3.x on what should or shouldn't be banned. I've seen people ban the warlock because they thought it was too powerful, and by too powerful I mean it was too different for them.

So, to answer all three questions in one go: Yeah, there was going to be a split, a messy one, and I don't think it could be mended, and I don't think it could be avoided.

 

[Aus_Snow]

To put it in perspective, Pathfinder changed an absurdly small amount, and is closer to being 3.55 then it is 3.75, and there's still people who hate it for changing too much.

Hm. Haven't seen that. I mean, it's possible, sure. But what I have seen quite a bit of (though not very much for a while now) is people not liking some of the ways in which it diverged, however minor/"minor" those might be. So, particular issues with particular rules.

I've seen people ban the warlock because they thought it was too powerful, and by too powerful I mean it was too different for them.

Again... really?

Because, same as before. In fact, I am one (among many, or so I have been led to believe) who simply disliked the nature and details of the class itself. Not the fact that it was "different", per se.

I mean, I've been quite OK with [some of] the ToB stuff(!), so... yeah, go figure.

 

[Diamond Cross]

As long as it is still the same basic story and keeps all the best bits and characters intact, then it doesn't matter too much that Bob's bald, Alice doesn't die, the football game ended with a different score, and they cut the watermelon scene, right? It's a bit of a shame they screwed that bit up, but really, it's not as if the entire work is ruined forever, right? WRONG! ...or so you would be told by many, many a fan. For some people, the very act of adaptation is decay. A film version of something should be a direct word-for-word transcription, with utmost care that the sets, costumes and people be reproduced in every detail. If a character who wears a homburg in the original now wears a fedora, that will be enough to ruin the character, and therefore ruin the film. It will be all you will hear about from these fans on message boards, with them going on at length to explain how his homburg visually defined his entire personality in a way that a fedora never could. And don't you dare suggest that in changing it they made it better. This trope is not only used in situations of Adaptation Decay. It is also applicable to ongoing series where a significant change is made between seasons. See also Translation Style Choices, New Sound Album, Replacement Scrappy, Ruined FOREVER and Network Decay. Contrast Woolseyism. May overlap with They Don't Make Them Like They Used To. On the opposite end of the spectrum is It Is The Same Now It Sucks. When you have both It Is The Same Now It Sucks and They Changed It Now It Sucks, you wind up with an Unpleasable Fanbase. Note: This article lists examples which take place within fandoms of a work or series of works; not one's personal opinion as to whether a change is for the worse.

Among more legitimate complaints, this comes up a lot when ''Dungeons and Dragons editions are discussed. The base is not so much broken as it is shattered into a billion tiny splinters. Every single edition changed it and it sucked every single time.

• Not just Editions. Errata. Adjustments and changes to how powers work can set the forums exploding with "Class X is worthless now!"
• Complaining about nerfs to characters, in which people might have invested a lot of time is perfectly legitimate. Particularly as, depending on the edition, many/all builds rely on a very limited array of tricks and nerfing even one of them can push a character below the ability that the game assumes to be appropriate for his level.
• There is also the fact that you can't convert from earlier editions. Up until now you could easily enough do so. You can convert even a 1st edition game to 3.5 without much trouble but you can't convert 3.5 to 4.0. The issue is that 4.0 isn't just a change, but that it's a set of so many radical changes to established mechanics that if the books didn't have Dungeons and Dragons written on them it could easily be mistaken for a completely different game.
  • Your Mileage May Vary, strongly. In a word, THAC 0. There are a great many fundamental concepts from 1st Edition that you'd have to change to port up, as well as power differences. (By 3.5, spellcasting had greatly thrust open the scope of the game, and any 1st Edition character ported up is sure to be dwarfed in comparison.) Furthermore, the class abilities in 3.5 aren't that hard to convert over to powers. I would say this is hardly an absolute fact.
  • Thaco is almost exactly same system as attack bonus - better attack bonus/thaco makes it easier to hit someone, better armor makes it harder, as it improves you get more attacks, but they're less accurate. Many of the numbers are even the same - a chainmail shirt gives you a bonus of five whether you're starting at 0 and going up or starting at 10 and going down. They just got rid of the counterintuitive method of centering it around the number zero and making the two factors controlling it go different directions. Meanwhile, say "healing surges", "once per encounter ability", or "martial powers" to anyone between 1st edition and 3.5.

They Changed It Now It Sucks - Television Tropes & Idioms

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Anyone who thinks you can seamlessly convert older editions to 3e never encountered a multiclass character.

Which is funny because that's all I encountered in 2e.

 

[scruffygrognard]

3) Make a new edition. Boom, schism.

And that's the second problem: we hate change. Fans abhor change. It runs anathema to our very souls. Fantasy has for a long time been a very bizarrely conservative genre, and as tabletop gamers, we're the niche amongst that. Just look at the fights that grew out of 3.x on what should or shouldn't be banned. I've seen people ban the warlock because they thought it was too powerful, and by too powerful I mean it was too different for them.

So, to answer all three questions in one go: Yeah, there was going to be a split, a messy one, and I don't think it could be mended, and I don't think it could be avoided.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. We, as nerdy gamers, are reluctant to change but will move on to a newer version of a game if the new version is seen as an improvement.
While 4th edition worked to correct some of the issues people (like me) had with 3rd edition, it changed the game in ways that made it unpalatable to many fans (including me).
Change for change's sake, or re-imagining a game based on designers' whims/ego with little regard of/for fan preferences, is going to rub fans the wrong way... which is where open betas, extensive playtesting and market research pay off.
4th edition, to my mind, failed due to a lack of communication, poor marketing, WotC's disdain for 3rd party support and due to the egos of its designers.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Anyone who thinks you can seamlessly convert older editions to 3e never encountered a multiclass character.

Which is funny because that's all I encountered in 2e.

No doubt. 3rd edition did many things right, and definitely kept AD&D's flavor, but failed in several regards: multiclassed characters (especially casters) worked in a vastly different way than previous editions, high level play was a nightmare to DM (prep time and extremely long combats), stacking effects and AoO's bogged down combat, the "rule for every circumstance" syndrome cut down on player/DM creativity, etc.

That's why I'm hoping against hope that 5th edition is a leaner, meaner beast of a game.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Hell hath no fury as a geek scorned.

Any change causes a minor split; there will always be at least a minority who reject a schange and splinter.

As to the 3E/4E schism, I'm curious as to opinions: did the change in flavor or mechanics cause the major split?

3E significantly shifted the mechanics of the game, but the underlying flavor (race roles, and world structure, for example) remained fairly consistent with prior editions. 4E changed both mechanics and underlying flavor assumptions significantly. I wonder which change turned off more of the fan base.

For me personally the flavor changes were more jarring than the mechanics changes, but neither was enough to have me reject the edition -- though I would say I still prefer 3.X due to its greater consistency with the D&D I grew up with.