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

[Dannyalcatraz]

D&D communities are fragmented because some people liked New Coke and others didn't...ok now that that is over, can we get back to it based on D&D itself?

Yes, right after I say this...

The Coke is a lie.

 

[Banshee16]

Now with the fracturing of D&D with 4E in my own opinion is that they called it D&D. 3.5 and 4E are completely different games. Alot of people invested heavily in 3.5 and to have the system stopped and replaced within a decade with a new system seams a bit counter productive on behalf of WoTC. But i believe if they kept supporting 3.5 and called 4E Ad&d i think the rift would be lesend a huge degree.

This is an interesting point. It could have been a way to try and retain customers. But, hindsight is 20/20.

I suspect when the decision to set a release date for 4E was made, the market for 3E products was not strong. Maybe they felt their only choice was to deep six 3E, and come out with something different.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

They wont do that. I dont think they CAN do that. One uses the OGL, the other the GSL. Two very different licenses.

Further, the two systems are radically different- the edition wars, that have died down, still smolder and frankly I dont think they cna bridge the bad blood. Part of which stems directly from them.

Further, what do you mean support? What is there left for them to do in 3.5 to support?

What is there for Paizo to do in 3.5 for support? They're coming up with stuff, and it's selling....so evidently there is stuff left to do.

Banshee

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, like coke, what you think you want is very important, as opposed to what would suit you best. Or indeed what you would like better if you gave it a try.

Teh D&D community has been fragmented for a long time, and has not bee the worse for it, not really. Lotta good gaming going on, and having people on different sides of issues can make for a better community.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Once the SRD and OGL were out the door, forking the game was inevitable, because there would always be someone unhappy with something that happened in the future. The major changes in 4E and the trainwreck that was the GSL made the fork more dramatic, but we always would have had the OSR folks striking out in their own direction (and they did so even before 4E came along, although they've certainly picked up a lot more members of their tribe since then), along with other splinter groups.

The SRD and OGL aren't even necessary for that to happen (although it does help to keep those communities more vibrant). When faced with an upgrade, there's always going to be some portion of your customer base who says, "Nah. I'm good with what I've got."

With that being said, it seems that some upgrades are more effective than others. For example, why was Windows XP so effective at rapidly converting existing Windows users while Windows Vista crashed and burned? As far as D&D is concerned, it seems clear that the two most successful edition shifts were the shift from OD&D -> AD&D and the shifted from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.

Both of those transitions were effective (IMO) because (a) they addressed perceived shortcomings in the existing rules; (b) they worked to form a bridge of continuity between the old edition and the new edition; and (c) they were effective at reaching out to new customers.

Now, the actual methods by which they accomplished those three goals were radically different. AD&D (a) aimed to codify a more "official" version of the game while also expanding the detail of the rules during an era when "more realism" and "more detail" were highly prized and was released hand-in-hand with a Basic Set that (b) remained highly compatible with the 1974 ruleset and (c) offered a mainstream, accessible product for attracting new customers.

D&D3, on the other hand, (a) radically revised a game that was perceived as clunky and out-of-date, which allowed them to (c) reach out to a large body of disillusioned ex-customers. They simultaneously (b) released conversion guides and used a massive, public beta testing period to get large numbers of existing players onboard with the changes before the game was even released.

The conversion to D&D4 failed for several reasons.

First, there was an attempt made to address perceived shortcomings in the rules as they existed. But there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that WotC severely overestimated the amount of discontent. It appears that a significant number of players simply did not experience the problems which CharOp specialists and armchair philosophers screaming on internet messageboards considered unforgivable failures. And the solutions used to solve the problems were radical to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (albeit with an effort to then replace the baby).

Second, no effort was made to form a bridge between the old edition and the new edition. (Crazy French guy screaming "the game remains the same" like some sort of cultic mantra notwithstanding.) In fact, WotC went out of their way to insist that there was no bridge between the editions.

Third, WotC was attempting to reach out to new customers. But I maintain that they made the fundamental mistake of trying to pull customers away from video games by competing with video games where video games are strongest. That's just not going to cut it. If RPGs are going to be successful in the future, it will be because they emphasize their unique strengths. Tactical combat and prepackaged My Perfect Encounters(TM) isn't going to cut it.

Honestly, I think the transition from 3E to 4E was hampered by corporate agendas that were fundamentally incompatible. It's clear that by the time 4E went into development, WotC's business culture had firmly turned against the OGL. I suspect that WotC very specifically wanted to radically overhaul the system specifically to make a clean and complete break with what they perceived as a glutted OGL market.

Personally, I think WotC made a mistake. I think it quite likely that we could have seen a 4E that was:

(a) More radical in its changes than Pathfinder; but
(b) Not nearly as radical as 4E

That would have been a much larger success and left behind a far smaller percentage of players who are now ex-customers of WotC.

There are minor problems in 3.5 in 1st to 10th level play. And there are significant problems in play from 11th to 20th. It's possible to fix these problems with nuking the core gameplay that has been successful since 1974.

WotC chose the nuke option.

You vastly oversimplify the issue. The classic example is... New Coke.

They did the research, made the product that the research suggested the public would like. They did the testing, and proved that the public liked the new product over both the old product and the leading competitors. By what you say, New Coke should have been a slam dunk.

But, the product was rejected, not upon it's merits, but essentially upon the fact that it was a change, and the public didn't want change.

This is actually a good analogy, but not for the reason you think.

The fundamental problem with New Coke is that the taste tests were fundamentally flawed. The taste tests were "sip tests". And in sip tests the smoother, sweeter taste of New Coke won. But nobody buys their soda by the teaspoon; they buy it by the can.

This gets us back to 4E being a radical overhaul of D&D's gameplay in order to respond to complaints driven by CharOp specialists and armchair theorists. For a lot of people on the ground, the game didn't have those problems and 4E was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Aus_Snow]

This gets us back to 4E being a radical overhaul of D&D's gameplay in order to respond to complaints driven by CharOp specialists and armchair theorists. For a lot of people on the ground, the game didn't have those problems and 4E was a solution in search of a problem.

Bang on the mark.

4e looks - and from many accounts, plays - like a kneejerk reaction to "fan microverse" sheep-like forum mantras. Interestingly, mantras based on the rules "on paper", as it were. Not in actual play. Hilarious, considering the historically SOP of "STFU! It plays better than it reads, n00b!!!" - wrt 4e, some time ago, that is.

It's also, possibly, a reaction to the accusation that "WotC doesn't listen!" - just... in a pandering, not to mention clumsy, kind of way.

Their current situation, so it would seem, backs this up well enough. Quite apart from anything else.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

4e looks - and from many accounts, plays - like a kneejerk reaction to "fan microverse" sheep-like forum mantras. Interestingly, mantras based on the rules "on paper", as it were. Not in actual play. Hilarious, considering the historically SOP of "STFU! It plays better than it reads, n00b!!!" - wrt 4e, some time ago, that is.

I don't buy it.

Plenty of people hated 3e for those exact problems. Most my dislikes of 3e stem from those problems that are being claimed as non-existant. Just because you didn't have them didn't mean that did not exist at all. In fact, the vast majority of those problems became more obvious the more you played. This is precisely what incenses the edition war - "I didn't experience that, so you are objectively wrong!"

I've said it a million times in just the past week, so let's say it once more:

When I criticize 3e, it is after literally years of playing it and finding the various cracks and flaws and pits that I dislike. I've played most classes that were printed. I have hundreds and hundreds of hours of 3.0 and 3.5 under the belt. I know the game.

When so many people criticize 4e, it comes from having not played it.

You can rofl it up about using "n00b" with 0's as much as you want, but the fact is, if you haven't played the game, I have more experience regarding my criticisms. I'm coming from a position of first hand knowledge. When you criticize a game you've never played and only briefly skimmed one of the books, you are coming from a position of ignorance. Not "you're ignorant" as an insult, but "you do not have knowledge or understanding about the topic."

There seems to be this strange belief that you were "doing it wrong" if you saw the flaws that are blindingly obvious in the engine of the game. I believe the opposite - if you never saw a game crash because a spellcaster had a spell for every occasion or could single handedly end a fight; if you never saw players get bored and disinterested because the game punished you harshly for playing certain character types; if you never saw fighters find themselves completely useless; if you never saw someone get frustrated because only spellcasters were allowed narrative power and they wanted to make a mythical swordsman hero, then either you and your players never dove deeply into the game, or your players did see it and went out of their way to self-regulate.

The anger at CharOps is hilarious, because they're entire purvey is in the rules. Once you throw away the "thought experiments," there's still a ton of stuff there that is rooted entirely in the game itself. By getting mad at them, you're getting mad at the same game you're praising in the same breath.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Bang on the mark.

4e looks - and from many accounts, plays - like a kneejerk reaction to "fan microverse" sheep-like forum mantras. Interestingly, mantras based on the rules "on paper", as it were. Not in actual play. Hilarious, considering the historically SOP of "STFU! It plays better than it reads, n00b!!!" - wrt 4e, some time ago, that is.

It's also, possibly, a reaction to the accusation that "WotC doesn't listen!" - just... in a pandering, not to mention clumsy, kind of way.

Their current situation, so it would seem, backs this up well enough. Quite apart from anything else.

It is not just a reaction to charop specialists. I am not saying you have problems with it, but enough people did and are now playing 4e because of that. Let us not go back to the early edition war rhetoric.

My own belief is that 4e came at least 2 years too early and if they delayed for about 4 years it would have been welcomed with open arms.

I am also of the opinion that they should have started DDI and the VTT while still running 3.5 and when the tools were ready they could have succesfully introduced 4e with expanded tools support.

You would still have a split but not as dramatic. It would also have lessened the split if 4e was an OGL game, since that would have removed the risks that casued third parties (particularly Paizo) not to support 4e.

 

[Aus_Snow]

When so many people criticize 4e, it comes from having not played it.

Actually, a lot of similar, and even nearly identical criticisms are levelled at 4e, by (generally, at the time of posting, previous) players/DMs of said game. Increasingly so, as time's gone on.

Coincidence? Maybe. But I doubt it.

You can rofl it up about using "n00b" with 0's as much as you want, but the fact is, if you haven't played the game, I have more experience regarding my criticisms. I'm coming from a position of first hand knowledge. When you criticize a game you've never played and only briefly skimmed one of the books, you are coming from a position of ignorance. Not "you're ignorant" as an insult, but "you do not have knowledge or understanding about the topic."

Who said anything about "briefly skim"? Other than yourself, I mean.

The anger at CharOps is hilarious, because they're entire purvey is in the rules. Once you throw away the "thought experiments," there's still a ton of stuff there that is rooted entirely in the game itself. By getting mad at them, you're getting mad at the same game you're praising in the same breath.

Er. And where did this "anger at CharOps" and "getting mad" come from, while you're at it?

No, really. I would like to know. Because it must be from someone else, and therefore, I'd like to know who, and also why I'm automatically being lumped in with them. Thanks.


Also, note that nowhere did I say that 3e is without problems. In fact, I drew quite a bit of fire, let's just say, at one stage, for posting my criticisms of that very system, *while it was still the number one TTRPG*.

There are quite a few problems inherent, for which my many and varied house rules provided some relief... I would like to think.


It's entirely possible for a game to contain "kneejerk reactions" to "forum mantras", as well as some "clumsy" "pandering", while simultaneously addressing real issues, possibly even in clever, elegant ways. Arguably, etc.

Doesn't have to be all bad, all good - or all anything, really.

And yes, I believe that's the case: 4e is a mixed bag, as is 3e. And 2e, 1e, BD&D, and OD&D. Oh, and Pathfinder.

I should have phrased things differently. For that? Well, my bad.

 

[Wicht]

There seems to be this strange belief that you were "doing it wrong" if you saw the flaws that are blindingly obvious in the engine of the game. I believe the opposite - if you never saw a game crash because a spellcaster had a spell for every occasion or could single handedly end a fight; if you never saw players get bored and disinterested because the game punished you harshly for playing certain character types; if you never saw fighters find themselves completely useless; if you never saw someone get frustrated because only spellcasters were allowed narrative power and they wanted to make a mythical swordsman hero, then either you and your players never dove deeply into the game, or your players did see it and went out of their way to self-regulate.

So if our games aren't broken its because we are doing it wrong, meaning we didn't hit them with the hammer hard enough?

I don't buy it.

Gaming style has a lot to do with the outcome of games. Our fighters are seldom completely useless (for one thing their sword keeps working when the spells are gone). Our wizards have never broken the game (they may end an encounter or two quickly but they use up spells and then what can they do?). And we've had fun playing up into the high levels. All of which makes me think we are playing the game right.

In point of fact, I find it strange to assert the people not having fun are doing it right and the people who are having it fun just don't understand how to play the game correctly.