Jack Daniel
Legend
I have heard this idea expressed more commonly on rpg.net and the WotC boards than here, but I like this community better, so I'd rather address it here before it takes root. The fallacious meme floating around out in the ether is this:
WotC would be foolish to simplify its next edition of D&D, because that would only be pandering to the grognards (who aren't coming back anyway) at the expense of current 4e fans.
It doesn't take much, though, to recognize all the problems with this meme. Here's the quick list.
1. As many grognards are only too happy to point out, "rules lite" and "old school" are not the same thing. They just happen to overlap in many instances, because D&D has gotten progressively more complex over time. But creating a simpler edition of D&D down the road doesn't really have that much to do with pleasing the grognards, beyond this superficial (and kind of coincidental) overlap.
2. The notion that "grognards are never coming back to WotC" is false. It's a blanket statement based on minimal evidence. Essentials didn't bring back the grognards? Of course not; the box-art can be as old-school as you want, but the substance is what matters (both to grognards and potential new players). If a hypothetical 5th edition of D&D backpedals on the common complaints (too much time spent in combat; "system mastery") and the end result is a *good game*, people will play the good game. And, *far* more importantly than bringing back grognards, D&D needs a simple, complete, casual, pick-up-and-play iteration to actually draw in new players.
3. A simpler edition of the game would not alienate current fans, because complexity can always be added (via supplements, i.e. *books* that WotC can *sell* to people who will *buy* them!). It's very difficult to trim complexity; it's very easy to tack more on. The simple fact is, right now, D&D (even Essentials) is not a simple game. There's lots to deal with, in terms of character creation/advancement and in tracking information during a combat.
If we imagine, based on nothing but anecdote, that 50% of gamers like light, simple games and 50% like the crunchy combat character-build type games... well, right now, D&D caters to half of its potential market. An edition with a simple core and "opt-in complexity" (to use Mearls' words; or, as lots on these boards are calling it, a "complexity dial") could potentially capture 100% of the market. The foolish thing would be to stick with a narrow game that only aims at the hardcore crowd.
I'm a grognard. I play old-school games. But this is not why WotC isn't getting my money right now. I don't play old-school D&D for the sake of being old-school. I play because those versions of the game are simpler, and combat is an afterthought rather than a time-sink. If WotC published a 5th edition of the game that catered to this style of play, I'd buy it, plain and simple. I don't care weather chainmail is AC 5 or AC 15; I just want to play a simple game of D&D!
But I'm not holding my breath. In the meanwhile, I've got my Rules Cyclopedia. (It's a great system for any campaign meant to feel like a "Final Fantasy" game from the NES.) Just recently, I also got my hands on Savage Worlds, and all I can say is... WHOA. MIND BLOWN. I've heard all of the good things about it, but honestly? I had no idea. (This would be the perfect system for any campaign meant to feel like LotR, or like a "Final Fantasy" game from the PSX.) So I'm covered for a while.
But if the hypothetical 5th edition that everybody's furiously speculating about actually does appear, and it's a decently casual system, it will get my attention. If, on the other hand, the character sheet looks like a tax form... well, good night, sweet game, you won't be replacing my Rules Cyclopedia anytime soon. It's as simple as that.
WotC would be foolish to simplify its next edition of D&D, because that would only be pandering to the grognards (who aren't coming back anyway) at the expense of current 4e fans.
It doesn't take much, though, to recognize all the problems with this meme. Here's the quick list.
1. As many grognards are only too happy to point out, "rules lite" and "old school" are not the same thing. They just happen to overlap in many instances, because D&D has gotten progressively more complex over time. But creating a simpler edition of D&D down the road doesn't really have that much to do with pleasing the grognards, beyond this superficial (and kind of coincidental) overlap.
2. The notion that "grognards are never coming back to WotC" is false. It's a blanket statement based on minimal evidence. Essentials didn't bring back the grognards? Of course not; the box-art can be as old-school as you want, but the substance is what matters (both to grognards and potential new players). If a hypothetical 5th edition of D&D backpedals on the common complaints (too much time spent in combat; "system mastery") and the end result is a *good game*, people will play the good game. And, *far* more importantly than bringing back grognards, D&D needs a simple, complete, casual, pick-up-and-play iteration to actually draw in new players.
3. A simpler edition of the game would not alienate current fans, because complexity can always be added (via supplements, i.e. *books* that WotC can *sell* to people who will *buy* them!). It's very difficult to trim complexity; it's very easy to tack more on. The simple fact is, right now, D&D (even Essentials) is not a simple game. There's lots to deal with, in terms of character creation/advancement and in tracking information during a combat.
If we imagine, based on nothing but anecdote, that 50% of gamers like light, simple games and 50% like the crunchy combat character-build type games... well, right now, D&D caters to half of its potential market. An edition with a simple core and "opt-in complexity" (to use Mearls' words; or, as lots on these boards are calling it, a "complexity dial") could potentially capture 100% of the market. The foolish thing would be to stick with a narrow game that only aims at the hardcore crowd.
I'm a grognard. I play old-school games. But this is not why WotC isn't getting my money right now. I don't play old-school D&D for the sake of being old-school. I play because those versions of the game are simpler, and combat is an afterthought rather than a time-sink. If WotC published a 5th edition of the game that catered to this style of play, I'd buy it, plain and simple. I don't care weather chainmail is AC 5 or AC 15; I just want to play a simple game of D&D!
But I'm not holding my breath. In the meanwhile, I've got my Rules Cyclopedia. (It's a great system for any campaign meant to feel like a "Final Fantasy" game from the NES.) Just recently, I also got my hands on Savage Worlds, and all I can say is... WHOA. MIND BLOWN. I've heard all of the good things about it, but honestly? I had no idea. (This would be the perfect system for any campaign meant to feel like LotR, or like a "Final Fantasy" game from the PSX.) So I'm covered for a while.
But if the hypothetical 5th edition that everybody's furiously speculating about actually does appear, and it's a decently casual system, it will get my attention. If, on the other hand, the character sheet looks like a tax form... well, good night, sweet game, you won't be replacing my Rules Cyclopedia anytime soon. It's as simple as that.
