Aberzanzorax
Hero
Well, here's the thing about 5e and D&D in general...
It's all well and good to make the very, very finest RPG in the world. It could be rules light, but with complex options. It could be fast to play and detailed enough for combats to be tactical. It could be perfectly balanced and allow for massive diveristy.
It could also be made by White Wolf and have nothing to do with D&D.
Or it could be made by Goodman Games and have nothing to do with D&D.
Or it could be made by WotC and have nothing to do with D&D.
It might even have the name D&D on it.
My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.
Innovation is good. However, innovation is limited if you want to call it the same game. Addition of too many new elements and subtraction of too many other (especially "sacred cows", i.e. pivotal genre and structure defining elements) and it might be a great game, but it will no longer be the SAME game.
Throw out the fluff of the forgotten realms, add dragonborn and tieflings as core races, change the outer planes, radically change how healing works (and magic in general), etc. etc... Each of these changes, on its own is fine.
However, if someone from 1977 (or even from 1999 or 2005) saw me playing an all tiefling and dragonborn party of warlords and warlocks, I doubt they'd recognize it as D&D.
Final point: It's fine to make a great new game, but if you want the people playing an existing game to be your core market, it needs to maintain enough similarity to that existing game for them to want to play it.
It's all well and good to make the very, very finest RPG in the world. It could be rules light, but with complex options. It could be fast to play and detailed enough for combats to be tactical. It could be perfectly balanced and allow for massive diveristy.
It could also be made by White Wolf and have nothing to do with D&D.
Or it could be made by Goodman Games and have nothing to do with D&D.
Or it could be made by WotC and have nothing to do with D&D.
It might even have the name D&D on it.
My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.
Innovation is good. However, innovation is limited if you want to call it the same game. Addition of too many new elements and subtraction of too many other (especially "sacred cows", i.e. pivotal genre and structure defining elements) and it might be a great game, but it will no longer be the SAME game.
Throw out the fluff of the forgotten realms, add dragonborn and tieflings as core races, change the outer planes, radically change how healing works (and magic in general), etc. etc... Each of these changes, on its own is fine.
However, if someone from 1977 (or even from 1999 or 2005) saw me playing an all tiefling and dragonborn party of warlords and warlocks, I doubt they'd recognize it as D&D.
Final point: It's fine to make a great new game, but if you want the people playing an existing game to be your core market, it needs to maintain enough similarity to that existing game for them to want to play it.
