I do want 5E (and 6E, and 7E...)

[BryonD]

People often confuse "evolution" with "improvement".

Things evolve all the time. And the vast majority of those evolutions turn out to be failures.

 

[Pour]

People often confuse "evolution" with "improvement".

Things evolve all the time. And the vast majority of those evolutions turn out to be failures.

Hehe, I remember this conversation!

Can't really argue with the statement, though. Things do evolve, constantly, and a vast majority of mutations turn out to be dead ends. And some don't. That's how life persists in a changing world, or are we talking about gaming?

If there are gamers who appreciate and prefer some evolution of Gary and Dave's first silly notion about dragons and dungeons, and if it proves the happy entry point for new gamers or its features help accommodate specific lifestyles or certain design sensibilities, then it is not a failure. It serves a purpose, has a place, is used as intended, is cherished by some, and continues to evolve.

 

[BryonD]

If there are gamers who appreciate and prefer some evolution of Gary and Dave's first silly notion about dragons and dungeons...

Ahh, but the post I was following stated that 3E "changed pretty much every single mechanic from 2e". So, it would appear, the connection to Gary and Dave's first silly notion is long lost.

And, really, when you get back to that you get back to defining terms down to the point that they don't mean anything. All through my 20s I played GURPS and had no interest in 2E because I considered it a pretty weak game. Was I playing an evolution of Dave and Gary's notion? I think so.

Also, the idea of "success" is much more complex than you suggest. If two new players love a new version, but five other don't and the overall fanbase contracts or even just doesn't grow fast enough, then that is still fair to call a failure, individual anecdotes not withstanding.

 

[Pour]

Ahh, but the post I was following stated that 3E "changed pretty much every single mechanic from 2e". So, it would appear, the connection to Gary and Dave's first silly notion is long lost.

And, really, when you get back to that you get back to defining terms down to the point that they don't mean anything. All through my 20s I played GURPS and had no interest in 2E because I considered it a pretty weak game. Was I playing an evolution of Dave and Gary's notion? I think so.

Also, the idea of "success" is much more complex than you suggest. If two new players love a new version, but five other don't and the overall fanbase contracts or even just doesn't grow fast enough, then that is still fair to call a failure, individual anecdotes not withstanding.

Yeah, there certainly were a lot of changes between the two editions. Mechanics did shift. The goals remained the same, along with much of the IP, and that's where I believe the silliness is concentrated- and by silliness I mean I-still-play-as-an-adult, looking-to-contribute-in-a-freelance-capacity, read-draw-write-about-it, follow-discussions-about-its-theory-and-mechanics-too-many-hours-a-week, legacy-of-Gary-and-Dave-awesomeness.

I mean do we still have a cooperative party of player characters working to overcome challenges? Check. Numerical representations for character ability? Check. Potential for roleplaying? Check. Wasn't there a Legends and Lore and subsequent threads all about these DNDisms? If the game were just about specific crunch and numbers, and a game without THAC0 isn't D&D, then yes the dream is dead. It's just not the case, though. I, like you, don't want to nitpick the details till they're meaningless, I want to look at the larger picture that was, is and will be the game and say, "Yes, this is D&D, and this is D&D, and this and this, and even though the numbers are different, the IP might have changed a little, this one favors simulationists and this one gamists, this one is very detailed and that one is easier on DMs, they're all part of a greater legacy and all share common threads which make them twice, thrice or fours times removed from the silly notion." I mean the fact you include GURPS (and frankly lets be generous and say RPGs) as part of that legacy speaks to it transcending mechanics and really being about goals.

Part II
Success is very simple, I think, if you pick a certain context and define success by their accepted parameters. I don't know if I believe in any sort of 'universal' success.

I get the feeling you're looking at success from a marketing and profit growth standpoint as it pertains to a singular brand, D&D, in your example. In that instance, you got me. I have no idea. That, as everyone loves to point out, requires sales figures. We all have our hunches and that's honestly fine. All I can say to that is I enjoy the game, others enjoy the game, I know of new players who have become gamers through my edition of choice, I'm excited for the future of my edition, I'm actively working on contributing to it, and all of those to me are successes. I imagine the OSR crowd feels the same with their edition, and PF with theirs, and GURPs and SW and Savage Worlds theirs.

I would like to close out by saying I honestly do enjoy our disagreements hehe.

 

[BryonD]

I mean the fact you include GURPS (and frankly lets be generous and say RPGs) as part of that legacy speaks to it transcending mechanics and really being about goals.

I agree completely. And agreeing to terms here is critical.

I've been in multiple "is 4E D&D?" debates, and consistently I find that it is a stupid question.

If GURPS *IS* D&D to you, then you SHOULD be generous and, at least, include all fairly standard fantasy RPGs. And that is a good place to have that a solid conversation. But in that place the question "is 4E D&D?" is stupid because the definition of D&D is so wildly open that of course it is and saying so doesn't offer any useful information.

Or, you could be in the D&D is THAC0 camp. And that is a great place to have a solid conversation. But in that place the question "is 4E D&D?" is stupid because the definition of D&D is so clear that 4E obviously is not.

In the end, if your definition of "D&D" includes both 2E and 4E, then it is impossible to not reasonable include a range of other games that just don't happen to have the brand name. If your definition of "D&D" excludes all versions without the brand, then it must exclude some with the brand. The remaining option is that your definition of "D&D" is irrational and inconsistent and that is not a good place to have a conversation.

In case I spoke poorly, none of those "you"s above are anything but generic.

Part II
Success is very simple, I think, if you pick a certain context and define success by their accepted parameters. I don't know if I believe in any sort of 'universal' success.

I get the feeling you're looking at success from a marketing and profit growth standpoint as it pertains to a singular brand, D&D, in your example. In that instance, you got me. I have no idea. That, as everyone loves to point out, requires sales figures. We all have our hunches and that's honestly fine. All I can say to that is I enjoy the game, others enjoy the game, I know of new players who have become gamers through my edition of choice, I'm excited for the future of my edition, I'm actively working on contributing to it, and all of those to me are successes. I imagine the OSR crowd feels the same with their edition, and PF with theirs, and GURPs and SW and Savage Worlds theirs.

I would like to close out by saying I honestly do enjoy our disagreements hehe.

I think the changes made to the brand were designed NOT in an altruistic effort to increase the fun of a select group of people on the assumption that those lost would just find something else. I think the changes to the brand were designed to increase the fan base.

I think they failed.

I don't need sales figure for that to be a reasonable conclusion.

I'm not claiming that they lost X%. I don't know. And, really, I'm a huge fan of the DDI model and wouldn't be surprised if their "SALES" are doing quite nicely because of that improvement alone.
But I don't own any Hasbro stock and I don't have any reason to care on that front.
As a fan of the hobby I am interested in how the flagship brand is doing.

And, just personally, I looked at the plan as they described it in the roll out and saw what, to me, were obvious flaws from the beginning. So, certainly, there is a childish "I told you so" pleasure in saying "I told you so".

But I 100% agree that as long as everyone is playing what they want and having a good time then THAT is what is important.

If I wanted to argue about important stuff, I would not be here. I would be over on a political site somewhere. I can get into some great political debates. But I REALLY care about that and it stops being fun in a hurry.
RPGs just happen to be my hobby, so I care enough that I'm interested and paying attention and can become invested in a debate. But, at the same time, I don't care so much that I feel at all emotionally invested in the topic. So I can argue, and it stays fun.

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D is such a young hobby. There are people alive today (quite a few actually) who remember the beginning of PnP rpgs, and a time before which the game as we know it did not exist. I am certainly not one of those people, but I think most gamers can agree that there's still room to make the game better, and to diversify it.

Personally, as much as I'm turned off by 4e (and to a much lesser extent, PF), I still recall the advent of 3e, a monumental success that revitalized a weakened hobby, unified a fragmented community, and brought the game into the 21st century. I also distinctly recall that it had some problems, but I have no doubt that it is possible to accomplish the same success again. Did 4e do it? No. Will 5e do it? Probably not. But it will happen someday.

 

[rogueattorney]

I didn't realize that what you were actually saying all this time was that people who switch editions aren't pure/orthodox/fundamentalist/worthy enough. I guess that explains why you seem to struggle with the idea that many gamers aren't necessarily crusading converts to the edition that they're playing, even if they enjoy it.

Let me try this one more time, and see if you can't try reading my post without inserting words that I didn't write into it...

Why would you (or anyone) prefer WotC to make "D&D 5e" instead of "WotC's new FRPG"?

It's the answer to that question that I don't understand.

 

[Hussar]

Let me try this one more time, and see if you can't try reading my post without inserting words that I didn't write into it...

Why would you (or anyone) prefer WotC to make "D&D 5e" instead of "WotC's new FRPG"?

It's the answer to that question that I don't understand.

Because there are many things about each edition of the game that I like and that are carried forward by each iteration. Classes, base stats, levels, most of the monsters, etc.

Why reinvent the wheel every time?

Your presumption is that each iteration of D&D is so different that it needs to be a different game. I disagree. Each iteration of D&D is pretty clearly an interpretation of D&D based on design concepts of the time. Whether it's the fairly antagonistic relationship between DM and players of 1e, or the heavy story leanings of 2e or the primacy of balance and consistancy of 3e or the wahoo structure of 4e, the games are all simply reinterpretations of D&D itself.

What blows my mind is how anyone could look at the versions of D&D to date and then try to say that there should be only one version. I mean, D&D split into multiple versions THIRTY YEARS AGO. The horse has left the barn. Elvis has left the building.

Or, to put it another way, why should your version of D&D be the one true way?

 

[devoblue]

Let me try this one more time, and see if you can't try reading my post without inserting words that I didn't write into it...

Why would you (or anyone) prefer WotC to make "D&D 5e" instead of "WotC's new FRPG"?

It's the answer to that question that I don't understand.

Turns out D&D is a social game, that usually requires other players. When not playing I can interact with these players and share opinions on forums (google enworld for an example). I have the best chance of finding these other players (locally or online) if I play the most popular one. The most popular one is likely to be the current version of the one with the most name recognition.

Some people play all sorts of rpg's at the same time, others prefer to only be invested in one at a time. For those that only want one, they will usually choose one where they can find others. The brand D&D is a valuable commodity for this reason.

 

[Kobold Boots]

1. I like all editions of D&D for different reasons, most have nothing to do with the rules and most have to do with the storylines and the groups I remember playing with.

2. Games change, designers change. D&D is the work Gary did that he's most known for. Personally I think Mythus was his "best" work, albeit it has serious warts and LJ was a great light system but spent too much time "not being D&D".

3. As to future editions, in my opinion Monte is the new Gary (all respect to Gary) so if Monte's on board for the new edition of D&D, I'm there. After working with Monte for an edition or two, I'm sure Mearls will be just as good (he's certainly proven his mettle with 4e).

So the evolution really is Dave and Gary to Mike and Monte, and I do really believe I've got those names, within their pairings in the right order.