Fracturing...or Diversification?

[Glade Riven]

Years of being online and involved with various unsundrey nerd forums has taught me to beware the prophesies of doom and gloom on upcoming, unreleased products in which we have no information on. Still, though, the disjunction that happened with 3.5/D20's unity shattered into shards of 4e, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and a few others has been (in my opinion) good for the RPG industry as a whole. Good for Wizards of the Coast? That point may be debatable, but a successfully diverse industry is a good thing.

Calling 5e a failed product when it 1. hasn't been made, B. we know absolutly nothing about it and III. we don't even know absolutly if it is even in the pipe is absurd. One element that came out of "The Great Fracturing" is that many people are willing to try out new things - even if they don't stick with it. Silly forum edition wars aside (don't make me break out the demotivators again - I will, too), I am confident that many gamers of many different systems will at least check out the next edition of 5e - if only to put forth long tirades on how it sucks and get into arguments with people who actually like it.

Opining for the "good old days" of the d20's absolute dominance is silly (especially with so much d20 stuff to go through, even before Pathfinder). I'm more interested in getting my dice on and hitting the tables.

 

[Mercurius]

In Buddhism, one of the three "marks of existence" is anicca, or impermanence, which basically entails that everything is always changing and that the more we try to hold on to things, the more we perpetuate our own suffering.

Which is one way of saying that I pretty much agree with you. The "good old days" are gone, at least in the way that they were, whether we're talking the AD&D or BECMI of our youth, or the 3E/OGL of a decade ago. That said, a new Golden Age can come again, if we're willing to embrace change and, more so, actively participate in it. It we won't come about by trying to re-create the past or some prior version of D&D but by combining the best of the old, learning from and letting go of mistakes, and embracing innovations.

 

[Dice4Hire]

1, B, and III is excellent diversification, or variety.

 

[El Mahdi]

Diversification when support remains inclusive.

Fracturing when support is not inclusive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Diversification is great.

More systems are great. More styles are great.

The problem is that tabletop roleplaying has to a great extent been defined by the D&D brand name. The market as a whole has diversified. The D&D fanbase has fractured. Many people feel (and with good reason) that what is in a published *D&D* book represents their hobby, and what is in that book matters to them above and beyond having quality material for their own game.

It concerns me that a beginning rpger might pick up certain books at a store and learn that the heart of those books is all there is to the game. It concerns me that a non-gamer might watch people playing a certain game or they might read a certain book and then judge my hobby based on it. The state of the hobby-the quality of products available and the games they engender-is of concern to me, even though I have no interest in judging any particular individual player's gaming choices.

Perhaps the market as a whole will evolve (diversify?) to the point where D&D is no longer the definitional tabletop rpg (Pathfinder has made the largest strides in this regard). Until that happens, there will continue to be a fight for its soul.

 

[Glade Riven]

Non-gamers are ignorent of version wars stuff, but can keep track of brand identifiers easily enough. If you can get them to play, they will play what their friends are playing. There is room on the shelf for everyone, and many who started with 3e or Pathfinder have been more than willing to take a look at other systems, if only to see what all the fuss is about.

Fan forums have a tendency to blow the negative out of proportion, because negativity feeds negativity. Many have prematurely mourned the death of a brand name that is still going strong. Most of what I've seen is misspent drama over indefinables.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Who is calling 5E a failed product? There has to be a product before it can be a failed one.

How is failure being measured anyhow? Sales figures?

The idea is mind boggling.

 

[Rechan]

Diversification is all well and good if you're in a gamer-rich environment. But if you're in a place where it's tough to get 5 gamers together, it becomes even harder when 2 want edition X, 2 won't touch Edition Y, and 1 rolls his eyes to everything but Edition Z. That is before you even discuss playstyle.

 

[kitsune9]

I'll check out 5e, but I doubt that I'll be playing it.

 

[delericho]

Diversification is all well and good if you're in a gamer-rich environment. But if you're in a place where it's tough to get 5 gamers together, it becomes even harder when 2 want edition X, 2 won't touch Edition Y, and 1 insists on Edition Z. That is before you even discuss playstyle.

Yep, this. If the market for RPGs was thriving, and we all lived in gamer-rich environments, then diversity would be a great thing - everyone could just play what they liked.

But if the market is just barely big enough to support D&D or Pathfinder, then having both may mean that both fail.