D&D 5E 5E: A Danger of Fragmentation?

[LurkAway]

Longish preamble: I recently read about the fascinating history of Esperanto, the most successful artificial language in history. (This account comes from Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader, which is way more interesting than the Wikipedia entry.)

Apparently, Esperanto was reviewed by the Delegation for the Adoption of an International Language in 1904, but critics wanted to fix some "problems" with the language. Yet Zamenhof (the inventor of Esperanto) was adamant that Esperanto would only survive if the central core grammar and vocabulary remained unchanged.

From pg 298 of Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader:

With artificial languages, however [compared to natural languages], everything is up for grabs. And once the tinkering starts, it's hard to stop. Soon there are multiple "reformed" versions of the language, each with its own unique grammar, vocabulary, and spelling conventions. Once that happens, how is a prospective language learner supposed to know which version to study?

Volapük (another constructed language) was splintered and displaced in the 1880's in that way. In contrast, the Fundamento de Esperanto prevented the "movement" (Esperanto was a culture as much as a language) from splintering into numerous factions each thinking their version was the best.

As for the Delegation for the Adoption of an International Language, they made a new version of Esperanto, called it Ido (literally "offspring" in Esperanto) and announced it the world's international auxillary language in 1907. It was an immediate failure. From pg 374:

And just as Zamenhof had feared would happen to Esperanto, once Ido opened its own door to tinkering, it was doomed. One reformer after another split off from Ido to create their own "improved" version of the language, each of them sapping Ido's strength without any of them catching on.

D&D is not a language, and so the analogy surely fails on several levels, but it does face similar obstacles in trying to be a unifying subculture or movement with a common artificially constructed vocabulary/grammar. So can any takeaway lessons be applied to 5E, which wants to have a robust default and be modular and unifying all at the same time?

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

Edit: My two cents for a solution is here

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

The only "danger" they have to prepare themselves for is the fact that even creating a more universal game experience will not quell complaints entirely. Partly because some players just don't like the game company itself and will rail against anything WotC does... partly because some players as so attached to their own particular version of the game that any attempt to "include them" in this new one will be seen as either sucking up or "too little too late"... and partly because some players just like pissing in other people's cereal.

So as long as WotC just tries to make the best darned D&D game they can while earning a few ducats to keep the lights on, at the end of the day that's all that matters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D is not a language, and so the analogy surely fails on several levels, but it does face similar obstacles in trying to be a unifying subculture or movement with a common artificially constructed vocabulary/grammar. So can any takeaway lessons be applied to 5E, which wants to have a robust default and be modular and unifying all at the same time?

Well, one big difference is that language is something embedded in culture and society, while D&D is just a game. You learn a language growing up. Unless your parents speak mainly Esperanto (and since it's an invented language, no one's parents speak Esperanto), you're not going to "pick it up," so it's never going to "catch on."

A related difference is that no particular iteration of a modular D&D ruleset needs to "catch on" for more than just one group. We want every group using the best version of the game for themselves. It's not a problem if every group uses their own version.

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

Personally, I think the things they need to watch out for the most are (a) that it gives a strong game out-of-the-box, and (b) that it avoids feeling "generic."

There's a few reasons I don't play GURPS, despite the fact that it's an exceptionally flexible system. Among these reasons is the reason that it is a lot of effort to compose a game, to select the right options, and to throw things together in the right way, and to create something quickly that is complete enough.

A game that says "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!" isn't worth the price of admission, since I've been doing whatever I wanted play-wise since the age of 2. If 5e is going to be open and modular, that is the real risk it runs.

 

[TerraDave]

Fragmentation is the present reality.

5E is supposed to be the solution....actually...much like Esperanto...hmm.

 

[P1NBACK]

The only "danger" they have to prepare themselves for is the fact that even creating a more universal game experience will not quell complaints entirely. Partly because some players just don't like the game company itself and will rail against anything WotC does... partly because some players as so attached to their own particular version of the game that any attempt to "include them" in this new one will be seen as either sucking up or "too little too late"... and partly because some players just like pissing in other people's cereal.

The good news is, no matter what they make, there are fanboys morons who will buy their product even if it is complete crap and herald it as "the best system of D&D ever!" just because it says 'D&D' on the cover.

Let's avoid the 'fanboy' term at these sensitive times please. Thanks. Plane sailing, enworld admin

 

[DEFCON 1]

The good news is, no matter what they make, there are fanboys who will buy their product even if it is complete crap and herald it as "the best system of D&D ever!" just because it says 'D&D' on the cover.

Absolutely. I'm sure you'll find someone out there who will say that Lulu is the best thing Metallica's ever done.

 

[WizarDru]

Personally, I think the things they need to watch out for the most are (a) that it gives a strong game out-of-the-box, and (b) that it avoids feeling "generic."

Arguably, this has been a problem for D&D since Basic was released. There has not been an adequate entry-point into the hobby like this for a long time. WotC has tried several times, but I still don't think they've managed it, yet. Too many recent efforts have either come across as incomplete attempts or have the feel of a euro board game but encumbered with too many rules from the 'real' game.

The European D&D board game from 3E and the 4E Ashardalon/Ravenloft games are great...but they're no more D&D than Descent is. They don't perform the same basic function that the Moldvay red box does...and something needs to. I don't have a good idea how to do that...but then I'm not a game designer.

D&D is always going to be somewhat fragmented. Since the release of AD&D, when there was more than one ruleset in play, there have been people with a preference. The trick is to get the lion's share of gamers to favor one edition consistently. And that will be quite a trick to perform.

 

[hanez]

From the OP "Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?"


I disagree with that assertion, for one reason. I dont see how 4e was an attempt to create unity. I doubt it was a heavy consideration in the design goal. I see every other editions with the ability to add, refine, edit previous work. But 4e was something completely new, more elegant, streamlined, more graceful... but NEW. And then to make it seem linked to the past they added flavor and trademarked names so that it would appear the same.

I agree that it will be a hard goal to achieve but I dont see how the previous edition is a relevant comparison.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

4E was already a danger of fragmentation. 5E is the mine and WotC is standing on the mine. Be careful where you place your next step.

 

[nnms]

I actually don't think they can really make things any worse than they are now. It's already super fragmented. Even if the D&D Next process can get that few percent of the online population to stop edition warring and finally realize that the game changes and some people like some things and some people like others and it's all okay, that'll be a big improvement.