Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

[Khaalis]

I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post.

Ditto

Also, you were incorrect on something. Those that prefer older editions (which includes 3E), has been shown to be a much larger group than those who like the current edition of D&D. Well over half of total gamers is not a niche group.

Ok. Should have been more clear to state pre-3E older editions. I guess in my mind, having played for over 30 years, that I don't consider 11 years to be "old" vs 22 (2E AD&D) - 34 (1E AD&D) years. My bad. I seem to see people clinging to 22+ year old systems to be the small niche than those of the more modern d20-4E players.

 

[Khaalis]

3e Unearthed Arcana
BECMI Thyatis/Alphatia boxed set. (IIRC)

True (though the Thyatis is very corner case and not many people know if or really used it in my experience). However, both systems have been modernized, re-written and improved upon in other systems over the years. All I am saying is that WotC Can include systems like this in a more modern fashion, rather than simply taking them in their old form and re-printing them.

 

[Ratskinner]

Even if they took only BECMI (or one of its close cousins) or 1E or 2E--pick any one, then said essentially, "We are going to make it feel just like that, only cleaner," they'd still fail. It doesn't matter how vast that supposed audience is, either, because the "feel" of any one of those editions is all over the place. The game over in the next town could be almost unrecognizable in "feel". Sure, it had elves and hit points and +1 longswords. But where they were filling in the holes and making it fit what they wanted was in no way constrained to what you were doing.

I think a lot of folks saying, "Just revert back to X, and this aspect will be fine the way it always was," are ... insufficiently reflecting upon what other things went with X that made that work for them. This is why what some of the later version crowds wants causes so much grief. It sounds simple, and you've got 10 different ways to do it, but a different person has a "deal-breaker" objection to each one of those ways. it turns out that there is no single "early D&D feel" to emulate. But as long as we talk about that feel in vague terms, people can assume that there is. Until you go that next town over and check, you can think that what they were doing if fully compatible with what you are doing.

That in no way says that the goal of some unity is hopeless. It does say that you can't really get useful solutions without listening to a wide range of concerns, and then determining where the fault lines are.

Well, actually I think that's why the Basic/Core game will (or should be) so very simple. Those vast differences between groups back in the day were (IMO) because the rules were so sparse. For me, that's a part of the feel of old-school. Now, I like the newer editions for what they're worth, too. Nonetheless, the increased rules provide increasing definition to the game, which can be good and bad all at once.

I figure the way to encompass all the "fault lines" is to back up and let the groups figure it out. In the process, give them standardized modules to that everyone speaks the same language.

 

[Sunseeker]

I spent about $400 on newly published gaming material, last year. The products were all compatible with 1e, which I'm currently running. They were published by outfits like LotFP, FGG, and about half a dozen others. But, not WotC. I'm hardly the only "old schooler" who's buying new gaming material. If I am, then James Raggi, et al, are screwed!

I don't get those last two sentences, at all. Are you suggesting I should buy stuff from WotC, even if it's not product in which I'm interested? I'm all for supporting a company I believe in, but that company is going to have to meet me half-way. Like, by publishing something I actually want.

If you're purchasing modern product then you're clearly not the group I was talking about.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, actually I think that's why the Basic/Core game will (or should be) so very simple. Those vast differences between groups back in the day were (IMO) because the rules were so sparse. For me, that's a part of the feel of old-school. Now, I like the newer editions for what they're worth, too. Nonetheless, the increased rules provide increasing definition to the game, which can be good and bad all at once.

I figure the way to encompass all the "fault lines" is to back up and let the groups figure it out. In the process, give them standardized modules to that everyone speaks the same language.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think BECMI should be the starting place, then streamlined and modernized (e.g. no "hafling" classes), with cautious selection from the best of the rest, supplemented by more specific rules modules.

My point here is different. When some people hear "BECMI feel", they are mentally plugging in "The feel of the way we played BECMI." Those are not the same thing. You can see this on particular insistence of Thing X being present in some exact form, when it is in no way required to emulate the BECMI ruleset, and Thing X is counter-productive for the feel that other people want.

 

[El Mahdi]

If you're purchasing modern product then you're clearly not the group I was talking about.

Then perhaps this might be a good time to define, specifically and exacly, what group you are talking about...

 

[grimslade]

Innovation is good. Or rather streamlining or changing rules systems to express the core of D&D better.
4E suffered from a rushed to market and terrible marketing. Tear-a-bull. Some of the worst roll out of a printed product.
I like 4E. I think it is a platform that really could expand the player base to RPGs. The stink that is on 4E from 4 years of slagging due to the aforementioned publicity has killed 4E as the future of D&D. We need to step back and pick up some other folks to bring the game forward.
The 'feel' of D&D is what keeps people buying D&D. Pathfinder 'feels' more like D&D right now. It is outselling D&D. The innovations that Pathfinder brought to 3.5? I have heard very few people raving about them. They fade behind 'great adventures' or 'fantastic setting'.
WotC needs to get back to the 'feel' and cloak innovation in classic motifs.

 

[hanez]

The 'feel' of D&D is what keeps people buying D&D. Pathfinder 'feels' more like D&D right now. It is outselling D&D. The innovations that Pathfinder brought to 3.5? I have heard very few people raving about them. They fade behind 'great adventures' or 'fantastic setting'.
WotC needs to get back to the 'feel' and cloak innovation in classic motifs.

Very very good point.

The adventure paths, and incredible modules are what make Pathfinder incredible. The system exists to sell adventures. WOTC could take a lesson from this

 

[13garth13]

To reiterate what a number of posters have alluded to/out-and-out stated: Yes, trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of the game will no doubt hurt innovation (if by innovation, the original poster means new and shiny rules and conflict resolution mechanics that are different from what came before), but the latter question is by far the more important, and the long and short of it is, I don't really care if it hurts innovation.

I was never more surprised (yeah, I know, nice little bubble I've got going here ) during the roll-out of 4E when all these posters appeared decrying Vancian magic and other sacred cows as if these were at best vestigial organs and at worst objectively bad pieces of game design. And I just didn't get it. How on earth does someone enjoy playing D&D and not enjoy the various tropes and fundamental elements of it? If so many "sacred cows" bother you, why on earth are you even playing the bloody game.

Needless to say, despite so-called innovations, I really didn't enjoy playing 4E (not to the extent of some posters of the time, and goodness knows I didn't feel the need to post about my dislike.....hey, why take a whiz on someone else's fun?) and it really didn't feel like the old game to me.

For what it's worth (shockingly little ;-) ), I didn't like all the "innovations" of 3E either, and there's many things I would happily go back to (item saving throws, harsher poisons and curses, fireballs that expand to fill the available cubic footage allotted to them etc etc) but I'm afraid my players have gotten quite used to the multitudinous options of 3.X and would balk at a return to 1E/2E play, despite the fact that I think I probably enjoy it more than 3.X. Whatever, I still enjoy DMing 3.X (yes, even at high levels....I've never really experienced the problems that are supposedly attendant to high level 3.X play, and I've DMed for characters in the low epic levels) and I'm not entirely sure I'd be willing to give up its bells and whistles either come to think of it.

There's something that the more vociferous defenders of the latest edition (heck, all the vociferous defenders of ALL editions....but yeah, particularly 4E, since those individuals seem to be the most prone to bemoaning throwback gaming and "stagnation") need to remember and that is that the point of a game is to have FUN. I enjoy the hell out of curling (love to play it, love to watch it, love it, LOVE IT!) but I can accept the fact that not everyone else enjoys it or even finds it remotely interesting. And I'm OK with that! Likewise, if someone is having fun with Vancian magic, and save-or-die effects, and all that other stuff which some posters tend to pillory, then that's your problem, not mine. Be okay with other people's ideas of fun and let people have that kind of fun and stop trying to remove it from the gamebooks. Don't like the Great Wheel? Fine, but keep it in the game and remove it yourself in your house-rules for your own campaigns. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I don't think it's a huge surprise that the edition which stepped the furthest away from thirty years of history and game legacy (both rules and fluff/canon) and that seemed to try to impose its own (very, very particular) vision about what D&D play was all about had its market share stripped away by a not-so "innovative" game like Pathfinder.

There is no objective way to measure fun and you may think healing surges are the cat's meow, but if it bothers the heck out of the player (for whatever reason) then it doesn't matter if it is something new and different/innovative (for D&D) it is making the game un-fun for that player, and that person is not going to play the game if they're not having fun.

I do appreciate that there are a lot of people for whom 4E "clicked" and it is the best thing since sliced bread to them, and that's totally cool, but some posters seem to act as if letting the rest of us get back the elements and tropes that made D&D feel like, well, D&D is something horribly retrograde, like we're going back to stoning heretics and believing that the Sun goes around the Earth. Folks, it's a game. And the point is to have fun. And based on the life-cycle of 4E, and the horrendous loss of market share to Paizo's game, it should be painfully obvious that an awful lot of other people's ideas about what makes for a fun game do not sync up (at all) with what the latest edition had to offer, regardless of whether it was and still is a whole lotta fun for you.

So, to sum up, yeah there probably won't be quite as much "innovation", but if it's a fun game and feels more like classic D&D, then hey, innovation can get stuffed .

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. And remember, there are supposed to be dials and modules and such to allow people to bring back whatever "innovative" aspects of their favourite edition they want, so it's really not a big deal if (for example) healing surges aren't on the core menu, because it will (supposedly) be rather a simple matter to integrate them back in, right?

 

[Sunseeker]

Then perhaps this might be a good time to define, specifically and exacly, what group you are talking about...

People who haven't bought new books, refuse to play newer editions, and think that everything would be right with the D&D world if Wizards simply threw everything after their favored edition in the trash and reprinted material for their favored edition. I'm not saying people have to like or play every edition, simply that this is a market that has refused to buy new product for 20+ years. I don't see that changing.