D&D is not a supers game.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

So you're saying that the people who play D&D, and who are the people expected to buy D&D, should not have any influence over what D&D is?

I understand the perils of design by committee as well as any man, but if the people making D&D don't listen to what the people buying D&D want, they run a very real risk of designing a type of D&D that nobody wants-- made more real by the possibility that, whatever its merits, people may decide they don't want it solely because the people who made it didn't listen to them.

 

[Fenes]

There are a whole lot of sweeping assumptions in all of this. Previous editions had 1st Level Characters with less HP, and they recruited new players fine. Current alternative versions of D&D (Pathfinder, C&C) have similar lower levels of HP at 1st Level and again seem to recruit new players fine too. The only version of D&D that differed from the original approach of single HD+ Con bonus, was 4th Edition. There is simply no evidence to suggest that initiates of previous editions had off-putting experiences compared to 4th edition.

Previous editions are not quite a few years back, and people and games changed since the "glory days" of 1E. I started playing in 1992, and we never played those "low level games" you speak of, where random death was just around the corner.

 

[Doug McCrae]

All too often PCs seem to be entirely disconnected from their communities to the point where it seems they do nothing but adventure.

This is a very good point. For some styles of play, it's a good thing to disconnect the PCs from community. High lethality, highly challenging old school D&D play benefits from fast PC generation. It's a waste of time to detail a character's origins or culture. PCs are young, rootless, almost certainly male, fortune seekers. They're troublemakers tbh, who would be unwelcome in most societies. They're motivated by power, wealth, and glory. That's all we need to know. That's enough to get them headed for the DM's dungeon. Personally, I don't think paladins and other altruists are a good fit for this play-style, but 1e AD&D clearly disagrees with me.

This style of D&D actually does motivation rather well, particularly considering it spends so little time on it. The player and PC motivations are the same.

Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.

 

[Fenes]

Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.

I posit that D&D should offer more than just playing murdering marauders, and (among other things not related to 1E) take a look at 1E and their high-level options.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Previous editions are not quite a few years back, and people and games changed since the "glory days" of 1E. I started playing in 1992, and we never played those "low level games" you speak of, where random death was just around the corner.

Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.

As stated before, the 'random death' you claim is grossly exaggerated.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So you're saying that the people who play D&D, and who are the people expected to buy D&D, should not have any influence over what D&D is?

I understand the perils of design by committee as well as any man, but if the people making D&D don't listen to what the people buying D&D want, they run a very real risk of designing a type of D&D that nobody wants-- made more real by the possibility that, whatever its merits, people may decide they don't want it solely because the people who made it didn't listen to them.

Is the only valid customer feedback the one you agree with? If the D&D game is to my liking, I am as likely to buy it as anyone here. The fact that anybody is spending time playtesting is enough to warrant the validity of their feedback.

 

[Fenes]

Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.

As stated before, the 'random death' you claim is grossly exaggerated.

Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.

It raised a d4 to a d6 in two cases, and made a typical house rule used in 1st Ed standard. Hardly a ringing endorsement of adding the entire Con score as a kicker.

 

[Fenes]

It raised a d4 to a d6 in two cases, and made a typical house rule used in 1st Ed standard. Hardly a ringing endorsement of adding the entire Con score as a kicker.

Not really, yes. But it shows they at least wanted characters not to go down in one hit from a kobold or housecat.

 

[Fifth Element]

Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.

*raises hand*

Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.

That was a 3E rule, wasn't it?