D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[JRRNeiklot]

To continue my baseball analogy, if every time Josh Hamilton hit a home run, he had to stop at 2nd base and kick a field goal, I'd be quite within my rights to say "that's not baseball." Don't get me started on the designated hitter, grrrr.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wrong. When- as the post that started this tangent did- there is a call for a complete divorce from everything the game has been before, saying that the request goes beyond the identity of the game, e.g. "is not D&D", is perfectly valid.

I'm sorry, but that appears to be a complete mischaracterisation of Badapple's request. What he is requesting is that this doesn't turn into a D&D that resembles Springsteen's Glory Days.

When you get down to it, D&D is a game based on "We made some up we thought was cool" - Mike Mornard's description. And he himself took inspiration from outside sources - see Appendix N for details. Every single edition of D&D has brought things from outside. Therefore this insistance that D&D should be its own genre is far more wanting D&D to not be D&D than Badapple's post ever was.

Badapple requested a new class in the PHB. 1e had new classes in the PHB (Assassin, Monk). 2e had a new class in the PHB (Bard - and yes I know 1e had a class called a Bard). 3.0 had a new class in the PHB (Sorceror). 4e had a new class in the PHB (Warlord). Every edition of D&D except 3.5 has had at least one new class in the PHB.

Badapple requested meaningful options for all classes. Well, yes. 1e wasn't so combat focussed so gave meaningful options. 3e tried. 4e did. This is not against the legacy of D&D.

Badapple wants scary monsters. Is this not a part of D&D? Do curses and geasa not exist? Does mummy rot not? And even 4e has petrification.

Badapple wanted a decent amount of balance and teamwork. So did Gygax. This is a matter of public record.

Wanting it to be easy to design and run adventures? Are you saying that a defining feature of D&D is that it is an unnecessary headache for the DM?

And he wants something new. Literally every edition of D&D right back to 1974 has given us something new. Prior to D&D Next, if you haven't had anything new to say you haven't tried producing a new edition. We've got an edition that does that. You sell people based on what something can do. Which gives a reason to switch.

@Badapple is simply requesting a D&D for 2014 (estimated) rather than one for people trying to relive the 1990s. D&D has historically done almost everything he requested with every edition. Yet somehow sticking with the traditions of D&D and the way it has forged forward with almost every edition means wanting it to not be D&D?

I'd argue that Badapple wants D&D to be D&D far more than anyone who wants D&D's "Glory Days" does.


But as normal, the accusation of Not D&D has been used to try to cut down conversation. We shouldn't have more fun because it might not be D&D. We shouldn't allow more visions to contribute.

And my apologies to @Badapple for waiting so long to come to the defence of a good post saying things that need to be heard of D&D is to continue to thrive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To continue my baseball analogy, if every time Josh Hamilton hit a home run, he had to stop at 2nd base and kick a field goal, I'd be quite within my rights to say "that's not baseball." Don't get me started on the designated hitter, grrrr.

But field goals are a perfectly valid playstyle! You're stifling innovation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry, but that appears to be a complete mischaracterisation of Badapple's request. What he is requesting is that this doesn't turn into a D&D that resembles Springsteen's Glory Days.

I'm sorry but I disagree.

Badapple made several general suggestions, and then loosed this upon the thread:

Most of all I want something new. I don't want to go backwards and feel like I'm playing first edition again. I don’t want a game that is built on the foundation of a previous edition, any edition for that matter. I want a brand new game that is a new edition that completely stands on its own merits. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.

Which sounds like what he wanted was not present in any prior editor of the game. That, in and of itself is contentious and worthy of discussion. But deeper, rhetorically, this is beyond a call for innovation- something I'm perfectly fine with- he calls for a new foundation and a sacrifice of "sacred cows", to the point of welcoming further schism.

That scorched earth mentality of burning bridges that would link the game to its history sounds no more nor less than a call for something the game is not nor has ever been. Tellingly- Badapple has not clarified his own position to say otherwise.

And I have no problem saying that he's looking to make the game into something D&D is not now nor should be.

Part of what makes D&D distinct from other FRPGS are nods to the game's history- be it fluff or mechanics- and "sacred cows."* Without those elements, it would be just another FRPG, not D&D.









* just like the rules of Formula 1, NASCAR, Enduro, Indy, etc. are distinguished from each other by their rules.

 

[innerdude]

I'll tell BadApple what I told someone else:

You don't want D&D.

You want Fantasy Craft.

(Slaughtered sacred cows, new takes on old mechanics, rebalanced classes, and so forth and so on).

Seriously.

But back to the topic at hand:

I actually posted a thread a couple of months ago that echoed very similar sentiments to BadApple, about not wanting D&D to be so beholden to its past.

I think now I've changed my mind---let D&D be as "D&D" as it wants to be. If "being D&D" is the most important thing to WotC's core audience, then they should absolutely create a game that meets that need.

Some of it has simply been the realization that despite appearances, I'm actually not really part of WotC's "core audience" for D&D Next. On the surface, I should be--never made the switch to 4e, went with Pathfinder, and as a result should be "woo-able" back to the D&D fold.

The problem for WotC now is that I've discovered when it comes down to it, I actually don't particularly like most of what makes D&D, "D&D" (and yes, Pathfinder too). I've discovered I flat out hate Vancian casting. I dislike the armor class rules. I am at best indifferent to most of the HP / healing mechanics. Given the choice, I'd rather have a bell-curve probability distribution than a flat one. In some ways, I'm probably Wizards of the Coast's worst-case-scenario--going from a devout "D&D only!" disciple during 3.5, to looking around for other "partners" during 4e, to actively not caring for D&D's general "thematics" having now been exposed to other systems.

It was just a stark realization that really, I just want a game that gives me an excellent RPG experience without having to put up with D&D "crutches." And luckily for me, there's no end of those currently on the market.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm sorry but I disagree.

Badapple made several general suggestions, and then loosed this upon the thread:

Most of all I want something new. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.

Which sounds like what he wanted was not present in any prior editor of the game.

I disagree. I could make the same call. The thing is we have all those previous editions. The WotC ninjas are not going to break into your house and steal all your 3.0 books (or insert edition of choice). What he wants is something else. Another good game because the old games are not going to go away.

That, in and of itself is contentious and worthy of discussion. But deeper, rhetorically, this is beyond a call for innovation- something I'm perfectly fine with- he calls for a new foundation and a sacrifice of "sacred cows", to the point of welcoming further schism.

If you think there won't be a schism over D&D Next I've a bridge to sell you. Literally every other edition of D&D there has ever been has had a schism (including 1974 and the schism with the wargamers over elfgames) - and in fact there is precisely one way I can see where D&D Next can avoid schisming the community. And that's if the community reacts by giving D&D Next a resounding "Meh". And going back to playing their existing games that D&D Next is trying to imitate.

Schism is inevitable. The big question is whether you go unambitious and go for a game that no one really likes but everyone can agree is not completely objectionable, or whether you are ambitious, make a game that will have a keen and enthusiastic fanbase, and really makes for what some people consider a great game.

Actually there is one way to not schism the fanbase. Do a semi-Paizo: Move to a Megadungeon, Adventure Path, and Worldbook publishing model - and publish almost without stats. The stats are downloadable and printable and you can download the stats for any edition - oD&D, BECMI, RC, 1e, 2e, 3.5 (and possibly 3.0), and 4e. Would be a hell of a risk. (Note: This fits with my belief that Pathfinder's APs, even as published, work better with 4e than with Pathfinder itself.)

Edit: [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] you don't want FantasyCraft. Legends of Anglerre all the way! And I'm much more enthused by 13th Age than I am by D&D Next. Heinsoo and Tweet putting the pedal right to the metal.

 

[billd91]

I disagree. I could make the same call. The thing is we have all those previous editions. The WotC ninjas are not going to break into your house and steal all your 3.0 books (or insert edition of choice). What he wants is something else. Another good game because the old games are not going to go away.

This is getting to be a pretty lame argument. Just because the WotC ninjas aren't coming doesn't mean that there will be no fallout from changing editions. Just look at some of the hand-wringing from 4e fans in these threads now that it's 4e that is under the guillotine instead of 3e. They know that support will be harder to find for their game (particularly since it's particularly crippled going forward with the GSL). And players will eventually be harder to find too. That's what happens when things go OOP.

If you think there won't be a schism over D&D Next I've a bridge to sell you. Literally every other edition of D&D there has ever been has had a schism (including 1974 and the schism with the wargamers over elfgames) - and in fact there is precisely one way I can see where D&D Next can avoid schisming the community. And that's if the community reacts by giving D&D Next a resounding "Meh". And going back to playing their existing games that D&D Next is trying to imitate.

There's a pretty big difference between trying to serve a broad market but knowing schism will be inevitable and shooting for a smaller market while saying "Bring it on!" to the schism. Clearly, WotC has rejected the latter and I think they're right to do so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just look at some of the hand-wringing from 4e fans in these threads now that it's 4e that is under the guillotine instead of 3e.

In some cases, the are in worse shape- I know players whose entire 4Ed collection is electronic. If 5Ed boots 4Ed completely off the servers, they're screwed.*

There's a pretty big difference between trying to serve a broad market but knowing schism will be inevitable and shooting for a smaller market while saying "Bring it on!" to the schism. Clearly, WotC has rejected the latter and I think they're right to do so.

My thoughts exactly.












* WotC ninjas, please!

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is getting to be a pretty lame argument. Just because the WotC ninjas aren't coming doesn't mean that there will be no fallout from changing editions. Just look at some of the hand-wringing from 4e fans in these threads now that it's 4e that is under the guillotine instead of 3e. They know that support will be harder to find for their game (particularly since it's particularly crippled going forward with the GSL). And players will eventually be harder to find too. That's what happens when things go OOP.

As one of the 4e fans in question, the main issue is losing the tools. (Even then there's still the Offline Character Builder). And the GSL, unfortunately for WotC, is not that serious a problem. Just ask the OSRIC team quite how far the OGL can be pushed - you can't patent game mechanics. You just need to re-write the fluff almost from scratch. And unfortunately for WotC, 4e is a d20 game so you can grab about half the fluff from the two big SRDs anyway.

There's a mint to be made by the first existing RPG company that can come out with a system that's entirely compatable with 4e with re-written mechanics. By the standards of literally anyone in the RPG market other than WotC and possibly Paizo it's a jackpot.

And yes, I'm putting together a case for Cubicle 7 to do exactly this.

There's a pretty big difference between trying to serve a broad market but knowing schism will be inevitable and shooting for a smaller market while saying "Bring it on!" to the schism. Clearly, WotC has rejected the latter and I think they're right to do so.

The problem is that "makes everyone slightly happy" won't actually serve that broad market. In order to serve the broad market, 5e needs to be enough of an improvement over existing editions to get people to switch rather than play what they have for the past 5,10,13,21, or however many years.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem is that "makes everyone slightly happy" won't actually serve that broad market. In order to serve the broad market, 5e needs to be enough of an improvement over existing editions to get people to switch rather than play what they have for the past 5,10,13,21, or however many years.

"You can't please everyone." It's an old saying, but one that seems to be a pretty solid observation. Another take on it- a good compromise leaves everyone equally dissatisfied.

Again, I'm not afraid of innovation or change*, and recognize any edition with a stated design goal of reuniting the fan base will not be drawing from only one source. And because of that, despite it's goal, 5Ed will still drive some away.

But i will not gleefully welcome a call for the wholesale divorce from the game's foundations. There are already other FRPGs out there, I don't need D&D to find otherness by the sacrifice of its own identity.

As for "enough of an improvement"...well, that is entirely subjective, and not an easy target to aim for. The mere fact of being the one edition in production- assuming WotC continues to avoid risking sales cannibalism- will help drive sales.










* if I were, 3.5Ed would not be my preferred edition of the game, having come into the hobby in 1977.