D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Emerikol]

I said something about grognards ignoring those who haven't played dnd. What I see requested, desired by many of them is nothing more than broken old mechanics that make no sense for no other reason than traditions sake because these things "feel" like DnD.

I was with you until you started with the - for no other reason.... Please understand that a lot of people find many of the 4e mechanics damaging to their fun. They have legitimate reasons. It's a preferences thing I agree but as legitimate as your own.

While I'm glad your nephews and niece enjoyed pathfinder nowhere in your statement do I see anything to compare it to. I DO have direct comparison from my attempts to introduce both 3.x and 4e to the same individual.

I'm not saying that any version of dnd CAN'T be fun for new folks but that in my experience with folks who have tried both 4e is superior for those who have no prior experience.

I think people can play either one and have fun. I've seen people go both ways. Start out with 4e and go to Pathfinder. And the reverse. I think to be honest it's a preferences thing and how we are wired. I'm not at all sure as some 4e people are that Pathfinder isn't growing the hobby just as fast as 4e.

I also don't claim that my experiences aren't universal but they are as valid as any one else's and they are enough to inform my opinion.

We all are giving our opinions. I tire of those who want to belabor us for it.

edit - by the way I am not defending wotc's products compared to paizo- I'm sure the introductory set by paizo was an excellent product especially compared to some of the initial 4e modules which were quite frankly atrocious. However the system for 4e was much easier for me to introduce than 3.x.

Even I will admit despite never having played any Paizo product that they appear to know the roleplaying game business far better than WOTC does. I don't think the rules for Pathfinder are especially good. I think that Pathfinder players are essentially a no vote for 4e. This is why I believe 5e has plenty of opportunity to capture the Pathfinder crowd. In addition to the fact that many will buy both as well.

 

[Herschel]

I believe they know their market they've studied what happened with 4e and they've reacted as they always do. During 3e, they heard all the whining about balance and we got 4e. So I admit they are reactive. Sometimes they overreact. So now they are reacting to all the whining about 4e. And in 6e, they will be reacting to all the whining about 5e in all likelihood.

What you're not taking in to account is what WotC is actually reacting to: numbers. Companies don't react to whining, they react to their bottom line. If sales numbers are good, no amount of complaining gets noticed.

WotC came out with 3E, a much more robust system than anything that had come before it in D&D. but a whole lot of Grognards said "we still love our old system, screw you" and WotC thought they should be getting better numbers of them than they were, even though they were also getting new gamers.

Then they made a revision with 3.5 "Hey, we fixed stuff, it's even better now!" and those grognards along with a portion of their 3E customer base said "We have what we want, screw you". Even though they still gained new customers and even some lapsed gamers. It just wasn't working for them.

Then they made 4E, trying to actually fix the problems inherent in D&D's system rather than a little duct tape and lipstick. And you know what? People liked it. A lot. Lapsed gamers and new players came to it in good numbers.

And yet, many of those originals grognards, joined by a portion of the 3E and 3.5E fan base still said "We like what we have, screw you." This also was not working for WotC. D&D is the big name in teh game, they should have a stranglehold on the market. Why else did they buy the IP/brand?

It also discounts (though just as part of the noise loop, not actual sales volume) how many people complained about 3E mechanics, then when Wotc said "Hey, look, we fixed them" turned around and cried "What? How dare you insult my game?!?!?!!!" It's akin to kid who complains "My mom is such a jerk" and his friend says "yeah" promptly "causing" the first kid to become irate, yelling "What did you say about my mother?"

 

[Herschel]

I am saying that "traditional" D&D (you put in the word true yourself) has been a certain type of game. 4e edition was a completely different playstyle. All I'm arguing for is getting D&D back to it's roots and let it be what D&D has traditionally always been. If possible I'm for being additve and including as many playstyles as possible. If not possible then I'm for D&D sticking with an approach that has kept it on top of the sales market for over twenty years. If not possible though I'm assuming another game could be made (even by WOTC/Hasbro but by others too) that would cater specifically to the 4e crowd.

What you're missing is that D&D IS right back to its roots following a change from the original pamphlets: edition war and bias. There may have been no internet but there was a huge divide between OD&D and AD&D players, a big chunk of players who detested 2E as a "huge departure" from D&D's "roots", the buyout by a "faceless corporation", then its aquisition by a "soulless conglomerate", etc. etc. There's just a lot more flow of vitriol in the internet age.

 

[Emerikol]

What you're missing is that D&D IS right back to its roots following a change from the original pamphlets: edition war and bias. There may have been no internet but there was a huge divide between OD&D and AD&D players, a big chunk of players who detested 2E as a "huge departure" from D&D's "roots", the buyout by a "faceless corporation", then its aquisition by a "soulless conglomerate", etc. etc. There's just a lot more flow of vitriol in the internet age.

Perhaps the internet age is self-fueling but numbers wise I feel the 3e/4e war is like comparing the civil war to the war of 1812. Just no comparison. But thats how I feel.

As for the post above your last one. I see it differently probably because I see this post differently too. I think if you offered Hasbro the early 3e sales totals they'd be overjoyed right now. I think 4e lost over half the playerbase. I do not think 3e,2e, or 1e lost those kinds of numbers. 10% maybe and thats probably stretching it in my mind if you count late adopters.

So I see 4e as a cataclysmic event business wise. And I think if they produced a game built on the 4e engine the 5e disaster would be even bigger since the early "blind" adopters wouldn't be there. I was one of those and I know I wouldn't buy another 4e style game from WOTC. This is not a total rejection of 4e design goals either. It is a rejection of the approach used to achieve those goals. I reject some 4e design goals and I accept others as good if done right.

 

[LostSoul]

Because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it not exist. The examples you and others have given who don't understand reveal you don't understand.

I think there is something to the theory of dissociated mechanics even if I don't understand it. I think I don't understand it because I approach mechanics from a different perspective - more metagame, I think: a focus on the choices the players make instead of the choices of the PCs.

My first encounter with the theory went something like this (I think):

Me, reading the theory: 4E dissociates the choice the player makes from the choice the character makes.
Me: Is that a problem? The choice the player makes is the important thing. Since the character doesn't exist, you can decide what choice he made and why.

Me, reading the theory: But the 4E Daily/Encounter mechanics means that the PC can't make choices based on the game world.
Me: Is that a problem? The PC doesn't exist. You have to decide what the PC is actually thinking, so just make that something that works for you.

Me, reading the theory: But that means that the player can't interact with the game world. The player can't make choices based on what's happening in the fiction.
Me: Oh, okay. Yeah. I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Later on, after applying the lessons learned from dissociated mechanics to my own 4E hack - to the point of making it "not D&D" by my own standards:

Me: So if what's important is that the player can't interact with the game world - that is, make choices based on the in-game fictional details - how is that different from what's going on in older versions of D&D, with their abstract "to-hit" rolls, HP, turn-based initiative, saving throws, etc.?

(Playing 3E concurrently with my 4E Hack brings this point home. At one point we tried to resolve the actual actions my PC took in a sword duel, as we do in my hack, and it made no sense at all. Erm, that's not true - it did make sense. It was just that the actions that seemed to me, at the time, to be the "logical" option flowing from the details of the game world were made obviously and supremely sub-optimal by the mechanics of the game system. Much better to ignore the game world and just say "I hit him with my longsword held in two hands, power attack for 5".)

Now maybe dissociated mechanics have nothing to do with the choices the players make. Maybe that's where my misunderstanding lies. At that point I respond, "Is that a problem? The game is about the choices the players make." If that's true: Obviously some people do care about something other than the choices the players make, but that viewpoint is very alien to me, and that's why I struggle to understand the theory.

 

[Lokiare]

One of the major reasons they can't unite the fan base is Paizo just gives much better customer service. Their own people are on their forums talking with their fans every day. WotC doesn't want to do that because they might get some negative feedback.

WotC customer support is very lacking and they constantly make promises they can't keep or 'change direction' after making a promise. Its these kinds of things that make customers go to other games and companies.

 

[stoloc]

I was with you until you started with the - for no other reason.... Please understand that a lot of people find many of the 4e mechanics damaging to their fun. They have legitimate reasons. It's a preferences thing I agree but as legitimate as your own.


I think people can play either one and have fun. I've seen people go both ways. Start out with 4e and go to Pathfinder. And the reverse. I think to be honest it's a preferences thing and how we are wired. I'm not at all sure as some 4e people are that Pathfinder isn't growing the hobby just as fast as 4e.



We all are giving our opinions. I tire of those who want to belabor us for it.

That's ok I am often with you until you start with the "it's not really dnd" when referring to 4e.

As for pathfinder bringing in as many folks as 4e - if true I think they are doing so in spite of their rules system (mechanics) rather than because of it.

Yup we are all giving our opinions and so long as it seems that some folks forget that I guess the point will have to be laboured some more.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What you're not taking in to account is what WotC is actually reacting to: numbers. Companies don't react to whining, they react to their bottom line. If sales numbers are good, no amount of complaining gets noticed.

By that standard, 4e must be performing REALLY poorly for their bottom line, as they are willing and ready to listen to a whole lot of complaining (via the open playtesting process) to get 5e fairly right. Whoever liked 4e a lot didn't spend enough money or like the game enough to make it worthwhile to continue the game for more than 3-4 years.

I don't really think that's the whole picture, though, myself. A chunk of it, but not the whole thing.

I think, by and large, each new edition IS a reaction to the edition that came before. I think, by that standard, 5e is trying to react to the Edition Wars by being broad-based and inclusive. Clearly, saying "This is the game you must play, for it is perfect and awesome" isn't a winning strategy.

 

[innerdude]

Okay, quick roundup for everyone, just so we can get this whole "dissociation" thing out of the way---

1. I was the one who started the original "dissociated mechanics" thread last year. After a lot of mostly productive discussion, my original take on the subject was much different afterwards, and is even more different now that I have even more experience with alternative rule systems.

2. [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] came up with a succinct definition of what could potentially be labeled as an RPG mechanical "dissociation" (though as thoughtfully noted by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in the earlier thread, the term itself is largely pejorative, and entirely inapplicable to broad swaths of playstyles and rules systems):

"An RPG mechanic may potentially be considered 'dissociative' if the effects / consequences of the mechanic cannot be learned, observed, reasoned or explored from within the game world by the character."

3. Every RPG has rules abstractions and meta-game mechanics. The effects of these on you and your group are entirely entirely subjective.

Some systems have more, some have less, the only question is how your group manages them, and the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of the mechanics in question as they relate to your style.

In other words, "dissociation" only exists because a group accepts a particular belief about how action resolution should happen, and is most common in groups that adhere to "simulationist" / pure process resolution models.

SIDE NOTE:

I stumbled on to something [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said in the old "dissociation" thread that made absolutely no sense to me at the time. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I just want you to know, that the following quote now makes PERFECT SENSE, and I wished I'd recognized it sooner:

I find 3E to be a particularly unattractive mixture of "D&D-isms" like hit points, gonzo spells and magic items, etc, with gritty, purist-for-system aspirations in its disarm, grapple, trip, skill point, etc mechanics.

 

[Herschel]

By that standard, 4e must be performing REALLY poorly for their bottom line, as they are willing and ready to listen to a whole lot of complaining (via the open playtesting process) to get 5e fairly right. Whoever liked 4e a lot didn't spend enough money or like the game enough to make it worthwhile to continue the game for more than 3-4 years.

I don't really think that's the whole picture, though, myself. A chunk of it, but not the whole thing.

I think, by and large, each new edition IS a reaction to the edition that came before. I think, by that standard, 5e is trying to react to the Edition Wars by being broad-based and inclusive. Clearly, saying "This is the game you must play, for it is perfect and awesome" isn't a winning strategy.

But then 3E and 3.5 must have been even worse to come out with a new version even faster. So I think you miss the point I was making.

They seem to expect not only numbers but a certain market share. They can still make good numbers but not their ecxpectation.

As far as the playtest goes, I think the majority of reason for doing it is marketing, not so much rules-based. There is some market research though as those afore-mentioned people who complained about 3E then complained when WotC actually made changes can be sifted through more also but generally the noise is irrelevent.