D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[triqui]

I don't think it's possible to escape the fact that 4e is quite different from every edition that came before - both for good and for ill. Some of the changes I like, some I don't; but it's still different.

And yes, I do have a broad base of experience outside of 3e, if such be needed.

3e also was quite different from any edition that came before.

 

[El Mahdi]

Something I've noticed for some time now, is a very, very strong sense that people are no longer willing to apply any sort of personal interpretation to the rules. That if something is written in the game in a certain way, that way must absolutely be followed, must never be deviated from and must never be given a moment's introspection on how to make it work

Is this what people took from 3e? I know that the 3e discussions frequently focused on RAW, but, even then, there was usually a sense of "Well, here's what the RAW says, but..." That sense seems to have entirely disappeared whenever someone criticizes the way an edition did something.

I'm looking at the various criticisms of 5e, and particularly any 5e elements that smack of 4e, and I see it over and over again. But, it's also very visible in 3e criticisms as well. Yes, something like CR was wonky in 3e, but, it wasn't impossible to use. It took some work, but it certainly was possible to make it work. In fact, I spent some time collecting http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/200150-factors-affecting-cr-el.html . So, it's not like it can't be done.

But, why are people so steadfastly insisting that one and only one interpretation must be the only interpretation and rejecting any other interpretation that could work? Is it simply stealth edition warring? X comes from Edition Y and thus must never be seen again?

What happened to creativity and flexibility? What happened to looking at something and pointing out flaws AND offering constructive criticism?

I have to admit, I'm rather baffled.

I think it's a combination of a few things. First, there's definitely a sense that if the game was written this way, then it's meant to be played this way. People like rules and structure, at least until those rules or structure starts to chaffe. Then people complain.

There's also the related but slightly different: "this game was designed this way for a reason" - so deviating or interpreting can bring about unexpected problems or consequences. More experience with a systems rules can counter this, but not everyone gains that kind of comfort for understanding with the games mechanics.

Then there's also peoples resistance to change - even when they don't like something. It's the devil you know. But just because people don't want to change, doesn't mean they won't complain about what they don't like. It's kind of the same as those who say "D&D has never been or done X, therefore it shouldn't attempt to do X going forward because it won't be D&D anymore..."

Humans are just irrational, complaining beings. It's who we are.

 

[El Mahdi]

While /some/ of us voiced that attitude - that RAW was at most a starting point - it was far from prevalent in the 3e era. 'RAW' became sacred, "that would be a house rule" became a rude dismissal. Compared to the attitude of the (admittedly, much less connected) community in the first decade or two of the game's history, it's a stunning about-face. In the 1e DMG, EGG made it very clear that it was the DM's perogative to change rules. The role of DM, itself, was an outgrowth of the wargaming 'judge' who's job was to make impartial rulings and interpretations in an a more adversarial environment. Interpreting rules was unquestionable the role of the DM, and interpreting them for the 'good' of the game experience was an ideal most better DMs presumably aspired to.

3e changed all that. My theory is that the impetus was 3e's intentional 'rewards for system mastery' (designed into the game according to Monte Cook in 'Ivory Tower Design'). Those rewards were built into the system, often in ways that a 'good' old-school DM might be inclined to dis-allow as imbalancing. To get those rewards, system-masters would have to insist on sticking to the system, as written, no interpretations to restore balance - because beating the balanced base-line was the point of the system-mastery meta-game.

4e muted the phenomenon, but did nothing to eliminate it.

I suspect 5e, with it's promise of voluminous advice to the DM, and rules-lite philosophy may intend to put that particular genie back in the bottle. I don't think it's likely they can succeed, but I'd be delighted if they were to. Be sure to invoke Solmon's name when you seal that puppy back up.

I don't think they can succeed at that either. I don't think any rules system can put that genie back in the bottle...and maybe it shouldn't even be attempted. Some people like to play and DM by RAW, and actually don't want to be "old school" DM's. I prefer a more old school approach myself, but it's not a universal preference.

I think the only one's able to put that genie back in the bottle, is each individual DM and group, at each individual table.

 

[The Shadow]

3e also was quite different from any edition that came before.

Yes, it was. No question. Neither can be described as an organic development from what came before; and both were bitterly resisted by some. I just happen to, on the whole, like the changes of 3e better than those of 4e.

Personally, I'm wholly unsympathetic to 3e claims of being insulted in the 4e marketing, as well as 4e claims to being insulted by the run up to the next edition.

Okay, you're unsympathetic. And you gave reasons why, I acknowledge - I just disagree with them.

I was extremely excited for 4e. I followed every bit of information with bated breath. I was not at all predisposed to dislike it. In fact, I was viewing just about everything about it in the most positive light possible.

But (what I regard as) some boneheaded marketing moves on WotC's part threw a monkey-wrench in the works, and I lost my momentum. I was still interested in 4e, and wanted to like it... but I was definitely vastly less enthused. I still had a sour taste in my mouth.

When the game finally came out, it wasn't to my taste, and in all honesty, it probably wouldn't have been to my taste regardless of anything they said or did. But shooting themselves in the foot did nothing to help, that's for sure.

This time around, I was also extremely excited. The long waiting caused that to die down a bit, but when the playtest packets came out, it revived somewhat. And this time around, all I can say is, their attitude seems to be different. Humbler, for one. No doubt they have all sorts of business reasons to strike that attitude, but nonetheless it comes across well.

They may yet change their tune, they may yet screw up. There's no telling. But so far, they aren't shooting themselves in the foot from where I sit.

And yes, it may well be that they alienated 2e players in the 3e launch too. I don't remember that well, as I had pretty much moved on from 2e to other games at the time. In fact, I didn't really follow the 3e launch much at all, and was pleasantly surprised with what I saw when it came out.

 

[Greg K]

When I look at it, I am comparing to
a. what I consider strengths of previous editions (e.g. 2e specialty priests)
b. WOTC's optional 3e rules/variants from the DMG, Unearthed Arcana, etc.
c. The elements of 4e that I liked (e.g., balancing the classes across levels, removing 3e XP costs, removing most non biologicals aspects of race and making them feats, magic missile requiring to hit roll, healing surges, disease track, backgrounds and themes.)
d. aspects of d20 Modern and Star Wars: Saga Edition (e.g., talent trees, Star Wars Condition track, Star Wars class armor and weapon proficiencies are feats granted only to starting characters and must be acquired through feats after first level)
e. various third party OGL/d20 STL supplements and fixes
f. various third party OGL games (e.g. True20, Grim Tales)

From what I see, 5e, at the moment is falling flat for me in just about every way. I am finding it very disappointing. I stick around, because, just maybe, I will find improvements through modules and changes .

I think some of it's inherent to any new edition discussion. People have doubtless papered over the flaws of their own edition of choice with houserules and interpretations, but have not had the chance to do with 5e yet. Thus, 5e looks worse by comparison.

I also think it's yet another product of lingering bad feelings over the tone of the 4e launch. WotC was so offensive, both in the product they put out and the way they promoted it, that many former fans have become defensive. Thus, anything they put out now is subject to heightened levels of scrutiny, purely because of the bad blood between the company and its fanbase.

(Personally, I try to keep in mind the flaws of the RAW of my edition(s) of choice and try to keep the WotC-bashing to a strong but fair level and to offer constructive criticism at least once per thread).

Some of it is substance, though. "Creativity and flexibility" are in direct conflict with "balance", and WotC has drifted more and more away from the former and towards the latter.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

Subjectivity, the 600 lb. owlbear in the room.

RAW versus RAI has probably been fodder for several discussions going back quite a few years now. Add in a little edition "sparring" (warring is a bit passe as a term for me, and not nearly violent enough when manifested verbally), and now we can debate whether each edition is easier to interpret as one or the other.

Now, we can argue that because 4th edition has less "fluff" or descriptive language in its powers' text, versus older editions/Pathfinder/my aunt's recipe for fruitcake, it is therefore more subject to misinterpretation when RAW, but we'd be wrong. There was a very interesting show on tv the other day regarding perception, they had an experiment with bouncing basket balls and a guy in a gorilla suit, good stuff...

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think they can succeed at that either. I don't think any rules system can put that genie back in the bottle...and maybe it shouldn't even be attempted. Some people like to play and DM by RAW, and actually don't want to be "old school" DM's. I prefer a more old school approach myself, but it's not a universal preference.

I think the only one's able to put that genie back in the bottle, is each individual DM and group, at each individual table.

There are lots of new games that are very much DM adjudication. Whether thats laziness in design or really an intent to empower DMs is another matter. I don't see the market for such things though as vanishing at all. I see it as a pretty steady segment like many others. I'm not saying it's the majority either. I think it does take skill and fairness in the DM which some people have a hard time finding. At least thats my feel on these boards. Perhaps not really that much trouble for the masses.

 

[Emerikol]

Let me explain here for some people a little bit about the history of D&D.

Early on D&D was huge. The 800lb gorilla as they say. No one was close. So other companies designed games to chip away at D&D's marketshare. They didn't take D&D head on. If what they offered was just another flavor of the same exact game, people would just buy the original.

In the beginning these guerilla warrior games, focused no realism. D&D is not realistic they'd cry! And promptly give us oodles of complex rules and obscure tables. (Palladium/Rolemaster I'm looking at you). D&D crushed them all. Any sales chart that included D&D wouldn't even show these other games.

Then some things changed. The new guys tried another tactic. Story games. World of Darkness being a popular one. They lightened the rules a LOT. Talk about DM empowerment. It was all DM empowerment. These games contrasted strongly with D&D because once again you can't take on the juggernaut head on and win.

People were all the time saying "D&D needs to get with it and join modern times." They were saying this of course while D&D was crushing these "modern" games in the market. The demand for D&D was there. Yes a lot of people liked the story games and those types of games did far better than their predecessors. Still D&D was a giant standing next to ants.

So given all the above, there has always been a strong demand for what D&D offers. The play style the tropes, everything. As the mainstream leader, it is of course in the interest of WOTC to capture as large a marketshare as possible. So they listened to those who were complaining and decided to produce a game far more in line with "modern" design principles. They made those people who were complaining very happy. They also made everyone else unhappy.

Due to the OGL, D&D branched. Pathfinder became another flavor of D&D. A flavor that hewed far closer to the 800lb gorilla of the past. Now D&D is a strong name and we can argue back and forth but my gut says that they are close enough to be thought of as 50/50 even if in reality its a few percentage points one way or the other. Effectively the 800lb gorilla became two 400lb gorillas. And I might add due to all the retroclones perhaps they are both 350lb gorillas.

WOTC is now faced with a strategy that has to include the following...
1. Recapture traditional D&D players who abandoned the game over 4e.

2. Retain 4e players who having gotten a game more to their liking will be harder to please than if 4e had never happened.

3. Perhaps strike at an untapped group, the pre-3e players who never converted. This group I believe to some degree is also falloff from 4e. Meaning when a person quits 4e they don't automatically go to Pathfinder or 3.5e. Most do one or the other (about 50/50 of those that do as I see it). But many returned to their roots. They were tired of the complexity and bulkiness of 3.5e. So they returned to retroclones. This group is not insignificant.


I'm not sure if they are going to succeed or not. I'm not even sure what success means to them. I do think their decision to sell all editions in pdf form was a great idea. No sense making it easy for Pathfinder. I root for D&D because its where I started. But even I won't play a game I dislike just to be supportive. I hope.

I do think modules are more important than compromise. Compromise makes a lukewarm drink. People wanting it cold wont like lukewarm but neither will people who want it hot. So to me it would be better for them to focus on some smart modules that targets particular groups and lifts the game for each side in these wars. Obviously not everything can be a module and compromise is necessary. But I fear too much compromise will ruin it for all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let me explain here for some people a little bit about the history of D&D.

Early on D&D was huge.

Good historical perspetive through that point.

D&D started as an innovative 1:1 scale wargame, that is, each figure represented a single creatures. The first incarnation of this wargame was called Chainmail, and D&D initially used the Chainmail system for it's combat rules. Chainmail was greeted with some enthusiasm, but D&D made a big splash because it was something quite new and different, and was very soon being called a role-playing game. D&D's first competitors came out only a year later, and would have been in development for some time before D&D was released, so may not strictly speaking have been imitators. Traveler is the prime example. But, D&D was first out the gate, and that gave it a cachet that no subsequent game ever had. By the early 80s, D&D was a full-on 'fad,' as close to being mainstream as the hobby ever got. By the end of the 80s, the fad was over. But, the RPG community, while tiny, was not inactive, the 80s saw many excellent and innovative games introduced. None rivaled the bloated corpse of the D&D fad for sheer revenue, but many left it in the dust for innovation and quality. In the early 80s, several companies consolidated games around proprietary 'core systems.' The obvious one is Chaosium, whose 'Basic Roleplaying' was a core system shared by it's successful RuneQuest FRPG and it's licensed Call of C'thulhu RPG, others included Hero System, Interlock and d6. Core systems eventually led to attempts at a 'universal' system, GURPS explicitly aimed for that, though it eventually re-cast itself as 'multi-genre,' and the 1989 version of Hero System was a de-facto universal system, as well. Univeral systems made a big splash, and some hard-core hobbyists were and still are into them, and core systems each had their following, as well. But, none of them were ever wildly successful. (It's important to keep the very modest success of core/universal systems in mind later...)

For the next 10 years, D&D did little more than rest on the laurels of it's 'first RPG' pedigree and had-been-fad status. A second edition came out that was slicker and cleaned up a little, and it jumped on the setting-over-system (style-over-substance) badwagon of the 90s. That trend was started by Battletech (of all things, a tactial /board/game) in the mid/late 80s and continued by Storyteller, which also got a snide role-not-roll division going in the broader community, D&D bearing the brunt of the 'roll playing' snub. At the same time, D&D, and RPGs in general, were pummeled by a new fad, CCGs, courtesy of our friends WotC, which sucked a whole generation of gamers away from them. LARPs also cleaved off from the RPG community, and many new gamers started there, instead of with D&D, as well. Though, even as CCGs drained away the traditional teenage-boy demographic of new RPGer, LARPs and Storytelling were bringing in female gamers in unprecedented numbers (precedented numbers being /really/ small). Later in the 90s, Hero Games, publisher of it's eponymous 'universal' system, and R.Talsorian, publisher of the Interlock 'core' system, teamed up to create Fuzion, a customizeable universal Open Source rpg. It was joined (or perhaps, preceded?) by FUDGE, a univeral Open-Source, /free/ RPG engine. Neither were terribly successful.

D&D, through most of the 90s, in the hands of rather cynical, decidedly non-gamer, management remained a profitable franchise, raking in money from books, novels, and endless supplements and settings (each selling less than the last), until, after a couple of spectacularly failed spin-offs (a CCG rip-off among them) and a catastrophic misstep in the publishing sector, TSR finally went belly-up. It seemed that D&D, long the dinosaur of the industry, was going to finally go extinct.

The 90s closed, however, with D&D 'saved' by it's arguable nemesis: CCG inventor, WotC. Ah, irony.

By 2000, D&D had a new "3rd" Edition (even though Original D&D, BECMI, AD&D, and AD&D 2e were arguably each editions in their own right), and, like Fuzion and FUDGE, it had a core Open-Sytem behind it. d20 had the advantages of an open source system, /and/ the advantage of D&D name recognition. Other RPG companies fell all over themselves creating content for d20, particularly for D&D, rocketing D&D back to a position of titular as well as default (as the only mainstream-recognizable RPG) revenue leadership. 3e also made real changes to the system, 'modernizing' it to a degree. This set off a wave of rejection by old-school fans, but, in the face of the 3rd-party clamor to jump on the D&D name bandwagon it didn't amount to much, though, parodies of early D&D, like the semi-serious, respectful Hackmaster RPG and the irreverent Munchkin cardgame did meet with some success.

If there's a high-water mark for D&D other than it's 80s fad period, it's early 3e, when Open Source d20 was king of the new RPG hill and erstwhile competitors like WWGS faltered and clung to the bandwagon.

Then WotC was acquired by Hasbro, and all that savior-of-D&D goodwill and d20 euphoria started getting squandered. First, to flog extra revenue out of the line, they re-released a 3.5 version of all the core books, this time, /not/ as modest-priced loss-leaders. There was some loud dis-satisfaction with the move, but "3.5" received it's own SRD and was part of the OGL, so 3pps happily went with it, and hold-outs eventually had nothing much to look forward to but new 3.5 material. The 'oughts' remained D&D's decade, though, and it ended with the decade with a remarkable bit of hubris called the GSL...

After WotC released the rising tide raised all RPG publishers, Open Source d20, Hasbro decided they didn't want to share "D&D's" success anymore, and the next edition of the game was linked not to d20 and the OGL, but to a poison-pill GSL that was not truely open-source, but revocable, and also required anyone signing onto it to get /off/ the d20 bandwagon for good. It did not go over well with 3pps and most nervously dithered, while some bifurcated into an OGL and GSL 'house.' The new edition wasn't just a touch of paint like 2e, but a serious re-tooling, like 3e. But, while 3e was a serious re-tooling after 20 years of relative stagnation, 4e was a serious re-tooling after 8 years of fairly steady development. 3e was not regarded as the dinosaur that AD&D had become when 3e was new. So, the backlash against 4e was even more pronounced than against 3e. And, there were all these publishers, wondering if they should go OGL or GSL. Well, the initial vocal rejection of 4e made it obvious there was still a market for d20 D&D - and the OGL couldn't be taken away, while the GSL could be. Not a tough decision. With scads of 3pp support, staying with 3.5 was a lot easier than staying with 2e or 3.0, and the D&D market seriously split.

The anti-4e backlash and success of d20 fed on eachother, rising to the pitch of the 'edition war' in the volatile on-line community. WotC backpeddled from 4e, first by caving to complaints about 4e with a re-done line of 'Essentials' books, and when that did little more than further shrink the 4e market, announced 5e.

5e, so far, is focused on the noise that surrounded 4e - the same sorts of complaints already addressed unsuccessfully in Essentials. It has yet to take a position on the more critical marketing question: to OGL or not to OGL. OGL could mean turning competitors back into partners and sweeping D&D fans back into one 'latest & greatest' d20 family of WotC and 3pp games. Not-OGL could mean 're-capturing' the 'lost revenue' currently being whisked in by those same competitors - it could also mean another round of rejection by fans and catering to that rejection by d20 competitors.

 

[Emerikol]

Good historical perspetive through that point.

Not sure if what you said disagreed with what I said. You gave a general view. My point and it's still valid is that the companies "competing" against D&D during those years were using guerilla marketing tactics. They deliberately chose to be very different than D&D in order to slice off a niche.

Monte Cook who actually worked at I.C.E. has recounted the mentality of that era very well. The idea was "Don't try to be D&D." They couldn't beat them at their own game. Instead do something different that hopefully someone will want that D&D can provide. He has written any number of blogs on this history.

Until after the OGL when 4e kind of gave up the traditional D&D spot, did a true D&D competitor arise. And that competitor has done very well. Better than any other roleplaying game in history except for D&D. Not bad.