D&D 5E Why (and how) 5E can succeed

[Gorgon Zee]

Old or New

4E was unsuccessfully because it looked to the future and tried something new. As it turns out, a lot of D&D players are not interested in new and like the feel of old-style games. So they exited the forward progress and went back to 3.5 (Pathfinder) or before (OSR).

WOTC, if they had tried something new, would have been unable to even slightly re-capture those who had ditched already, and it would simply have split the progressives even further, so they'd have ended up with half the market of 4e (and when they were supporting 4e, that was about the same size as the number who had bailed). So the new design is intended to feel old enough that people who are set on old-style D&D will consider it, and new enough so that progressives might give it a go.

That's a really tough plan. I'm not sanguine, but maybe being the biggest company will help them muscle it through. For my group of progressives, once 4e was abandoned, we abandoned D&D mostly and now prefer other games. For us, now, the "new" D&D will feel very old-fashioned, and I expect many others will be in the same boat. I had frankly hoped for a more intrinsic modularity, baked in from the core, as a revolutionary new feature, but that hasn't materialized, so I'm less hopeful than I was.

- Graham

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]. First of all, sounds like your boyfriend is a bit of a project taste-wise - get him reading Lord of the Rings pronto. ;-)

Seriously though, I think you bring up a very important point. I am very aware of the generational issue, largely because I teach and counsel adolescents. And really what you're talking about is a larger, cultural-historical issue, especially in relation to technological and media development. I'm reminded of Marshall McLuhan's idea that the "Gutenberg Galaxy" is ending and we're transitioning into the digital age - and he was writing in the 50s and 60s. Or the bifurcation between "digital immigrants" and "digital natives," the latter having lived most of their lives during the internet and computer age (so roughly born early 80s or later). The point being, the "boomer" generation of D&D players, of what it sounds you and I are part of - those of us who started playing in the 80s - are of a different generation than the young folks that might start playing D&D in the next few years.

We cannot understate the change that has happened in the last 20 years. 20 years ago there was no internet; of course there was a kind of "proto-internet," but it didn't emerge in a ubiquitous way until the mid-90s with the World Wide Web. 15 years ago palm pilots were cutting edge, and it wasn't until 2007 that the iPhone was introduced and revolutionized smartphones. Kids in the 10-14 range that you describe as a possible demographic focus for WotC have grown up in a world that is based on the internet, in which smart technologies are the norm, and something new is coming out every year. Who knows, in 20 years we might be talking about DM apps for your home robot.

It isn't all fluffy and wonderful, though, like some 1950s vision of the future in which all our problems are solved and we live in a high-tech utopia. Many think that's still possible, and in a way that's the underlying assumption held by tech companies. But there is a shadow side of which we're just starting to see signs of - anything from reduced attention spans to obfuscated imagination processes to a decrease in real human interaction. This Onion article comes to mind.

Returning to D&D, if we remember, one of the things 4E tried to do was appeal to the World of Warcraft and anime crowds and, by and large, it didn't work. It mainly just pissed off us old-timers who want our elves to have whites in their eyes and don't think PCs that have a breath weapon or a demon rapist for a father aren't the kewlest thing evar.

If D&D tries to compete with computer games it will lose. Its a completely different cognitive activity. D&D is based on the imagination, on generating imagery and evoking real human inner experience, while video games fill the mind with external, simulated images. They're almost exact opposites.

But it does sound like WotC wants to diversify the brand name of D&D to different areas, and I think that's a good idea and, in a way, can keep the tabletop game "pure" of such elements, or at least keep them to augmentation only and not replacement (in other words, virtual tools and apps that augment the theater of mind rather than replace it, like a video game does).

I have a feeling which may be more of a hope, that at some point people are going to long for the "real" experience of human imagination. And I hope that D&D is alive and well - and still a tabletop RPG - when that happens, to serve these "imaginal immigrants." I know that I, for one, as an "imaginal native," don't want my theater of mind replaced with pre-digested and generated imagery. I want my imagination to survive and thrive.

I'm sorry if I rambled all over the place - I'm a bit distracted as I write this as my wife keeps hinting that I need to get in the kitchen and help with dinner! But hopefully I got some ideas across.

 

[TerraDave]

In terms of 5E: yes, they seem to be doing what you suggest, and have been for several months now: establishing a clean, relatively simple core that is built on classic D&D but can accommodate a wider range of play styles.

Now, in terms of 4E: I completely reject this 4E module hypothesis. They did that (Bo9S) and that would have missed the best part of 4E: cleaning up the core rules and making it easier to DM.

Setting that aside, we can speculate on why WotC took the course they did for 4E:

• 3.5 boxed them in, they felt they could not just turn around and do a 3.75;
  
• WoW and other evidence of mainstream love for action-fantasy (LotR, Harry Potter) led them to believe that there was this huge audience out there, if they just adapted the game to it;
  
• As long time D&Ders, the design team clearly had their peeves with 3E, and personally wanted to try a more substantial revision (a lot of what was done in 4E does follow a logic established in 3E).

Whatever the reasons for the approach to 4E, we do know that:

• The marketing--hey, remember that game we were just selling you, it sucks!--clearly alienated a large part of the fan base;
• The execution--no edition has spawned the errata mountain that 4E did--left something to be desired;
• They cancelled print dragon and dungeon;
• They replaced the OGL with something that was not good;
• They had a 3D virtual tabletop that did not work;
• They had Gleemax, a social networking tool that did not work;
• They took an "everything is core" approach that led to traditional material being spread across multiple books (ie you want to play a gnome, you get to buy two books) and, combined with the way powers were approached, flooded players with redundant options;
• Adventure support was weak for a long time;
• Campaign support was weak for a long time;
• With already more fantasy worlds then they would ever need, they created yet another one in the default setting, including a lot of superficial changes, poorly executed (especially in the MM), that further helped shrink the fan base;
• They stopped selling PDFs.
• They would periodically confuse or alienate 4E fans: mislabeling "essentials", dropping the downloadable CB, adding a collectable card component that did not fit at all well with the game...
• AND they underestimated the staying power of 3E and went to far in some their changes, especially in not having a few easier playing classes or builds.

For 5E to succeed, they should avoid doing stuff like that.

 

[Gadget]

Returning to D&D, if we remember, one of the things 4E tried to do was appeal to the World of Warcraft and anime crowds and, by and large, it didn't work. It mainly just pissed off us old-timers who want our elves to have whites in their eyes and don't think PCs that have a breath weapon or a demon rapist for a father aren't the kewlest thing evar.

This kind of dismissive (and speculative) editorializing makes it hard to take your posts seriously. Not only is it inaccurate (Dragonborn were a 3e invention and popular there and continue to be popular in 5e according to WOTC, and Tieflings were not the product of rape, but a race of humans who, in the distant past, made a pact with Devils and were thus corrupted). There may be some truth to the notions expressed, but expressing it in this manner just makes for sour grapes edition war fodder.

 

[Gadget]

WotC said the ruleset is largely complete, and of course they're not asking us for advice anymore. I've done playtesting before, and IME the rules will not significantly change by this point. Stuff that was written after playtesting stopped and appearing in the final product are often unbalanced (in an "easy-to-solve" way too). So worries about core weaknesses in the rules are appropriate. At minimum expect lots of errata.

This statement assumes that the public "playtest" was but a bit behind the internal playtest (and massive NDA play test we have been told is going on) and not just a large focus group to gage the 'feel of D&D' along with major PR effort. Others, including myself, are of another opinion. At the very least, it seems that public play test was not really for adding polish to rules but merely to gage the publics reaction to broad concepts. I could be wrong though.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think each D&D edition is a product of it's time and in some ways a simple reaction to highlighted issues from previous editions. 3rd and 4th editions were no exception.

When 3rd edition came out, it was in the wake of TSRs recent collapse as well as growing criticism of the game clinging on to counterintuitive mechanics and arbitrary stipulations in the rules. The resultant game harnessed things like skill systems, feats and multi-classing that gave players a lot more choice and control in the design and development of their characters. This was largely from the influence of other games like RuneQuest (et al), that had championed these ideas for years. It was also an attempt to consolidate and strengthen the existing RPG hobby under a single banner that gamers could get behind - hence the d20/OGL drive.

When 4th edition came out, the concerns of gamers had largely been informed by the sensibilities of the whole 'indie' movement, replete with game theories like GNS. The 3rd edition system was regarded as being overly broad in it's design, and the new edition attempted to build more specified gameplay, strategic 'balance' and 'narrative' structure. Some people liked it, and some people didn't - making it a divisive edition in this respect. However, people forget that a lot of these trends were already happening in gaming, and D&D was simply adapting to the prevalent attitude of the time - 'system matters' and so on. It was also an attempt to adapt the D&D experience into a fully adapted online gaming experience, with mechanics that could interchange between both. This seemed a good idea at the time (although it didn't turn out that way) and reflected the drive to broaden D&Ds appeal to a younger or more modern audience, and make the game more commercially viable.

What the 5th edition is about, I feel, is mostly about finding it's true original identity and building it's brand up from a universally accepted, integral point that acknowledges it's own past and tradition. Much of the influence, this time, surely comes from the 'old school' renaissance of retro-clone versions of D&D which have become ubiquitous in the last few years. So, gone is the reliance on miniatures, as well as gaming conventions that didn't actually originate with D&D (long skill lists, for example). Instead, we've seen a return of a pdf back catalogue, and a prolonged dialogue with the play test audience about the 'feel of the game'. There has been some deliberation on which classes to include and the application of particular rules, but the overall picture has been in the right direction in my view. Time will tell if the final product is a success, of course.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

so TrippyHippy is saying D&D is Dr who??

 

[Shemeska]

It mainly just pissed off us old-timers who want our elves to have whites in their eyes and don't think PCs that have a breath weapon or a demon rapist for a father aren't the kewlest thing evar.

Tieflings have been part of D&D as a PC race since 2e.

And they are indeed one of the most awesome things ever IMO.

Except that the 4e "tieflings" while a core PC race had only a passing resemblance to the classic D&D tieflings of 2e and 3.x, since the 4e ones were homogenous in appearance and only descended from devils, rather than any type of fiends, and exclusively of human mortal stock, which wasn't the case in 2e/3e. It's just a staggering disconnect between the 2e/3e tieflings and the 4e version.

 

[steeldragons]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, @steeldragons . First of all, sounds like your boyfriend is a bit of a project taste-wise - get him reading Lord of the Rings pronto. ;-)

I'd love to, but given that anything I could point him toward would result in a google/wikipedia search makes this unlikely.

Seriously though, I think you bring up a very important point. I am very aware of the generational issue, largely because I teach and counsel adolescents. And really what you're talking about is a larger, cultural-historical issue, especially in relation to technological and media development.

yes. Exactly. And I ffeel it is something that cannot be ignored in the formation of 5e...and I seriously doubt WotC is ignoring it...

I'm reminded of Marshall McLuhan's idea that the "Gutenberg Galaxy" is ending and we're transitioning into the digital age - and he was writing in the 50s and 60s. Or the bifurcation between "digital immigrants" and "digital natives," the latter having lived most of their lives during the internet and computer age (so roughly born early 80s or later). The point being, the "boomer" generation of D&D players, of what it sounds you and I are part of - those of us who started playing in the 80s - are of a different generation than the young folks that might start playing D&D in the next few years.

Yes. exactly. We absolutely are.

We cannot understate the change that has happened in the last 20 years. 20 years ago there was no internet; of course there was a kind of "proto-internet," but it didn't emerge in a ubiquitous way until the mid-90s with the World Wide Web. 15 years ago palm pilots were cutting edge, and it wasn't until 2007 that the iPhone was introduced and revolutionized smartphones. Kids in the 10-14 range that you describe as a possible demographic focus for WotC have grown up in a world that is based on the internet, in which smart technologies are the norm, and something new is coming out every year. Who knows, in 20 years we might be talking about DM apps for your home robot.

Gods forfend...but I fear, if we don't destroy ourselves first, this might be true.

It isn't all fluffy and wonderful, though, like some 1950s vision of the future in which all our problems are solved and we live in a high-tech utopia.

I didn't say "it" was. I was saying there is a distinct difference in cultural "now" and expectation than there was when we started. I'm still waiting for the flying car! The Jetsons told me I'd have that...and I'm PISSED I don't yet. Though I think the car folding up into the briefcase is riiiight about here. lol.

Many think that's still possible, and in a way that's the underlying assumption held by tech companies. But there is a shadow side of which we're just starting to see signs of - anything from reduced attention spans to obfuscated imagination processes to a decrease in real human interaction. This Onion article comes to mind.

Oh, absolutely! you want to get started on the the whole "I'm OCD! I'm ADHD!" nonsense. Guess what? The entire world existed for centuries and centuries, millenia even, without you losing focus...and you didn't 30 years ago! SWACK! "PAY ATTENTION!" No medication needed. I doubt I could write much more without jeopardizing the whole "no talking about modern world/events" thing.

Returning to D&D, if we remember, one of the things 4E tried to do was appeal to the World of Warcraft and anime crowds and, by and large, it didn't work. It mainly just pissed off us old-timers who want our elves to have whites in their eyes and don't think PCs that have a breath weapon or a demon rapist for a father aren't the kewlest thing evar.

No argument here. Spot on.

If D&D tries to compete with computer games it will lose.

Tell the designers that think computer games are the "kewlest thing evar!" They don't want to believe us.

Its a completely different cognitive activity.

My point exactly. 5e can not win! It can't satisfy the "us" of 30 years ago and the "them" of the late 90's+ . WotC must pick ONE and aim for that. THEN, maybe then, it can succeed.

D&D is based on the imagination,

A-F--IN-MEN! The designers would do well to remember...or at least acknowledge that.

on generating imagery and evoking real human inner experience, while video games fill the mind with external, simulated images. They're almost exact opposites.

Ayup! Again, no argument here. but, I suppose, part of my point is, does the generation who grew up on video games HAVE the capacity to notice or appreciate that anymore? I certainly HOPE so. But I cannot say.

But it does sound like WotC wants to diversify the brand name of D&D to different areas, and I think that's a good idea and, in a way, can keep the tabletop game "pure" of such elements, or at least keep them to augmentation only and not replacement (in other words, virtual tools and apps that augment the theater of mind rather than replace it, like a video game does).

I have a feeling which may be more of a hope, that at some point people are going to long for the "real" experience of human imagination.

I certainly share this hope, but I am afraid that worldly concerns will win out.

And I hope that D&D is alive and well - and still a tabletop RPG - when that happens, to serve these "imaginal immigrants." I know that I, for one, as an "imaginal native," don't want my theater of mind replaced with pre-digested and generated imagery. I want my imagination to survive and thrive.

It will be, Mercurius. It will be until "we" all die off. "We" will create new OSR games. "We" will instruct others in the "way it was." "We" will be on forums stating the "yay" or "naye" of D&D 17.5 After that...gods help D&D and the rpg industry. But rest assured, it shall outlive us both.

I'm sorry if I rambled all over the place - I'm a bit distracted as I write this as my wife keeps hinting that I need to get in the kitchen and help with dinner! But hopefully I got some ideas across.

My apologies to you [and everyone reading this] if I rambled at all. The vino is kicking in. It's practically Spain where I live...there's no such thing as an empty glass. lol. I hope I've been equally eloquent and not at all offensive to anyone. ;P

 

[Sage Genesis]

Except that the 4e "tieflings" while a core PC race had only a passing resemblance to the classic D&D tieflings of 2e and 3.x, since the 4e ones were homogenous in appearance and only descended from devils, rather than any type of fiends, and exclusively of human mortal stock, which wasn't the case in 2e/3e. It's just a staggering disconnect between the 2e/3e tieflings and the 4e version.

Not quite accurate, as 4e tieflings aren't the result of a sexual union between mortals and fiends of some sort, but rather they're the (cursed) descendants of a human kingdom whose nobility struck a deal with an undefined group of "dark powers".

Not that this detracts from your argument or anything. Just making it a bit more complete.