D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[Quickleaf]

This is it, exactly. Emphasis mine.

The edition war was really a proxy for irreconcilable play-style differences. I honestly don't a see resolution other than creating two different game lines to appeal to the different styles.

I'd say you almost need a game line designed around a 1e/3e simulationist style that focuses on classic OSR style elements of strategic resource management, and "combat as war", but that cleans up and streamlines the rules bloat of 3e. Call it "D&D Classic".

Then you have a second game line designed around the 2e/4e paradigm where the focus is not on dungeon crawls, but on story-driven narratives, and set piece tactical combats. Call it "D&D Tactics".

Where it makes sense, try to standardize elements across the two versions like in monster design, so that players and DMs who want to, can borrow elements from the other product line with a minimum of house ruling to make it work.

This is what I would do with D&D instead of trying to make a compromise edition that no one wants. Give each camp what they want.

I see this view expressed quite frequently on ENWorld, and I think it's missing something.

There are a whole lot of gamers who don't readily identify into "D&D Classic" or "D&D Tactics", and just want a well-rounded game of D&D that encourages, challenges, and rewards both. Actually, I'd argue that there are already editions that aches it appeal to one of those camps or another, and so the role of D&D editions (or whatever they're called) going forward should be to aim for that large category of gamer who cares more about getting together with their friends, rolling some dice, and making a fool of themselves than they do about strategic resource management or set piece tactical combats.

It's easy as veteran gamers with entrenched views to lose sight of the many gamers who don't have a strong opinion about this "play style divide". Claiming that there are irreconcilable playstyles assumes that there is a majority of gamers who even see this as a something, let alone something to be reconciled or not.

 

[dmgorgon]

I see this view expressed quite frequently on ENWorld, and I think it's missing something.

There are a whole lot of gamers who don't readily identify into "D&D Classic" or "D&D Tactics", and just want a well-rounded game of D&D that encourages, challenges, and rewards both. Actually, I'd argue that there are already editions that aches it appeal to one of those camps or another, and so the role of D&D editions (or whatever they're called) going forward should be to aim for that large category of gamer who cares more about getting together with their friends, rolling some dice, and making a fool of themselves than they do about strategic resource management or set piece tactical combats.

The category of "5e gamer" will be born with 5th edition regardless. It will be interesting to hear their opinion on previous editions. No doubt it will be shaped by their experience with 5th edition and the assumptions made by the designers.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it has become a shouting match because people feel like their voice is falling on deaf ears.

I understand that accounts for some of it.

But shouting at EN Worlders doesn't get you squat. We don't have input into the design process beyond our own responses to surveys. Nor is shouting at each other likely to change anyone's mind. Once you shout, you kill any chance of actually communicating.

Sure, we both should expect that.

Note how this interplays with the first point.

DoaM is a decent example. One option on one class in a playtest document, right? There was no credible evidence that DoaM was gong to become de rigueur through the game - the overwhelming majority of classes didn't have DoaM. No credible evidence that the options you might like would not generally be available. Agreed?

This means no reason to think folks weren't listening. If what you say above is the whole story, then DoaM should not have been a major issue. But, it was.

Thus, there is another issue at hand other than feeling that folks don't listen.

 

[herrozerro]

DoaM is a decent example. One option on one class in a playtest document, right? There was no credible evidence that DoaM was gong to become de rigueur through the game

Technically I think it was a fighting style that the ranger and paladin could pick up as well IIRC.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Am I missing something here, or just spelling out the bleedingly obvious? What, if anything, can be done about it? Or should it?

My solution has been to 1) put several overly-hysterical posters on my ignore list, and to 2) ignore all the repetitive flamey threads.

...So yeah, I haven't been reading or posting on ENworld much lately. :/

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's easy as veteran gamers with entrenched views to lose sight of the many gamers who don't have a strong opinion about this "play style divide". Claiming that there are irreconcilable playstyles assumes that there is a majority of gamers who even see this as a something, let alone something to be reconciled or not.

As an addendum, there are a group of D&Ders (and would-be D&Ders) who don't fall into into the 'D&D Classics' or the 'D&D Tactics' category, because they like some things from both. And sometimes they like things from other games that D&D has never had. (Or wish D&D didn't have something that it's always had.) [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] comes to mind.

And that's because any two categories that one might split D&D into are incredibly artificial. It's like asking a bunch of people what their favorite color is, and then trying to put each person into one of only two categories based on their preference.

So, insofar as D&D is a spiritual entity worthy of our concern, the best thing for D&D would for every edition to occupy a different part of the rainbow. That way, there'd be an edition for everyone, even if only a fraction of D&Ders are playing the current edition at any one time.

But that's already true, so no loss!

 

[GSHamster]

I think that Next has taken deliberate pains to avoid introducing anything new that is controversial. The two major Next innovations (advantage, bounded accuracy) are generally popular with the whole playerbase.

I haven't seen any new Next mechanic that is polarizing. Anything that looked like it could be polarizing got dropped from the playtest.

So if Next does not have new controversial elements, the only controversial elements will come from the previous editions.

 

[Obryn]

My solution has been to 1) put several overly-hysterical posters on my ignore list, and to 2) ignore all the repetitive flamey threads.

...So yeah, I haven't been reading or posting on ENworld much lately. :/

I just returned from an LOA of about 5 months or so, myself.

 

[Umbran]

Then you have a second game line designed around the 2e/4e paradigm where the focus is not on dungeon crawls, but on story-driven narratives, and set piece tactical combats. Call it "D&D Tactics".

You are focusing on story-driven narratives... and you call it "D&D Tactics"?

 

[Iosue]

5e has long been a battleground for proxy edition wars, used by both sides. How many threads since the playtested started, both here and elsewhere, have degenerated into out and out edition wars between 3.x and 4e?

But I agree with Obryn that it's been a bit different of late. A small number of posters with obvious axes to grind against 4e have been vociferously objecting to the slightest whiff of 4e in 5e.