D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

Indeed. Just because something is cited by people engaged in edition warring doesn't mean it's source - or its purpose - is edition warring.

If an edition warrior mentioned in passing that it was sunny outside, no, that would not be edition warring. However, the edition war did produce a whole lexicon of loaded terminology, on-message talking points, twisted logic, and an overall narrative that were quite unique to it, used only by edition warriors, and had no other purpose than edition warring.

I've just wrapped up a seven-month campaign of 4E Essentials with a group of long-time D&D players who never read forums, have never heard of 'edition wars', and in some cases don't even know who Wizards of the Coast are. If I solicited opinions about their experience, I'd hear a variety of things, most of them positive. But if some of those comments mirrored remarks made about 4E by edition warriors, would that invalidate them?

If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars. For instance, no one who had played through a 4e campaign and hadn't ever glimpsed the rhetoric of the edition wars would mention "dissociated mechanics," or classes being samey or homogenized - both because the wording is unique to the conflict, and because the phenomena they describe do not actually exist. OTOH, someone who had tried early 4e, but not been exposed to the edition war, might remark that solo battles tended to drag on and become less interesting at lower levels. He just wouldn't pop off with 'padded sumo.'

I am NOT attacking 4E! Talking about how 4E wasn't a success, or fizzled, is not attacking it.

The the edition-war circular argument that it 'failed' because lots of people hated it, and clearly, lots of people must have hated it because it failed, is attacking it (and rather clumsily).

I'm an edition pacifist!

You can start living up to that claim any time. Just stop shooting.

 

[prosfilaes]

If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars.

So there's literally no evidence that could exist that you would accept as establishing these thing as valid complaints. Hmm.

classes being samey or homogenized

It is stunning to me that you can talk about how D&D4 classes are so much easier to learn because they're built on the same structure and then imagine that it's merely edition warrior talk to say they're samey. They're the same thing, merely perceived from a different direction.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So there's literally no evidence that could exist that you would accept as establishing these thing as valid complaints. Hmm.



It is stunning to me that you can talk about how D&D4 classes are so much easier to learn because they're built on the same structure and then imagine that it's merely edition warrior talk to say they're samey. They're the same thing, merely perceived from a different direction.

They're built similarly, but they are very different in play. It's basically a statement shrouded in ignorance, or missing the point(4E isn't a game about strategic resource management). In comparison, classes in AD&D/3.x/5E are often built very differently, but are far more samey in play compared to 4E classes.

 

[Jester David]

If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars.

The problem with this is that is dismisses anyone who might have independently come to the same conclusion.
More than one person came to the forums and said "4e doesn't feel like D&D". They weren't all lurkers waiting to release their staggered critique.
You can't just not listen to someone because they're voicing a complaint similar to something said by a troll.

The the edition-war circular argument that it 'failed' because lots of people hated it, and clearly, lots of people must have hated it because it failed, is attacking it (and rather clumsily).

At this point it's really more factual.
It's not format warring to point out that Blu-Ray won over HD-DVD, nor is it a critique of the quality of one over the other.
4e ended after a short five-year run marked by division in the fanbase. And water is wet.

 

[pogre]

They’d rather sit in the air conditioning and watch TV and play video games.

It’s just a different society we’re in now.

...not a lot of people in this day and age are willing to make that kind of commitment...

I am having a weird deja vu moment. So, I'm taking a break from breaking down film from our opening opponent (I'm a HS football coach) and begin reading this thread. Folks are talking about why young people are not playing D&D. The quotes above are from an article I read the other day from coaches trying to explain why young folks are not playing high school football.

No real analysis here, just wanted to share the coincidence. Time & commitment are major themes in both this thread and the articles I've read. 'This generation wants instant gratification' seems to be a major theme in both too.

BTW - our team numbers are way up - American H.S. Football is doing fine. I also never struggle to find students who want to play D&D - kids still really enjoy the game.

Go Bulldogs!

 

[prosfilaes]

It's basically a statement shrouded in ignorance, or missing the point

I get it; if someone has an opinion about 4E that's negative, it's ignorant or missing the point.

In comparison, classes in AD&D/3.x/5E are often built very differently, but are far more samey in play compared to 4E classes.

See, that's not a statement shrouded in ignorance or missing the point; that's an argument made despite the fact it would not convince anyone, made merely for its rhetorical value.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I get it; if someone has an opinion about 4E that's negative, it's ignorant or missing the point.

A knee-jerk emotional response is usually ignorant or missing the point. If you had a valid complaint there would be more to it. 4E classes do not play the same, any 4E veteran could tell you that, and there is more differentiation within the deep 4E classes like Fighter, Wizard, and Clerics that two characters of one of those classes can easily play more differently than two individual classes in another edition.

Your opinion is certainly your opinion, but opinions can be uninformed/misinformed.

See, that's not a statement shrouded in ignorance or missing the point; that's an argument made despite the fact it would not convince anyone, made merely for its rhetorical value.

Spells are spells. No matter who is casting them it plays mostly the same. Same with basic melee and ranged attacks.

 

[BryonD]

A knee-jerk emotional response is usually ignorant or missing the point. If you had a valid complaint there would be more to it. 4E classes do not play the same, any 4E veteran could tell you that, and there is more differentiation within the deep 4E classes like Fighter, Wizard, and Clerics that two characters of one of those classes can easily play more differently than two individual classes in another edition.

Your opinion is certainly your opinion, but opinions can be uninformed/misinformed.

There really isn't much point is actually refighting the battles of the edition wars. They are simply history now.

It is certainly true that there are differences to be found within 4E classes. But it is also a valid point that elements such as "the math works" tended to create a completely reasonable perception of sameness *when compared to* other prior or co-existing alternative games.

To simply declare this fairly common observation to be universally invalid seems a bit on the emotional, knee-jerk side.

Regardless, in the end, perception is reality and your opinion seems inadequately informed with regard to the perceptions of others and the hows and why of those view points.

 

[BryonD]

The the edition-war circular argument that it 'failed' because lots of people hated it, and clearly, lots of people must have hated it because it failed, is attacking it (and rather clumsily).

A lot of other people strongly preferred other games.
It failed.

These two things appear connected.

This is *NOT* circular.

 

[Haffrung]

If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars. For instance, no one who had played through a 4e campaign and hadn't ever glimpsed the rhetoric of the edition wars would mention "dissociated mechanics," or classes being samey or homogenized - both because the wording is unique to the conflict, and because the phenomena they describe do not actually exist. OTOH, someone who had tried early 4e, but not been exposed to the edition war, might remark that solo battles tended to drag on and become less interesting at lower levels. He just wouldn't pop off with 'padded sumo.'

I doubt someone would use the term 'disassociated mechanics' on their own. But sorry, it is a real thing. A long-time player of mine puts it more in terms of "the powers are cool and everything, but I prefer just to say what my characters does in the game world, and not be looking at my character sheet all the time to decide what to do."