D&D 5E Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel

[Mercurius]

the problem is that even when I back peddled I immediately got defensive as more people called my fav edition "not real"
that is the message board issue, I read 4 rude replies and 10 non rude ones... I end up grouping them... and sometimes the non rude waring ones get pitched in with the rude...

but again, all I am doing is reacting to how others are acting... one of many complaints I have with the OGL is turning into people telling me that my fav edition "doesn't count as" D&D

Which is hogwash! 4E is real, it is a valid form of D&D - just not one that was embraced by a large segment of the fan-base. It isn't D&D to "them," but it can still be real/count to you.

even this is gasoline on the fire...

I'm sorry 4e wasn't your D&D... but for this guy playing since 1996 it was the best I ever played... and for my best friend who learned how to play in the early 80's (and was the person who taught me to play) it was his fav edition so far as well...

So I wont talk for "a large number" but for me 4e was D&D done right...

This too is hogwash . You immediately jumped to conclusions about what my view of 4E is, when all I was saying was that 4E wasn't well received by many - too many for WotC to feel that they could salvage it. This isn't a criticism of 4E itself; actually, it isn't saying either way what I think of the game as a game.

But or the sake of full disclosure, I will offer a bit of my D&D bio, just so you know that I'm not out to get or invalidate 4E! I started playing in the early 80s and played somewhat regularly up through the early 90s. Then I played erratically, and then not at all in the late 90s, before getting swept up in the excitement about 3E - including reading the old Eric Noah site back in 1999. I played 3E and then a bit of 3.5, but took a hiatus from D&D for about five years. When I heard about 4E coming out I got excited, and started playing in late 2008. I ran a sporadic campaign for a few years and generally enjoyed my experience, although eventually grew tired of some of the "4Eisms" like the AEDU paradigm, reliance on the battlemat, etc. But I did enjoy the game, but was happy when 5E was announced - both because I wanted a more traditional D&D experience, but also because I wanted a living, supported game.

As for Pathfinder, I've never played it. The reason is a combination of it being too complicated for my tastes and a feeling of "been there, done that" with 3.5. I enjoyed the novelty of 4E and like the fresh-but-classic feel of 5E. I suspect that if and when 6E comes out, I'll go with that too because I like to change things up every 5-10 years. But I do buy plenty of Paizo products because they're well-made and a great source of ideas and just fun to read.

So here's the point: I liked 4E. I think it is a fun game. But when I talk about its acceptance by the fan base I'm not talking about what I like or don't like, nor is the popularity (or lack thereof) an indictment of 4E as a game. I think years from now 4E will be viewed as a kind of detour from the D&D tradition--provocative but interesting, even innovative. In some ways it is not unlike when a band tries to remake itself by offering a new sound. Some will adopt, but some will protest, asking for the sound they know and love. Some have described 4E as being like New Coke, which I think works to some degree. I've also described it as being akin to U2's Achtung Baby.

Regardless, I hope that you continue to play the game that you love, regardless of what others say or think - that's the point, no? Now you might find fewer folks wanting to play 4E as the years go by, but I've found that most people are willing to play whatever the DM wants to run. I mean, the DM does most (or all) of the work, so....

In other words, stand tall in your love of 4E! If you build it, they will come...

I support the OGL. It will lead to a better overall game. WotC should never shy away from competition. They want the gaming dollar and to be king again, they should have to work for it. Part of that is staying involved with the community and creating engaging, well designed content.

I agree. The existence of Pathfinder may actually make 5E a better game than it would have been otherwise. Hopefully we'll see another OGL renaissance, like we did in the early Aughties.

But I think there's a clever move here by WotC. Making 5E OGL increases the allure for people to convert to 5E - OSR folks, Pathfinder folks, etc. In other words, the OGL doesn't as much create competition but it potentially funnels people back towards "official" D&D.

But I imagine that Pathfinder will remain popular - they have a very strong core community and at least if or until WotC comes out with more detailed modular options, Pathfinder will remain the game for those who like greater granularity. While Paizo may lose a few people who want a traditional D&D game--but want something simpler and/or want to play "official" D&D--there are a lot of folks out there like myself who don't actually play Pathfinder, but buy Paizo products. It may be that the actual number of Pathfinder campaigns goes down more than their actual sales.

 

[Iosue]

Wow this topic really jumped the rails. I think I am partially to blame for it, so apologies if I got a bit out of hand.

If you ever wonder why the mods might be heavy-handed when it comes to broadsides against any particular edition, this thread is a prime example.

It doesn't matter if it's just one's opinion, or even if one is right; some kinds of comments kill any discussion that came before them. Pretty much the same reason political discussion is banned.

 

[ccooke]

I agree the Alice in Wonderland news was very interesting to me, along with the news that they want some lighter elements to D&D again. AD&D 1e had some fanciful elements to it that were great (including Dungeonland and Land Beyond the Looking Glass). I am tired of D&D always being "Very Serious Business", and welcome some more official support for lighter fair along with the serious stuff.

I have this mental image of Alice blundering through a portal to Sigil.
I suspect it does not end well for her.

On the other hand, if she survived it would make a very interesting story

 

[Celtavian]

If it's not going to drag this topic off too much, what is it you think you should have done differently at the time?

I know I didn't leave ENWorld because of Edition Wars. I left because this site was a D&D site. They didn't seem to support or allow any viewpoint but the D&D viewpoint. I figured why stay at a site that was going in a different direction than you were. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but this site was definitely not friendly to the unhappy. What did they call us at that time? Grognards. Yes. I was called a grognard on this site before I left. This site was the first place I heard the term. Those of us in the grognard camp were made to feel most unwelcome on ENWorld. That was a strange time. Maybe that is why Morrus and the mods kill the fighting faster now. It probably did go on too long. I imagine Morrus was unfairly branded as biased and prejudiced against the grognards by association.

I'm glad to be back at this point. I still consider this the go to D&D site over the WotC boards, which lack effective moderation.

 

[Umbran]

Which is hogwash! 4E is real, it is a valid form of D&D - just not one that was embraced by a large segment of the fan-base.

What constitutes a "large segment"? A majority? Or, do you have a number in mind? Do you know how many people did embrace it, to know the segment that did take it on was "not large"?

This sort of thing is actually a contributing factor in edition warring. Use of vague language that will mean different things to different people, and thoroughly unsupportable by real data. We don't have hard data. We should not speak as if we do.

This too is hogwash . You immediately jumped to conclusions about what my view of 4E is, when all I was saying was that 4E wasn't well received by many - too many for WotC to feel that they could salvage it.

Is this information for which you have a citation, or are you assuming you know the reasons?

We know that a lot of people didn't like 4e. We know that WotC chose to create a new game. But, as they say, correlation does not imply causation. While, if you were forced to bet, this would probably not be the worse bet you could make, it still remains that there could have been other reasons for the change.

I say this for a very simple reason - more important than, "How many people have embraced 4e?" is, "How much more can we do with 4e?" Combine this with the change in strategy with regards to the brand. Was 4e really a good platform upon which to base expansion into other media? 4e was a carefully crafted and balanced game - in that sense, it was perhaps the best constructed game the hobby has ever seen. But the problem with that tight construction, and the expectations that construction brings, is that it is, compared to other approaches, inflexible. That, more than how many folks had picked it up, may well have spelled its demise.

Your version of events is plausible. But so is mine. So, which one is right? You believe yours is. But do you know it, in the verifiable fact, sense? If not, why do you speak as if it is a verifiable fact, instead of a compelling interpretation of data?

But I think there's a clever move here by WotC. Making 5E OGL increases the allure for people to convert to 5E - OSR folks, Pathfinder folks, etc. In other words, the OGL doesn't as much create competition but it potentially funnels people back towards "official" D&D.

But I imagine that Pathfinder will remain popular - they have a very strong core community and at least if or until WotC comes out with more detailed modular options...

And, here you have just missed a major point of going with an open license for 5e. If they have an open license, nobody has to wait for WotC to come out with more detailed modular options. Those could be built by 3rd parties!

 

[Voneth]

"There has been discussion about the overall "brand" strategy for D&D, which Perkins commented on. He mentioned that "...people at Hasbro that never cared about D&D before, care about it now; Hollywood is fighting over it"

I guess old Hollywood never took the bait when the agents said D&D was going to be the new "LOTR" or "Hobbit?"

My thoughts are that thanks to Marvel selling talking raccoons, everyone see the flood gates open. Or maybe JJ Abrams wants to add D&D to his geek resume.

But yeah, Hasbro should have done its about face years ago when they figured out that selling the video game rights was a bone-head move.

 

[Henry]

What constitutes a "large segment"? A majority? Or, do you have a number in mind? Do you know how many people did embrace it, to know the segment that did take it on was "not large"?

This sort of thing is actually a contributing factor in edition warring. Use of vague language that will mean different things to different people, and thoroughly unsupportable by real data. We don't have hard data. We should not speak as if we do...



Your version of events is plausible. But so is mine. So, which one is right? You believe yours is. But do you know it, in the verifiable fact, sense?

No disrespect, but people in the know have been making public statements like this for years:
http://geeknation.com/dungeons_and_dragons_next_interview_mike_mearls/

Nick: There was nearly a decade in between the release of 3rd and 4th edition D&D. Why is D&D moving into its next reiteration so much faster than before?
Mearls: We saw an audience that had been divided by differences in editions and play styles, and wanted to design a version of D&D that all players could experience and enjoy.

That doesn't shout "inflexibility", it kind of murmurs, "a lot of folks didn't like it enough". It's kind of hard to do a lot of quoting from an Ipad, but i've read statements similar to this many times throughout 2012 shortly after the announcement, coupled with Russ' ICV2 diagrams that showed significant drop-off from 2010 onward, until the 3rd quarter of 2014 when the 5e starter set was released. The very same article does talk about issues of "complexity" but the reason Mike gives for the final straw is the divisiveness he felt 4e contributed to (not sole cause, but contributor, note.)

And, here you have just missed a major point of going with an open license for 5e. If they have an open license, nobody has to wait for WotC to come out with more detailed modular options. Those could be built by 3rd parties!

Amen! Preach it! If there is one benefit to the original design intent of the OGL that people cast aside due to tribalism, desire for credit, or any other reason, it is the old-school tradition of sharing with other designers, and each contributing to the betterment of the community. In my day job, I am a dedicated user of open source software, and I hesitate the think how different our world would be without it these past two decades.

 

[Umbran]

Nick: There was nearly a decade in between the release of 3rd and 4th edition D&D. Why is D&D moving into its next reiteration so much faster than before?
Mearls: We saw an audience that had been divided by differences in editions and play styles, and wanted to design a version of D&D that all players could experience and enjoy.

That doesn't shout "inflexibility", it kind of murmurs, "a lot of folks didn't like it enough".

Similarly, no disrespect, but your quote doesn't actually support the assertion. Consider the two statements:

"4e didn't have a large following."

"4e split the audience, and WotC didn't want it split."

These are not equivalent statements. To get to the former from the latter requires either a great deal of extra information, or a leap to the conclusion. In the context of a discussion that includes points about edition warring, this is extremely important. Taking your supposition for The Truth, and then whacking people with it, is not a good idea.

 

[Kaychsea]

Your version of events is plausible. But so is mine. So, which one is right? You believe yours is. But do you know it, in the verifiable fact, sense? If not, why do you speak as if it is a verifiable fact, instead of a compelling interpretation of data?

Closest we have is on this site:http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1984-Top-5-RPGs-Compiled-Charts-2008-Present#.VF_e4YUi_SI
Just gives relative sales, but an interesting profile, absolute figures would be more compelling. It took Pathfinder 4 quarters from launch to tie D&D and another six months to take it off the top until now. From the anecdotal evidence of sales 5e should top the list for Q3, Hasbro's reaction if it doesn't will be very intersting. The real test will be Q1 and 2 next year. You would expect a surge of interest in a new version of D&D, but if that fades back after the release of the DMG and the rump of PF sales puts it back on top then the community is a lot more solid than people think.

Now a year from a standing start to overtake the dominant game in the market is impressive. To stay there for nearly four years throughout the most extensive testing program for it's competitor doesn't show much sign of tail off.

So it didn't take long to become top dog and has stayed there. Without access to actual sales figures it's hard to see the absolute effect, but as a general benchmark it seems to hold. And 4e doesn't come off well.

 

[robconley]

The OGL let things get to a point that without it never could have

I agree that the OGL is what enabled a choice in the first place. What you fail to realize that 1999 WoTC implemented the OGL precisely to prevent a repeat of what happen to D&D under TSR. A lesson that the 2008 WoTC team failed to learn. The fate of D&D is no longer in the hands of the IP holder Wizards of the Coast.

I want to scream everytime I see this... I mean it...
this is madning, here when we are talking about D&D 4e has as much right to be called true D&D as any other edition... it is a role playing game, it is a fantasy setting, and it has all the D&D bells and whistles... it is well balanced and innovative and full of both good and bad ideas. so as long as people out there keep saying it isn't D&D there will be arguments... and this is insane...

What insane is that WoTC as the IP Holder thinking that it was still 1990 and that can do whatever they want to do with D&D without consquences. They may had the right to do whatever they want with the IP, thanks to the OGL the fanbase had the right to continue to support what they like not what Wizards think what they ought to like.

ding... yes for the first time in history... and the worst edition war... gee atleast coralation if not causation

An edition war born by the fact they published a game that was completely different than any previous editions of D&D. Runequest is a roleplaying game, that has a fantasy setting, GURPS is roleplaying game that has fantasy setting, Fantasy Hero, Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium Fantasy, etc. Renaming any of these games D&D doesn't make it D&D. And to compound the issue their marketing mocked the prior editions of D&D insulting every past customer of the game they had.

In my opinion Wizards was damn lucky that the game itself was pretty fun to play and well put together. Otherwise they would had an immediate meltdown of their new edition.

(I speculate causation but realistly there is no way to prove one or the other)
by fuiling nerd rage and cashing in on it... why yes they did...

Well I am sure that John Adams would share your opinion in regards to Thomas Jefferson. It just sucks to have the freedom of choice.

4e was no more different then 3.5 then 3.0 was from 2e...

You are right except what happened is that 4.0 reused the NEW elements that 3.X introduced. 3.X at least can be looked at as a heavily houseruled classic D&D set of rules. 4.0 has no more in common with classic
D&D than Palladium Fantasy does.

Up until 6th level 3.X played pretty much the same as classic D&D, both in what you could do are your character and how long things took like combat. Beyond as the options multiplied the changes in 3.X made for a different came than high level classic D&D. However with 4e it was immediately evident that combat and how long it took to do things was very different. You can see this in combat where you were lucky to be able to complete two combat session in four hours.

I been playing RPGs for 35 years using a wide variety of system. WHen I ran 4e I had to manage things like I did my GURPS campaign not like how I ran classic D&D due to the length of combat. And this is just one example of how 4e was different than the classic games I ran.

I am NOT saying this make 4e a bad game. What I am saying it does make it own game very different than previous editions of D&D. It is those difference that fueled the negative reaction to 4e.

And now we have a example of what happen when the reverse is true in 5e. 5e is a D&D game although it has it own unique mix of mechanic compared to previous editions. It was playtested from the onset using older modules. And by and large the same thing I was doing in AD&D 1st I could do in 5e using about the same amount of time. 5e has a much more positive reception among fans of older editions.

this is what the OGL wrought...

Exactly I am glad for it. Sorry but there is a limit to what IP holder have a right too. D&D exploded in popularity the authors and company profited enormously from it. And in the process of doing so became part of our shared culture. At some point in time it should be up to us to decide how something is treated and supported.

Now under the law we don't have that right for several decades unless the IP Holder is generous and does something about it. Well in 1999 Wizard did do something about it and that was the OGL. Now the fate of D&D is in our hands regardless what Wizards or anybody thinks of the situation.

Everybody free to plunder Shakespeare for whatever reason they see fit, people are also free to present Shakespeare in its original form. We would had to wait until the last 21st century for that right in regards to D&D. But we have it now today under the conditions of the OGL.

Now what sucks is that you don't those rights in regards to 4e. Any fan of 4e is utterly dependent on the good graces of Wizards to maintain availability and/or support of its products. No wonder they are upset. But that is the consequence when you latch onto something that somebody else has control over. If you were not aware of that then, you are certainly aware of it now.

I support the right of companies and individuals to profit exclusively from their creative works for a limited time. But understand everybody stands on the shoulders of those before them. At some point it is the right thing to return the work back to the common pool for other to use as they see fit.

Nobody, I repeat nobody as the right to dictate to other what they may or may not do with something that belongs to all of us. If you don't like it tough, if you don't like the din and clamour, tough that what freedom sounds like.

The legacy of the OGL is
1) Large bloat of a mix of good, bad, awesome, and oh my god awful products that DMs had to wade through

Oh god forbid people have to think for themselves and do a little work before purchasing something. Moreso that argument is especially irrelevant today when anybody reputation only a few google searches away.

2) Companies that instead of innovating (and some of them proved to be much better at that later) just kept making d20 stuff

I am sure Ian Mckellan, Patrick Stewart, Lawerence Oliver, Kenneth Baugh are just lame for just rehashing what some dead english guy did 500 years ago.

3) the worst edition war in the games history

Well if Wizard wasn't so snarky in the initial 4e marketing perhaps people would have less inclined to snark back.

4) Tribalism that may never go away

Tribalism is part of the landscape, the right for people to associate with each other and not to associate with others and have something to say about it without fear of reprisal.

Where there good things...Yes
Where there bad things...Yes
Did the bad out weight the good... In my opinion by a ton.

Yup freedom is the worst thing to have happen except for all the other things that been tried from time to time.