D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Campbell]

Enfranchisement isn’t exclusive to voting rights. It’s about affording rights or privileges (in this case, the privilege of (a) having the sense, and reality, that one’s input consequentially matters and (b) being a part of the userbase, connected by common interest, that is being courted).

For what it's worth I was not upset at all about not being asked what I liked about 4e. It was obvious from the get go the design team did not understand the game they created. Essentials had already shown that to me. The phenomenally bad takes about the game's strengths and 'inventing' Passive Perception did the rest of the convincing. I never expected to be part of the big tent. I have since learned to enjoy the game for what it is good at, but I really never expected to have my tastes tailored to. I knew the social pressure to avoid anything that had a 4e smell was immense.

I think the only thing that really bothered me about the transition was the lack of empathy in our community to 4e fans. I figured after going through the same thing themselves there would at least be a measure of understanding that it sucks to feel you were left behind. Instead the response was pretty much gleeful and nose rubbing.

Because of that community response it took me a long time before I was willing to give 5e a shot. I'm glad I did. I enjoy playing it, but there are still segments of the community that make it hard to be a fan.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Enfranchisement isn’t exclusive to voting rights. It’s about affording rights or privileges (in this case, the privilege of (a) having the sense, and reality, that one’s input consequentially matters and (b) being a part of the userbase, connected by common interest, that is being courted).

Even accepting that definition and usage, I don't see how it applies to 5e not being the game you wanted it to be.

I think the only thing that really bothered me about the transition was the lack of empathy in our community to 4e fans. I figured after going through the same thing themselves there would at least be a measure of understanding that it sucks to feel you were left behind. Instead the response was pretty much gleeful and nose rubbing.

Because of that community response it took me a long time before I was willing to give 5e a shot. I'm glad I did. I enjoy playing it, but there are still segments of the community that make it hard to be a fan.

Yep. The DnD community was the first fan community that really taught me not to trust fan communities. The thing you're describing was also a harsh reminder that the average person is just more...mean, than I expect them to be. Every time I see someone post about how welcoming the dnd community is I roll my eyes.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The survey? Probably not, but I do think that some fans are feeling frustrated by the corporate side of WotC that feels at odds with the fan-friendly face they put on. I don't think it's really about the survey itself, but deeper issues.

Fair enough, insofar as that goes.

That said, anger can be dangerously seductive. It can easily consume a person entirely. I've seen it happen.

Personally, I don't think it's worthwhile getting angry because a corporation is too corporate. That seems to me like getting angry at the rain for being too wet.

They're likely ruining the day of any social media people who work there, while the CEO probably won't even take notice.

People are going to do what they're going to do. I'm certainly not the boss of them. However, it seems to me that if one is looking to direct their anger somewhere, there are more important things going on in the world than a corporation being more corporate than one might prefer.

YMMV

 

[Umbran]

Enfranchisement isn’t exclusive to voting rights. It’s about affording rights or privileges (in this case, the privilege of (a) having the sense, and reality, that one’s input consequentially matters and (b) being a part of the userbase, connected by common interest, that is being courted).

(b) Role-playing gamers are connected by a very broad and vague common genre, but divided in our individual interests in that genre. So, right there, we have an issue. To expect WotC to court and serve all of those interests in a single game is not realistic.

(a) The largest open play-testing effort ever done for a tabletop RPG is not enough enfranchisement? Exactly how much input should one expect to have when the hope is for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people to buy the thing? How much consequence should any one person's input have at that point?

The "rights and privileges" thing is why I was speaking about it like voting. Folks do have some rights to which they are fully entitled, and we all have some stake in defending those actual rights. But, D&D made to their preferences isn't one of them. The creators are individual artists, the company is a private business - none of us is entitled to particular output from either the artists or the business.

So, I find the claim of "disenfranchisement" to be an overstatement.

 

[RealAlHazred]

All this talk just reminds me of the time Ryan Dancey wrote an editorial to complain about gamers of the time playing games other than 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. His point was that it was a tiny industry, and if a company was to succeed it needed every gamer to play its games, and only its games. He stopped short of calling the rest of us "commie mutant pinko traitors," but that was the vibe I got.

 

[Umbran]

Yep. The DnD community was the first fan community that really taught me not to trust fan communities. The thing you're describing was also a harsh reminder that the average person is just more...mean, than I expect them to be. Every time I see someone post about how welcoming the dnd community is I roll my eyes.

Gamers (and indeed, most sub-cultures) often engage in a myth of exceptionalism - that by sharing an interest in some broad sense, that means we are all better people. Gaming does not specifically select for good human beings - we are as mean as humans are in general.

 

[Manbearcat]

Even accepting that definition and usage, I don't see how it applies to 5e not being the game you wanted it to be.

I was responding to Umbran quoting this statement from a Twitter user:


"...They're marketing tools for retaining the old guard. The goal isn't to fix issues with the game or reach new audiences. It's so they can say whatever they release next is "what 98% of real gamers want"

They did the same thing for 5e's release"


I then went on to say:

My take on that one is a bit different. Sort of a collection of all of the above:

* The playtest surveys 100 % funneled an accretion of responses toward "tradition and nostalgia" (in both design and in tropes). It did this via (a) the actual vessel of the funneling itself (the questions/prospective answers themselves and the surveys' "evolution" as time marched on), (b) and via the (not insignificant...I know probably 50 people who stopped responding early on) disenfranchisement of anyone either (i) looking for alternative design/focus or (ii) who weren't keen on aspects of the "tradition and nostalgia" they were funneling toward in their surveys and design (including the OSR elements they were affiliating with).

So...yeah, they absolutely could cynically say "x outrageous majority of respondents LOVED our tradition and nostalgia approach!" That is what happens when you put your thumb on the scale and disenfranchise people who disagree to the point they they exit stage left!


———-

Then I went on to discuss the rest of the situation in my post (it seems you missed it…it’s on the prior page).

But I agree with @Campbell . I wasn’t bent (unlike the frothing, book burning, edition warriors of the 4e era that made the hobby space, virtual and reality life, insufferable…still do in fact!). just checked out when the writing was on the wall.

 

[Umbran]

All this talk just reminds me of the time Ryan Dancey wrote an editorial to complain about gamers of the time playing games other than 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. His point was that it was a tiny industry, and if a company was to succeed it needed every gamer to play its games, and only its games. He stopped short of calling the rest of us "commie mutant pinko traitors," but that was the vibe I got.

I don't recall the piece, but what I said above works both ways - we are not entitled to a product that meets our particular desires, and no company is entitled to our business.

Ultimately, your enfranchisement here is "vote with your wallet".

 

[Mallus]

Enfranchisement isn’t exclusive to voting rights. It’s about affording rights or privileges (in this case, the privilege of (a) having the sense, and reality, that one’s input consequentially matters and (b) being a part of the userbase, connected by common interest, that is being courted).

Is 'disenfranchisement' the right word to describe when a corporation fails to make an entertainment product custom-suited to your needs & interests? Kinda cheapens the more common uses of the term, like when one's voting rights are being threatened.

And I say this as someone holding out hope Hollywood will pay Wes Anderson a boatload of money to remake Barbarella, with a soundtrack full of Stereolab!

 

[Manbearcat]

(b) Role-playing gamers are connected by a very broad and vague common genre, but divided in our individual interests in that genre. So, right there, we have an issue. To expect WotC to court and serve all of those interests in a single game is not realistic.

(a) The largest open play-testing effort ever done for a tabletop RPG is not enough enfranchisement? Exactly how much input should one expect to have when the hope is for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people to buy the thing? How much consequence should any one person's input have at that point?

The "rights and privileges" thing is why I was speaking about it like voting. Folks do have some rights to which they are fully entitled, and we all have some stake in defending those actual rights. But, D&D made to their preferences isn't one of them. The creators are individual artists, the company is a private business - none of us is entitled to particular output from either the artists or the business.

So, I find the claim of "disenfranchisement" to be an overstatement.

This is all well and good…but the point being made that you quoted from the Twitter person was that the playtest was overwhelmingly marketing ploy and engagement with the fanbase (because of the visceral reaction that happened with 4e’s closed playtest and the perceived immunity to fanbase consultation/feedback)…and the surveys we’re thumb on the scales, Texas Shsrpshooter Fallacy…selecting for a very particular sort of opinion. And people saying “OOOOOOOOOK…I see…I’m out” early once they got the gist of what the surveys were actually doing.

The “playtest and surveys” were re-branding and image management. That is what the Twitter person was saying. That is what I was responding to.