D&D General Why is tradition (in D&D) important to you? [+]

[Lanefan]

Unnecessary.. for what? That word doesn't really mean anything except in reference to some goal.

You, personally didn't need it? Okay, then it wasn't necessary for your needs. Cool.

But maybe for other purposes, it was necessary.

Had WotC not wanted to enhance their bottom line with new-core-release sales boosts, would 3.5 and-or 4e have seen the light of day as soon as they did, if ever?

It's an open question, as speculation in hindsight always is, but I very much doubt it.

 

[Hussar]

Had WotC not wanted to enhance their bottom line with new-core-release sales boosts, would 3.5 and-or 4e have seen the light of day as soon as they did, if ever?

It's an open question, as speculation in hindsight always is, but I very much doubt it.

But, that's true of every edition. 2e was developed because AD&D sales were in the toilet. 3.5 was always planned, although it came out earlier than expected, simply because of the market.

There's a very, very good reason we haven't gotten a 6e yet and it has nothing to do with how good the ruleset is and everything to do with the fact that it's still selling. No one ever makes a new edition of any game for any other reason than bottom line.

This idea that we "used" to get new editions as a way to make the game better, but, now it's just cash grab is simply not true.

 

[Hussar]

Except they didn't do that.

The idea that WotC in 2007 was insulting long-time fans and their preferences is just not what happened. I remember cranky fans claiming that was the thrust of WotC's marketing for 4E, but it just wasn't so . . . just overly sensitive fans upset that the new D&D was different from the old D&D, and that the company behind it dared to say, "Hey, we think this new D&D is the best ever! You should give it a try!"

D&D 4E changed too much, too quickly, and was ultimately an error on WotC's part. It was reasonable for fans not happy with the changes to be upset that their favorite game was changing in ways they didn't like. But it was unreasonable for those fans to claim that WotC was somehow insulting or disrespecting them with their marketing, or even the game itself.

Sure, there was some of that, but, let's be honest here, WotC didn't do itself any favors. And, once things started heating up and they still kept engaging with fans, it just spiraled way out of control.

There's a reason WotC never directly engages with fans anymore. I remember when WotC folks used to post here fairly regularly. And they got absolutely hounded. After a certain point, they could have said rain was wet and people would lose their poop that they were insulting fans somehow.

The miracle of 5e is how much they've managed to control the conversation. No more dev blogs. No more forum posting. Everything 100% scripted and managed. And it's worked. They've regained all that lost good will from the 4e days. It really is spectacular to watch.

 

[Zardnaar]

Editions generally hit diminishing returns with time. A few were cash grabs (3.5, 4E, arguably 1E).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't remember if the term they used for 3.x was "garbage" or "crap" or something very similar;

Should they have lied instead?

With all the supplement bloat, 3.5e was a mess at that point.

 

[Oofta]

Except they didn't do that.

The idea that WotC in 2007 was insulting long-time fans and their preferences is just not what happened. I remember cranky fans claiming that was the thrust of WotC's marketing for 4E, but it just wasn't so . . . just overly sensitive fans upset that the new D&D was different from the old D&D, and that the company behind it dared to say, "Hey, we think this new D&D is the best ever! You should give it a try!"

D&D 4E changed too much, too quickly, and was ultimately an error on WotC's part. It was reasonable for fans not happy with the changes to be upset that their favorite game was changing in ways they didn't like. But it was unreasonable for those fans to claim that WotC was somehow insulting or disrespecting them with their marketing, or even the game itself.

They changed a lot of fundamental things and made it into a different game with similar labels. Whether that new game was good or not is not particularly relevant, to a lot of people it didn't feel like D&D in the same way that every other game has. If it had been released as it's own separate game (and given a little more development time) I think it could have been reasonably successful.

There was more than just one issue.

This relates back to the topic in that you can call that "look and feel" of D&D tradition if you want. However to me it was the difference between creating a new game with a lot of similarities to D&D that has new structure and creating a new edition that evolved and refined the game. My first 5E PC was an homage to one of my first PCs from back in my 1E days. The new PC, a dual wielding dwarven rogue, was the grandson of that old PC. While things obviously worked a lot different, in play the new PC felt much the same. The beats and rhythms were the same even if I always wanted to roll high, my new PC was a rogue instead of a thief and I did sneak attacks instead of backstabs. I took a half-hearted stab at doing the same thing in 4E and just couldn't make it work and gave up.

So to me tradition includes that ephemeral look and feel of the game that's hard to put a finger on. It's just one of those things that you know when you see it.

 

[HammerMan]

On top of that, sorry, but contrary to 4e, which tried to be extremely innovative and pander to the new generations raised on MMO (and failed so much that as a result, the older concept of PF briefly took the lead as the most successful RPG), 5e has cast back to the origins of the game, so there is serious lack of evidence that in 5e, control has been seized by any younger generation.

4e was the best selling version of D&D before 5e, and PF only was a close second until the last few months of 4e's wind down... please don't rewrite history.

 

[payn]

The game aside, there was definitely a bit of arrogance from the 4E WOTC team. It felt very much like, "What are you going to do? Play something else?". Which certainly wasn't how 5E was handled.

 

[Umbran]

Should they have lied instead?

Mod Note:
Folks (not just CL here, but everybody) can we please try to keep the discussion constructive?

If you are going to stoop to trash talk and insults, just don't bother.

 

[TwoSix]

Should they have lied instead?

With all the supplement bloat, 3.5e was a mess at that point.

Ironically, though, late era 3.5 is much more interesting and balanced than PHB era 3.5. It's the core classes of 3.5 (wizard, cleric, druid) that are the real problem with 3.5 balance.