D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Micah Sweet]

I'm with you.

Some years ago a book came out claiming that dogs don't actually love us, rather they have just evolved to exhibit behaviors that we anthropomorphize as "love", because those behaviors resulted in us taking care of them.

I thought that was a silly argument for two reasons:
1) If those behaviors really are the result of evolutionary pressure, which I agree is probably the case, it seems to me more likely that dogs would evolve to actually love us, rather than independently evolve all these separate behaviors that are indistinguishable from love.
2) In any event, it's impossible to tell the difference between genuine love and strategic love. So what's the point in trying to make that distinction?

The answer to #2 is, of course, if you have an ulterior motive of pushing a narrative that only humans have emotions.

It feels like there's something similar going on here. In the absence of incriminating emails, how does one distinguish between a desire to deliver a great product to the largest possible audience, and a shameless money grab? You can't. Either way the external evidence is going to be identical. Or, at least, in this case the external evidence is identical. The distinction is entirely a matter of how we choose to interpret the behavior.

And for the life of me I can't understand why anybody would voluntarily choose the cynical, bitter interpretation. Seems like a miserable story to keep telling oneself.

Because you're not getting what you want. If you're not getting what you want, you interpret the behaviors and motivations causing you to not get what you want as negative.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because you're not getting what you want. If you're not getting what you want, you interpret the behaviors and motivations causing you to not get what you want as negative.

I do have to point out that its entirely possible for motivations that are entirely positive to not give you what you want. In fact, I'd argue that no matter how positive the motives on systemic redesign they won't give someone what they want, and will actively detract from it, because contrary to what some people say you really can't get a floor wax and desert topping in one.

This means its not necessary to view what someone is doing through a cynical lens to perceive it likely they won't give you what you want. Frankly the whole D&D design paradigm hasn't given me what I want in onto 40 years now, but I don't perceive that as signs of malign intent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do have to point out that its entirely possible for motivations that are entirely positive to not give you what you want. In fact, I'd argue that no matter how positive the motives on systemic redesign they won't give someone what they want, and will actively detract from it, because contrary to what some people say you really can't get a floor wax and desert topping in one.

This means its not necessary to view what someone is doing through a cynical lens to perceive it likely they won't give you what you want. Frankly the whole D&D design paradigm hasn't given me what I want in onto 40 years now, but I don't perceive that as signs of malign intent.

It's easier to see malign intent if they have been giving you what you want for years and then stop.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because you're not getting what you want. If you're not getting what you want, you interpret the behaviors and motivations causing you to not get what you want as negative.

What flavor “negative”? I’m quick to accuse designers of bad judgment, or of listening to the wrong playtesters, when I don’t get what I want. But I still assume they are trying to make what they think are the best design choices.

“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.”

 

[Micah Sweet]

What flavor “negative”? I’m quick to accuse designers of bad judgment, or of listening to the wrong playtesters, when I don’t get what I want. But I still assume they are trying to make what they think are the best design choices.

“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.”

I'm cool with think of them as incompetent instead.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm cool with think of them as incompetent instead.

It would be much kinder.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm cool with think of them as incompetent instead.

Or what‘s good design just isn’t popular and doesn’t sell well enough so they drop it. Like with 4E. It was amazingly designed. It was just not well received. It’s weird how people confuse “what sells” with “good design.” WotC will put out whatever sells. Doesn’t matter how good or bad the design.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Or what‘s good design just isn’t popular and doesn’t sell well enough so they drop it. Like with 4E. It was amazingly designed. It was just not well received. It’s weird how people confuse “what sells” with “good design.” WotC will put out whatever sells. Doesn’t matter how good or bad the design.

It’s also weird how people often equate “my preference” with “good design.”

Knowhatimsayin’?

 

[Dwarf 007]

I think I'll see dialogues like this:

• "Let's play D&D fifth edition?"
• "Sure! Can I use One D&D rules?"
• "No, just 5e."

Or posts like this:
"LFG 5e to play Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Tuesdays 8-10PM. Updated rules from D&D One only".

Call it different editions or not, the word doesn't matter, but the impact of the changes. That's what I meant.

Online gaming with easy access to "current rules including changes", will be much more problematic for those wishing to run D&D 5.0 instead; but in person gaming with access to real printed copies, will be out of WOTC's control....forever.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I remember there being a divide when 2E came out. I think the backwards compatibility and the fact that you often could still buy most of the 1E stuff easily at stores made it a little different. But there was a pretty big gulf stylistically between those two editions and in how they approached things like running the game. I knew lots of groups who wouldn't play 2E after (and I knew a lot of GMs who stuck with basic D&D after 2E came out). Something to keep in mind too that is a little different in that era from now: there were effectively 3 editions available at that time. I don't know when they stopped printing the 1E books, but well into 2E I still remember being able to buy those and I remember players picking them up for inclusion in our 2E game. But there was also stuff like the Mentzer boxed set still widely available in major outlets (it was in book stores, toy stores etc) and there was the D&D rules cyclopedia. So when I played with a new group, I'd often find myself playing 1E or basic D&D using the rules Cyclopedia (and virtually everyone had the Mentzer boxed set).

Thanks for this confirmation. I was in 8th grade and had only been playing D&D for a few years when 2E was released. I didn't have the same perspective that I did with later edition changes when I was a longtime D&D player, an adult and had an internet connection. 1E-2E was a vastly different world from the WoTC era but as I suspected some divisions have always been with us.