WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[UngainlyTitan]

I feel you. I get tired too. I took a long break from DMing recently because it was making me angry, actually. But I can't believe that I'm the only one left who wants depth and worldbuilding in D&D.

I suspect that there are a lot of DMs that was depth and world building but many of them want to, do their own world building and those that want to import world building have found a third party source.
You are not going to get world building from WoTC ever again. It is market splitting and they are too big tent to want that.
Canon is divisive, it becomes a barrier to entry of newbies and is off putting to people that do not like the lore.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Canon is divisive, it becomes a barrier to entry of newbies and is off putting to people that do not like the lore.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but I'm pretty sure that the success of the MCU disproves this theory.

Also with Star Wars, they ditched the EU, which arguably did lower the barrier for entry, but since then Disney have woven up a web of canon that's almost as complex as the old EU, just massively more consistent, and guided by Disney and their strategies, not guided by "How Lucas was feeling about the book that landed on his desk that day".

WotC may believe canon is off-putting, but I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that they're wrong, if they do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect that there are a lot of DMs that was depth and world building but many of them want to, do their own world building and those that want to import world building have found a third party source.
You are not going to get world building from WoTC ever again. It is market splitting and they are too big tent to want that.
Canon is divisive, it becomes a barrier to entry of newbies and is off putting to people that do not like the lore.

As much as I love old D&D's lore, you're right: I have plenty, and WotC's not going to make more that I like. What they can do, however, is support worldbuilding as a creative tool and fun way to engage in the hobby. An update to the 2e Worldbuilder's Guidebook wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Azzy]

At a time, or cycling them in and out (i.e. play one for an adventure, flip it for another for the next adventure, etc.)?

Either. As I prefer more narrative play, splitting my roleplaying between multiple characters or switching between multiple characters would be particularly jarring.

In 1e characters are simple enough that I can usually handle running two at once;

For me it's not about the rules being simple or complex.

and often prefer to do this if I can 'cause I know all too well that I'm probably gonna kill one of 'em off in no time, and having the second means I can still play.

I had a different play experience in 1e—death wasn't inevitable and didn't occur nearly as frequently as it seems to have for you.

I found in 3e running two side-along became bloody difficult after about 6th-8th level as they got more and more complex.

Hell, running one character in 3e became too difficult and complex after a certain levels (said as someone that played two characters that managed to epic level).

 

[Azzy]

It did survive; it was just quickly joined by other styles. You folks are acting like 1e style play just died decades ago.

You either missed or ignored the qualifier (that of not surviving as being the default style) that I put in my sentence and that I also said that it is (as in present tense) perfectly good for many people. Perhaps you should reread what I actually wrote and not be so fast to assume I'm making a slight to your preferred playstyle.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

To, err...get back on topic, somewhat... Twitter is now banning links to competing social media platforms and link aggregation sites.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

To, err...get back on topic, somewhat... Twitter is now banning links to competing social media platforms and link aggregation sites.

Saw that earlier. A few content creators I follow are moving away from Twitter almost entirely now as a result.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It did survive; it was just quickly joined by other styles. You folks are acting like 1e style play just died decades ago.

To be fair, and keep things in context, when I was responding to Lanefan I was responding to a poster who was claiming that my preferred style of game must be fought tooth and nail, that the line must be held against its adoption lest the game and the hobby be destroyed.

So, yeah, the pushback on that narrative may be a little harsher than you like, but when the first part of the discussion is framed as it was, that's how it can quickly turn.

 

[Faolyn]

If someone starts a thread in the 5e forum, and doesn't want any thoughts that don't relate directly to WotC's take on the game, perhaps they should say so.

I think it's more, there's a time and a place for every comment. Saying "the books 5e puts out suck and I don't want to buy them" doesn't add anything to most conversations and is mostly just serves to be a downer and make people defensive.

Saying "I think that instead of doing X, 5e should have done A, B, or C" and then fleshing out what you mean by that, does add to the conversations. Like (for Ravenloft again), instead of saying "I hate that they have these new domains that use the names of the old domains," say "here's how I would have had the story progress for Dementlieu."

 

[seebs]

So, WotC needs someone who will update the D&D rulebooks to explicitly prohibit references to other games from being made during D&D games unless someone is paying for the advertising. That'll work.