D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

This.

It's a very strange argument for people to make. Look, we all recognize that not only are there competitors to D&D, there are hundreds of competitors to D&D. In fact, if you include historical games and editions, there are tens of thousands of different games.

Not only that, it is relatively easy to create your own games. I do it all the time! I love creating one-shots, and enjoy running them.

Moreover, the existence of multiple on-line communities means that if you want to play on-line, you have even more options than ever. If you go to the various communities on-line, whether it's the widely-available ones (Roll20 etc.), or the more specialized ones that serve a particular game, or even just looking for various discord communities ... you will be able to find "Not D&D."

That said, we do see the common retort that "But it's hard. A lot of people just want to play D&D." Well, that's true. D&D is the most popular alternative. But it's outright bizarre what people are taking from that; instead of understanding that this popularity with the community at large likely indicates that D&D is doing something right, the response, instead, is that D&D must be doing something wrong because it doesn't appeal to that particular person. In other words, the argument is that D&D must fundamentally change, despite being incredibly popular, because it isn't the game for this individual (or individuals). Which ... okay? Most of the suggestions, IMO, would arguably make D&D less appealing as a mainstream product, because it would force it to appeal to a more niche audience.

I truly want people to get what they want, but this always seems like such a bizarre way to look at it; D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination. IMO, YMMV, etc.

My argument is that D&D has already fundamentally changed, a few times, and I used to like it a lot more than I do now. WotC's versions should have been separate games, because they're not compatible with each other in any meaningful way.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, if you're right, it will likely suffer the fate of 2e. A "revision" that didn't revise enough, and gradually ran into problems.

But we'll see, right? Some people who have played 5e since the beginning are getting bored with it, but then again, there are also new players coming in. In addition, a lot of the "bored" players also branch out into 3PP (such as Level Up) or homebrew.*

Anyway, you will probably accomplish 10,000 times more good by providing your feedback directly to WoTC than you do by commenting here.


*And, of course, some go on to play completely different games, which is healthy to the hobby overall.

Oh I answer the surveys. I have work mandated training videos lined up to play on the background to fill out my survey and ONCE AGAIN state that D&D is focusing too hard on brand new 5e players at the expense of long time 5e players.

Everyday my chances of buying the new core books drops. And my nostalgia goggles need new prescriptions because I am not excited by their retreads of old settings.

Maybe I'm unique. Or maybe I'm ahead of the curve.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the rub ain't it

It's easy to DM alternative games or Houserule D&D in the style you like

It's hard to play alternative games or Houserule D&D in the style you like

But not impossible. I started running WotC 5e, added a large number of houserules over time, switched to Level Up as my base, and now I'm playing in a Level Up game mostly using my houserules being run by a DM who used to be one of my players. It can be done, but it does require patience.

 

[payn]

Oh I answer the surveys. I have work mandated training videos lined up to play on the background to fill out my survey and ONCE AGAIN state that D&D is focusing too hard on brand new 5e players at the expense of long time 5e players.

Everyday my chances of buying the new core books drops. And my nostalgia goggles need new prescriptions because I am not excited by their retreads of old settings.

Maybe I'm unique. Or maybe I'm ahead of the curve.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My argument is that D&D has already fundamentally changed, a few times, and I used to like it a lot more than I do now. WotC's versions should have been separate games, because they're not compatible with each other in any meaningful way.

Well, that's part of the design challenge when you have an established brand, isn't it?

There are a fair number of people who claim that D&D is only successful because it is D&D; that the brand is everything. But a brand, even a successful one, doesn't automatically mean success. When you're designing for something that is well-know and loved, it's also a straightjacket.

You have to ensure that there is some kernel of integrity while also modernizing at the same time. Zeb Cook, famously, wanted to use ascending AC for 2e, but that was vetoed in the name of backwards-compatibility. 5e went back to the traditional "alignment" system, but mostly decoupled the alignment from the mechanics of the game. Issues like iconic spells (such as fireball and magic missile) and lore/mechanics (turning undead and druids with metal armor) always pop up.

In short, there is always a push/pull when you have a brand, and choosing how to both modernize it and stay true to its core; it doesn't matter whether you're designing a new edition of D&D, or making a new Star Trek series.

That you don't like WoTC's D&Ds doesn't mean that they haven't been successful, for what they are doing. Which is okay. There are people that still claim that anything after TOS Star Trek isn't the real thing as well, but that isn't the majority position.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because everyone gets skill proficiencies.
Everyone gets backgrounds
Everyone gets class skills.

A Fighter's History or Deception is the same proficiency as a Wizard's History or a Sorcerer's Deception but lower modifier.
A Fighter's History or Deception might be less proficiency a Rogue's History or a Bard's Deception.

1. There aren't enough skills for this system. Only 18.
2. Skills aren't anyway evenly distributed among Ability scores. Skills are tied to score by default. Strength has one skill that is purely Exploration. Constitution has no skills.
3. PCs get too many skills for the low amount of skills. Overlap is too easy.
4. 5e hands out skills like candy.

Only a "Gentlemen's Agreement" keeps the party having a broad skill array. This makes nonstereotypical or nontraditional PCs weaker or redundant.

5e was designed, accidentally or purposely, to support and incentivize traditional stereotypical PCs with skill choice (and almost every other choice).

1. Acolyte Cleric
2. Criminal Rogue
3. Soldier Fighter
4. Sage Wizard

etc etc

This is an absurd standard.

My very first 5E PC was a fighter/rogue. Worked quite well, even if I didn't specialize in charisma based skills.

Absolutely, almost any combination of the two is a great build.

Because you are. They're still bloody spells.

They objectively are not spells.

Declaring, "Oh, those things which have literally all of the mechanics of spells, including slots and components and known/prepared/etc. and..." is absolutely contrary to the concept of a spell-less ranger, or any other spell-less class. Saying, "Just use spells and close your eyes every time you have to look at a spell block!" is not a solution. It just isn't.

Then you didn’t pay attention to my proposal then nor my comment about it now. The proposed abilities literally did not have any of those features, they just used spells slots as their limiting resource pool.
No components, explicitly not magic,
I mean at least get what I say right when you get all snarky about it.

Missing the point, but whatever. As you say, we'll probably be having this argument in 2025.

Not at all, I just disagree with it, and you refuse to actually accept that people understand your points and think you’re wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh I answer the surveys. I have work mandated training videos lined up to play on the background to fill out my survey and ONCE AGAIN state that D&D is focusing too hard on brand new 5e players at the expense of long time 5e players.

Everyday my chances of buying the new core books drops. And my nostalgia goggles need new prescriptions because I am not excited by their retreads of old settings.

Maybe I'm unique. Or maybe I'm ahead of the curve.

Trust me, you're hardly unique.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Any other rpg is kinda like having a red super car. And no Petrol. Here you get to play sonething else occasionally often a one shot sustained campaign good luck may as well be faeries.

Both my current groups started with 5e - but neither is playing it now. I'm running Apocalypse World for one group and a 4e retroclone for another - and neither would enjoy the other game at all. If you're a DM you can persuade others to try new games.

Again, no it does not. Being successful is far from being a good product.

I'm not joking when I compare 5e to the McDonalds menu. It does what it does very well - which is have a player side experience containing a wide variety of things of which at least something is likely to appeal to each member. I've filtered my groups so those that metaphorically like hot foods are getting Apocalypse World and those that like heavy meat are getting my 4e retroclone - but both can find things to play in 5e/McDonalds even if they aren't terribly impressed by them. While I know that two of my Apocalypse World players would be entirely uninterested in 4e and two of my 4e players would walk half way through the session in Apocalypse World. This is what 5e does well

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, that's part of the design challenge when you have an established brand, isn't it?

There are a fair number of people who claim that D&D is only successful because it is D&D; that the brand is everything. But a brand, even a successful one, doesn't automatically mean success. When you're designing for something that is well-know and loved, it's also a straightjacket.

You have to ensure that there is some kernel of integrity while also modernizing at the same time. Zeb Cook, famously, wanted to use ascending AC for 2e, but that was vetoed in the name of backwards-compatibility. 5e went back to the traditional "alignment" system, but mostly decoupled the alignment from the mechanics of the game. Issues like iconic spells (such as fireball and magic missile) and lore/mechanics (turning undead and druids with metal armor) always pop up.

In short, there is always a push/pull when you have a brand, and choosing how to both modernize it and stay true to its core; it doesn't matter whether you're designing a new edition of D&D, or making a new Star Trek series.

That you don't like WoTC's D&Ds doesn't mean that they haven't been successful, for what they are doing. Which is okay. There are people that still claim that anything after TOS Star Trek isn't the real thing as well, but that isn't the majority position.

I would never argue that 5e isn't successful, but I also place no value on the majority opinion, or on the idea that popularity has anything to do with quality.

 

[payn]

I think folks are behind the curve a bit. Yes, 5E is very popular, more popular for D&D than ever, but its not the sole reason the game is going fundamentally unchanged. WOTC is launching a digital platform, which is a boat rocking itself. This is a measured response at this time about how the future of D&D is going to develop.