D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Hussar]

Meh. I remember this very differently.

Every innovative idea was immediately shouted down from what I saw.

But at the end of the day it doesn’t make much difference. It’s still a very conservative fandom that has zero interest in changes.

 

[GrimCo]

D&D is kind of like comfort food for a lot of people. It's safe zone, something very familiar. I would dare to say that's one of it's selling points. No matter how much it changes, it has enough of the same to invoke that warm nostalgia feel.

You may be adventurous enough to try white kidneys, but sometimes you just want your mom's homemade chicken soup.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The 2023 playtest.

You are only looking at the end point and not looking at the process.

1. WOTC proposed new ideas.
2. Community supports some of the new ideas
3. 3PPs Integrate new ideas
4. Community realizes that due to new ideas, everything PreTashas that isn't reprinted can't work with new ideas
5. Community demands backwards compatibility
6. New ideas not automatically backwards compatible cancels.

You only are looking at Part 6.

This is why many people think the 2024 books are coming out so late. WOTC was running on the new ideas only for the community to demand complete backwards compatibility of subclasses and classes at the last minute.

This is a bad part of D&D's dominance. You only have Kobold Press there to convert 2014 stuff to the liked parts of Early UA paradigm.

I just think you are putting way too much emphasis on the "backwards compatible" thing. Is it a part of the reason for some people? Of course. Was it the primary or overwhelming reason why not enough people said 'Yes' to the new concepts? Personally, I don't believe so, but so what? In truth it doesn't matter which of us is right, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you believe it was the primary motivator and I don't, that's cool. It doesn't change anything either way.

 

[Reynard]

Appealing to this "silent majority" does nothing. You do understand how polling works right? You ask a bunch of people and then look at the trends in the answers. There isn't this great conspiracy where only a tiny cabal is dominating all the conversation.

When you poll thousands of fans, which we know they do, and get a 70% or better acceptance on something, they can be pretty sure that that thing is what the fandom wants. How do we know this? because so far, WotC has yet to produce a dud in 5e. Some of the books might sell better than others, but, none of them have been a failure.

It would be great if just once you would actually argue my point instead of what you thought my point was.

To put it plainly: WotC relying on whatever small subset of fans respond to surveys to make design decisions is a bad way to design a game, and they would be better off just designing the thing, doing internal playtesting, and then putting it out there like almost every other game, including every previous version of D&D. It's marketing that actually gets in the way of design innovation.

 

[Corinnguard]

o put it plainly: WotC relying on whatever small subset of fans respond to surveys to make design decisions is a bad way to design a game, and they would be better off just designing the thing, doing internal playtesting, and then putting it out there like almost every other game, including every previous version of D&D. It's marketing that actually gets in the way of design innovation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't WoTC doing internal playtesting up until they came out with 4e? 4e was so different from every previous version of D&D that it caused a split in the D&D fanbase and led to the creation of the Pathfinder RPG. It should have been playtested externally.

You are spot on about marketing getting in the way of design innovation. Those who market a product are sometimes out of touch with those who design the product.

 

[Reynard]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't WoTC doing internal playtesting up until they came out with 4e? 4e was so different from every previous version of D&D that it caused a split in the D&D fanbase and led to the creation of the Pathfinder RPG. It should have been playtested externally.

I think this perpetuates the myth that 4E was a complete bomb and failed out of the gate. it was certainly divisive, but I think Pathfinder's success was attributable to a) the quality of Paizo's adventures, but more importantly b) 3.5 was far from "over" among fans. In hindsight, WotC could have stayed with 3.5 for years if they adjusted things like their output rate. But someone somewhere looked at sales and said "time for a new edition!" and then (rightfully) gave the design team freedom to innovate. A lot of those 4E innovations were very good and some even remain with the game or appear in other games.

 

[Remathilis]

I think this perpetuates the myth that 4E was a complete bomb and failed out of the gate. it was certainly divisive, but I think Pathfinder's success was attributable to a) the quality of Paizo's adventures, but more importantly b) 3.5 was far from "over" among fans. In hindsight, WotC could have stayed with 3.5 for years if they adjusted things like their output rate. But someone somewhere looked at sales and said "time for a new edition!" and then (rightfully) gave the design team freedom to innovate. A lot of those 4E innovations were very good and some even remain with the game or appear in other games.

I have thought more on this and this is my own opinion on the matter.

4e tried too much too quickly. In 2008, people were looking for a revision of 3e, and 4e shook up too much in mechanics and lore. Pathfinder promised a game closer to 3e style play, and thus was embraced by the community.

If 5e had come out next and then 4e based on it, I think 4e would have been more successful. But 4e was ahead of it's time and made plays it didn't need to.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It was a lot more than just Buck Rogers. Read Slaying The Dragon. Random House shipped back truckloads of unsold product.

Exactly this. People pine for the days when D&D was sold by a small private company, but they sure don’t miss the incompetence (incomplete rules sets shoved out the door), the venality (let’s make Buck Rogers a thing because the major shareholder owns the IP).

30 years ago, Gary Gygax could get away with some controversial statements. Today, they would tank his company.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The pace is fine. it would be nice if they would actually innovate, though, or at least bring some classic D&D elements to 5E. they could easily fit a Domain Management section in instead of, say, a bunch of random name tables.

Whereas for me, those random name tables are extremely useful, whereas I’m glad that people who want a Domain Management section can get it from 3PP.

 

[Reynard]

Whereas for me, those random name tables are extremely useful, whereas I’m glad that people who want a Domain Management section can get it from 3PP.

Lots of 3PP sell books of random names and stuff, too. Why should WotC "waste" pages on that and not Domain Management?