D&D General The New York Times on D&D

[dave2008]

What bother's me about the article is: why? Why do this article at all. It is covering two sides of an issue almost no D&D players care about (from what I can tell). We had this discussion months ago and it has gone away. Why bring it back up now and gift wrap it as a story about the 2024 game?

I don't agree with a lot of the changes, but the article seemed pretty evenhanded to me. It quoted Kuntz because of his role in the early hobby and in D&D. But it also quoted the guy who invented the X Card and got quite a range of views on the topic. This didn't strike me as favoring one position or the other but as trying to show the conversation being had in the game community over the topic (and seemed to capture it pretty well)

For a hit piece it is far more balanced and even tempered than a good deal of writing by supposed fans. Remarkable that a thoughtful article like this can be denounced simply because it makes some people uncomfortable.

 

[Morrus]

What bother's me about the article is: why? Why do this article at all. It is covering two sides of an issue almost no D&D players care about (from what I can tell). We had this discussion months ago and it has gone away. Why bring it back up now and gift wrap it as a story about the 2024 game?

Mainstream media is usually some way behind specialist media. It's just the way stuff filters through.

 

[Oofta]

Ugh RK has some ... interesting perspectives. Trying to make the change from race to species a huge issue? It makes more sense to me because race, while largely being a social construct with no biological basis, also only really applies to humans. Humans may share many traits with dragonborn but nobody will ever confuse the two as being the same species. That and mentioning that maybe you should talk to your players about what things they want in the game is somehow "legislating from above"? Me? I call it common sense that you want to be sensitive to what other people at the table want out of the game, even if that means that a specific player is not a good fit (something that's only happened to me because a player wanted to play evil PCs, something I don't allow). I'm glad they talk more in depth about what should be discussed in a session 0.

Other thoughts on the article. The "tepid" response to 4E had a lot of reasons but the Big Bang Theory still showed them playing the game. Reading the article though, it's confusing because they talk about the 2024 release as if it replaced the 2008 4E release but then later it becomes clear (I think) that Crawford was talking about the 2014 release that the audience was shrinking because it pushed one style of play. Seems like sloppy editing and confusing because they aren't making it clear if they're talking about 2014 or 2024. The smallest part of the article then talks about why they're changing what they are and a paragraph on benefits of D&D.

Then of course, we again get back to the people complaining about the changes. Personally I'm not sure we needed to balance the playing field as much as they have when it comes to species' traits but it's not a big deal. A small bonus to one stat or another is not ever going to make a tabaxi anything other than a furry human. I'm not sure we can really understand the mind of a completely different species; we always end of playing humans with at most a bit of personality tropes associated to the species thrown into the mix. Maybe there's someone out there that does more, I know I certainly try to think about how things like a lifespan of hundreds of years is going to change things, but for most people they played [insert race] because it gave them the stat bumps they wanted.

So the majority of the article is about people complaining about the changes, with a small part discussing why the changes were made in the middle.

 

[Oofta]

People who are interested in playing will probably not pay much attention to the article.

But it also seems to give an outsized voice to the vocal minority complaining about the changes for those that don't know much about the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Other thoughts on the article. The "tepid" response to 4E had a lot of reasons but the Big Bang Theory still showed them playing the game. Reading the article though, it's confusing because they talk about the 2024 release as if it replaced the 2008 4E release but then later it becomes clear (I think) that Crawford was talking about the 2014 release that the audience was shrinking because it pushed one style of play. Seems like sloppy editing and confusing because they aren't making it clear if they're talking about 2014 or 2024. The smallest part of the article then talks about why they're changing what they are and a paragraph on benefits of D&D.

My initial post was going to be about this until I realized it is dealt with later in the article. I would also agree it is probably editing (whether sloppy or just the writer got boxed into shifting that part of the narrative to another section not sure). But if you read the whole thing it is pretty clear so I decided not to post on it

 

[Bedrockgames]

But it also seems to give an outsized voice to the vocal minority complaining about the changes for those that don't know much about the game.

This is not something I think anyone has true data on. My impression is there is pretty large division over this stuff. I actually thought the article was pretty fair. Normally I would expect it to just reflect the writer's own biases (either a piece showcasing critiques of the changes or a pure defense of the changes). This article basically would give someone who isn't knee deep in the hobby a sense of what arguments have been getting made by both sides of the issue

 

[Bedrockgames]

What bother's me about the article is: why? Why do this article at all. It is covering two sides of an issue almost no D&D players care about (from what I can tell). We had this discussion months ago and it has gone away. Why bring it back up now and gift wrap it as a story about the 2024 game?

I think @Morrus basically got it that the larger media outlets are typically behind the specialized ones and behind things like forum discussions. We may have had these conversations months ago, but it takes a while for that to makes its way to the NYTs

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is not something I think anyone has true data on. My impression is there is pretty large division over this stuff. I actually thought the article was pretty fair. Normally I would expect it to just reflect the writer's own biases (either a piece showcasing critiques of the changes or a pure defense of the changes). This article basically would give someone who isn't knee deep in the hobby a sense of what arguments have been getting made by both sides of the issue

No one I know cares either way.

Those are just words for most people.

As German I think doing away with race is not that bad though.
I mean we had "race laws" in a certain period of time... and I don't want to go into current politics so I leave it at that.

 

[Divine2021]

This is not something I think anyone has true data on. My impression is there is pretty large division over this stuff. I actually thought the article was pretty fair. Normally I would expect it to just reflect the writer's own biases (either a piece showcasing critiques of the changes or a pure defense of the changes). This article basically would give someone who isn't knee deep in the hobby a sense of what arguments have been getting made by both sides of the issue

You’re right—this article isn’t for the type of person who comments on this message board.

 

[Oofta]

This is not something I think anyone has true data on. My impression is there is pretty large division over this stuff. I actually thought the article was pretty fair. Normally I would expect it to just reflect the writer's own biases (either a piece showcasing critiques of the changes or a pure defense of the changes). This article basically would give someone who isn't knee deep in the hobby a sense of what arguments have been getting made by both sides of the issue

I guess we'll never really know the depth of the naysayers, but when the new books sold more than anything else ever has it is an indicator that the 2024 release was well received. Some people didn't upgrade for a variety of reasons, from wanting to finish an existing campaign to not thinking the rule changes justified the cost of new books to not liking the general direction the changes to classes and feats are taking.

So I think the people who reject it because it talks about having a session 0 and discuss basics of how the game will be run or because they changed a label? It's probable that it's a minority.