D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[I'm A Banana]

All I'm saying is: let D&D change, and play the version of the game you prefer.

People are doing that, though. The OSR is a wildly inventive space. Pathfinder's still chugging along last I heard. I bet if they OGL'd or CC'd the 4e rules, folks would jump on that immediately (heck, I might be one of 'em, there's a lot of interesting stuff to do with that fork of the game).

People are also commenting on the current version of the game, because there's value in that, too. Debate is, for the most part, a sign of a healthy and engaged community. Connect Four doesn't have this kind of power!

So, like, why shut down discussion? Are the critics getting to you? Do you have community fatigue?

 

[Lanefan]

It’s been 50 years. Of course the game is going to change. Of course new players are going to have a different playstyle. To deny that and insist that everyone must play the old, correct way is gatekeeping.

Some games never change, or change so slowly it's nearly un-noticable. When's the last time chess saw a major rules revision? Or Monopoly?

And, not all gatekeeping is bad.

 

[Lanefan]

DM's Guild has most if not all of the old D&D stuff at good prices, some (Most?) Of it can be had print on demand. I just bout Volo's Guide to Waterdeep in POD, very happy with the price, quality and time to get it in my hand.

The bigger issue for a few of us is that (unless something has changed recently and I missed it, always possible) the TSR editions haven't been cleared under the OGL yet. Technically all the OSR clone-games are end-running it by using the 3e OGL (or the 5e version), which has always seemed a bit iffy to me.

 

[Scribe]

Some people really value art. I prefer the old art myself, but the words (from any edition) matter a lot more.

If Shadowdark was just another 5e/TotV/LevelUp/pretty much every other 'modern' release in terms of tone and style, I would not even have cracked it open.

Just something to consider.

Also, my Nth night of OT was a success, and I'm about ready to wrap up another project. Maybe this time I wont pick up 2 more to replace it and I can actually work on my own Shadowdark material?!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Some games never change, or change so slowly it's nearly un-noticable. When's the last time chess saw a major rules revision? Or Monopoly?

Chess is a relatively simple game. Most people agree on the rules of Chess and play it the same way. D&D is not a simple game and people have never agreed on how to play it. There are several official versions of D&D that are not compatible with each other. D&D regularly gets expansions to lore and rules and has done so throughout its 50 year history.

And, not all gatekeeping is bad.

It almost always is. Who decided you were the steward of D&D that determines which playstyles are “correct” and which are “badwrongfun”? D&D has had a huge diversity of playstyles for as long as it has existed.

And your attitude of “the youth that don’t understand how the game is meant to be played are ruining the game” is definitely the bad type of gatekeeping.

 

[Hussar]

The part that I always find funny with the notion of "change for changes sake" and whatnot is the notion that somehow the first swing of the bat is the best one. I mean, good grief, there are very, very good reasons for most of the changes D&D has undergone over the years and those reasons have been illustrated by the bazillion play hours that gamers have devoted to the game.

Why don't we have weapon vs armor tables anymore? Because weapon vs armor rules are clunky, hard to use and were largely ignored by gamers in actual play. Why reduce the impact of species on character creation? Because it was found that that single thing you decided at the beginning of playing a character probably shouldn't impact virtually every thing you do for the next thousand hours of game play. That tying specific stat bonuses (or penalties) to races simply meant that either those numbers got ignored by tables or those species didn't get playing in combination with those classes.

How many hours of play does D&D see in a given year? Lots. And, no, your table and my table and his or her table over there probably aren't all that different at the end of the day. They are a lot more similar than they are different. So, we aggregate different opinions over time and that's how the game changes.

If you find that the game has changed in a way that you don't like, so many times it's because you were choosing to play the game in a way that other people weren't. Not because they are right and you are wrong. But, simply because your priorities and their priorities are different. And that's perfectly fine. But, to then try to tell everyone else, "No, you are playing the game wrong, you must not make this change because it causes a problem at MY table" is incredibly selfish and short sighted. It's so arrogant to think that just because your table does something, that that's the way the game should be played.

Either convince me of the brilliance of your way of playing or just accept that we play differently and let me enjoy my game without having to defend it over and over and over and over and over and over again. It really is exhausting. I love D&D, but, my tolerance for fandom is becoming less and less as time goes on.

 

[Horwath]

I think there are some pretty solid speculations (and even a little evidence) as to why.

it was rhetorical, we know ti was because of "muh compatibilitah", that will get thrown out of the window with next splatbook.

 

[Tonguez]

Some games never change, or change so slowly it's nearly un-noticable. When's the last time chess saw a major rules revision? Or Monopoly?

And, not all gatekeeping is bad.

Monopoly is now up to version 6 (maybe 5.5)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Monopoly actually went through some pretty big changes in the early 21st century, once the math nerds started to go at it with computer simulations and saw some unintended outcomes in layouts, property values, etc. Things were tweaked to make the game more fun as a result.

(And before anyone objects: If you stop with the free money in Free Parking house rule, and auction off any properties the person landing on it doesn't want to buy -- as per RAW -- it's actually a pretty quick and breezy game.)

 

[Kromanjon]

‘and improved’ is certainly associated with ‘new’, it’s not like anyone intends to make an inferior version of something

Other have already addressed your post here but I would also like to do this by telling you about refrigerators.

Once upon a time buying a refrigerator was a long time purchase. You could get warranty for 15-20 years on a new fridge and they would often last a lot longer than this. I've seen older models as old as 25-30 years still going strong.

Nowadays warranty is seldom longer than 5 years and getting a 10 year warranty will cost extra. Also the new models tend to brake down or need some sort of repair within this span of time.

Why is this?

Well the companies that build and sell refrigerators decided to cut cost on production so they could make more money from each sale. And with a fridge breaking down faster people need to buy new ones more often making the companies even more money.

This is why someone would intend to make an inferior product and why new is not associated with improved.

NOTE: I do in fact know that refrigerators are not roleplaying games.