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

[TiQuinn]

Yup. My preferred game for decades was 1e/2e, and I still like a lot of what was done then over anything official since.

Dude. Does every single response from you have to be a stake in the damn ground about how much you haven't liked anything from WotC ever? Like, we get it. We've heard it.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I think massive layoffs have been the cause of the drop in book quality. I don’t think they are trying to accelerate their output. ( It might seem like it as the smaller number of creatives each has to do more work.)

 

[Hussar]

why is D&D so incredibly complex?

Youd think by the 8th (?) iteration the some designers might have stumbled upon simplicity.

Why?

It's not like complexity is necessarily a bad thing. It is what it is. After all, there are a ton of RPG's out there that are far, far less complex than D&D. Literally thousands. But, people like the complexity. There's nothing inherently good or bad about complexity or simplicity.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

why is D&D so incredibly complex?

Youd think by the 8th (?) iteration the some designers might have stumbled upon simplicity.

We are technically playing the 8th iteration of advanced dungeons and dragons. They had a simpler line, BECMI, and abandoned it decades ago.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure they'd have found a way that most of the customers think is appropriate, because I am not sure there IS a way that most customers would have thought appropriate. We are not a unified bunch, if you haven't noticed.

Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Certainly the way they did choose hasn't received huge acclaim from what I can tell.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except, most of the time, it really isn't.

1e - 2e wasn't exactly a "seismic" shift. Nor was 3e to 3.5. Yup, 2e to 3e and then 3.5 to 4e, those were big shifts. But, then, back to 5e and then 2024. Over ten years now of pretty much no change. Does anyone think that 2024 is a "seismic" shift? Figure that 2024 lasts another ten years and we've had about a two thirds of the history of the game without any major rules changes.

Every .5 e had its own griping and grousing, too. 4e fans don't all agree on if Essentials was a good idea or not. Lots of people think parts of 2014 are better than parts of 2024 (and lots of people don't think 2024 went far enough!). Not everybody thought Skills & Powers was a good addition, or liked the new classes in 1e's Unearthed Arcana. Because people get protective of the way that they play, and none of these changes were clearly "better" than what came before in all cases.

And, in part, the reason is that even these changes prioritized certain audiences above others. The resistance to change is born, in part, out of this sense that the new thing is not necessarily better than the old thing for the way I'm playing (much as I imagine some 4e fans feel about 5e!).

D&D's also in this odd position where the rules ARE the product, and so if you want to sell more product, you need more rules, and rules changes, and new core books, and new onboarding ramps, because that's mostly what you're selling: rules. This incentivizes change without much of a need beyond "the need to sell more rulebooks," which has maybe been the animating force behind every .5e out there, if not every whole edition switch, too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dude. Does every single response from you have to be a stake in the damn ground about how much you haven't liked anything from WotC ever? Like, we get it. We've heard it.

I liked quite a bit about 3e and pre-Tasha's 5e. After all, Level Up is based on it. I was agreeing with you about 2e.

 

[Aldarc]

Note: I DO NOT MEAN POLITICAL CONSERVATISM. This is not a thread about politics.

I mean "conservatism" as in resistance to change. You see it all the time -- people complaining about the new art or aesthetics, literally saying things like "if they used the old art I would be in." It is so mind boggling to me.

D&D is a living game. OF COURSE the new books etc are going to adapt to the new market. If you literally won't play a newer version because tieflings or whatever, then it isn't for you. Don't demand it regress to the era you discovered D&D because that is what makes you feel good; play the version you discovered.

I don't liek every artistic or design choice either, but it isn't up to me to demand D&D coddle my unchanging preferences. If I want to re-experience BECMI (the edition I grew up with) I can just play that. And so can you.

/rant

IMHO, the conservatism also applies to things like what classes exist in the game. The Sorcerer in 3e existed primarily as a non-Vancian alternative to the Wizard. The Warlock in 3e likewise existed mostly as an alternative casting system. They were both designed mechanics-first. A number of classes seem to exist primarily for purposes of "TRADTION!" and backwards compatibility. There are likewise a number of D&D 5e heartbreakers that seem to keep these classes for the sake of familiarity.

It would be nice if the raison d'etre of existing classes in D&D were properly reevaluated and readjusted without that aforementioned sense of conservatism.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

(mini rant)
Sadly, the feature of the leading tabletop RPG is in the hands of a toy company that seems to be making many action figures and dolls that children DON'T want. That the future of the RPG is not relying on the strength of its merits but on the weakness of toy sales in general. A special kind of torture.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Given the 50th year anniversary, it was also a bit darned if you do, darned if you don't.

If they did something with core rules, folks would call it a money grab/treadmill. If they didn't, it'd have been called disrespectful of the history and anniversary.

If they didn't do anything, there would be some spicy shareholder meetings as well.