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

[payn]

4e had a huge following when it first came out. The general community leaped to the new-and-shiny.

That said following largely evaporated down to a small hard core of devotees over the next few years doesn't discount this gotta-have-the-newest phenomenon.

The same thing happened when 5e came out, only (somehow!) 5e managed to maintain its initial following and even add to it over the subsequent years.

Sorry to say homie; sometimes new hotness lives up to the hype.

 

[Lanefan]

Your preferred version of D&D sucks.
His preferred version of D&D sucks.
My preferred version of D&D sucks.
Her preferred version of D&D sucks.
Their preferred version of D&D sucks.
All our preferred versions of D&D suck.

Every version of D&D sucks.

Put that to some metal-ish music and play it at GenCon = instant smash hit!

 

[Lanefan]

I have never shown up to a game (even in 1e) with more than one character.

The question is, how long did that one character last and did you then have to churn through several more before one "took hold" and stuck around a while.

I would ask what makes this funnel thing good game design, but that's probably a conversation for another space.

As Ezekiel noted upthread, the "funnel" process tries to concatenate that churn-through-several-characters phase into one adventure. To him, that's good design because it takes a long process he doesn't like and makes it a short process he doesn't like; which is fair enough.

What isn't noted, however, is that DCCRPG remains considerably more lethal than 5e even after the funnel process is completed.

 

[Lanefan]

No. We actually didn't. The notion of "Core 3" was a 3e invention. In 2e and especially 1e, ALL books were core. Unearthed Arcana was just as much of a core book as the Player's Handbook and you were expected to be using it if you were playing "True" AD&D.

Unearthed Arcana maybe, but the later books - Oriental Adventures and the two Survival Guides - were (at least IME and from what I recall of Dragon in the day) largely seen as optional.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We saw UA as a collection of optional rules, and I’m pretty sure it was presented as optional.

But that was 1st edition - all rules were optional.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sorry to say homie; sometimes new hotness lives up to the hype.

There is a lot of versatility with 5e - not weighted down by 3.x, more polished than 2e, less in-your-face gamey than 4e, easy to tinker with, lots of 3pp compatible content, and with the ability to inject or use mechanics from other play styles, particularly with the half-baked Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws.
As much as it can frustrate me at times...it is still very hot!

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And to show that not all change is bad, the 3e Sorcerer is an example of a very good change. It added something without subtracting something else, and what it added was quite worthwhile and fit in well with what was already there.

Some other similar experimental additional classes haven't worked out so well over the editions, and that's also to be expected.

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.

It would be an interesting thought exercise, to be sure, and my guess is it would result in a considerably shorter class list.

 

[KYRON45]

The question is, how long did that one character last and did you then have to churn through several more before one "took hold" and stuck around a while.

As Ezekiel noted upthread, the "funnel" process tries to concatenate that churn-through-several-characters phase into one adventure. To him, that's good design because it takes a long process he doesn't like and makes it a short process he doesn't like; which is fair enough.

What isn't noted, however, is that DCCRPG remains considerably more lethal than 5e even after the funnel process is completed.

This would depend wildly on what stupid decisions were made when by each character.
The value of any given game shouldn't be how long does your character last. At least I don't think so. Is that the way the game is designed to run or is that the way the DM decides to run it?

I wouldn't join a game where characters were subject to the meat grinder philosophy. I've never had to deal with that kind of DM/game/thought process. I guess i just don't understand what any of you are talking about. That's ok.

I still don't get how any of this is pertinent to the OP. To me kill a bunch of characters until you get to the right one doesn't seem like progress at all. If anything to me this seems like it has little to do with game design and mostly everything to do with play style.
I seem to be in the minority on the matter though so....carry on and have fun the way you know how.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We saw UA as a collection of optional rules, and I’m pretty sure it was presented as optional.

But that was 1st edition - all rules were optional.

Except for time-keeping records.

 

[Lanefan]

This would depend wildly on what stupid decisions were made when by each character.
The value of any given game shouldn't be how long does your character last. At least I don't think so. Is that the way the game is designed to run or is that the way the DM decides to run it?

Both. The game is designed how it's designed and then the DM runs it more or less close to that design depending on a bunch of factors.

I wouldn't join a game where characters were subject to the meat grinder philosophy. I've never had to deal with that kind of DM/game/thought process. I guess i just don't understand what any of you are talking about.

When did you start playing? I ask because that can make a huge difference to one's perspective; if you got in during 4e or 5e you'll be used to a much lower level of lethality that someone who either a) got in before about 1986 or b) played lots of low-level 3e.

I still don't get how any of this is pertinent to the OP. To me kill a bunch of characters until you get to the right one doesn't seem like progress at all. If anything to me this seems like it has little to do with game design and mostly everything to do with play style.

It's directly pertinent to the OP because one of the slow-but-steady changes over the WotC editions has been an overall reduction in character lethality and-or other seriously negative outcomes. Some people like this trend; others don't, and try their best to push back against it. The latter group would, by the parameters of the OP, be accused of conservatism.