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

[The Firebird]

See here’s where I get off the train.

If you want to use older options, just use them. There’s nothing stopping anyone from using any options. You want to use 2014 style racial mods? Knock yourself out. You want to have a ranged fighter in 4e? You absolutely can do that. You want to play a fighter magic user in 3e? You absolutely can.

It’s utterly baffling to me why people freak out about changes to the game. It’s your game. PLay what you want. Why the incessant need to pee in other people’s corn flakes constantly?

But nope. We must resist all changes with the fire of a thousand suns, spending years poisoning any attempt at compromise or live and let live.

It really is exhausting.

There is quite a bit preventing people from using older editions, because network effects are very strong in RPG land. Making lots of these little changes to the current ruleset requires either DMing oneself and presenting the players with an exhaustive list of houserules, or joining as a player and presenting the DM with a very long set of asks. Neither are great options, and doing so as a player will have people questioning if you're a good fit.

As for finding games for 3e or 4e or AD&D or whatever, the player bases for these are going to be much smaller. If you've lived in the same place for a decade, and it's got a large population, it should be fine. But if you're moving around constantly or you live in a rural area, then its going to be harder to meet people. We're not playing solo; building an RPG group takes time.

So for a lot of people, changes made to the flagship product are going to appear in our gaming whether we like it or not. That's a good reason to be concerned about them even if we would much prefer a different game.

 

[ezo]

Either way, though, saying that you refuse to look at 3PPs seems like shooting yourself in the foot (using the generic you; this is more in response to the quote you're responding to than to yours.)

Since I am that person, I'll respond:

I've looked at it. I don't like it. It is OP, unbalanced, not to my taste, or whatever. It is a waste of my time. I won't use it, and I don't allow it in my games 99% of the time (I think I've had two exceptions in the last 8 years for 5E).

 

[DEFCON 1]

The real question, of course, is whether or not WotC is right in their analysis of where the market is.

Only so much as what they are comfortable with.

Even if WotC is potentially misreading the market and that they could make some money on smaller projects from previous editions... if they are happy with what their current product is giving them, then they might not feel the need to take the risk to find out.

But they've done feelers like that before. They did re-prints of the original A-series of modules in a hardcover format in its original AD&D ruleset (released right before 5E) for instance, and they know how that re-release went. And while that's not a perfect indicator of interest... it's not nothing. And if that product didn't even accomplish a cursory glance from the public... there's no reason for WotC to think making "original" material for AD&D would actually do something worthwhile.

And let's not also forget that they also have all the information regarding sales on DMs Guild of previous edition material. If that's not a fairly good indicator of current interest in previous edition products... I don't know what else there would be. And if the audience just isn't there for those edition materials... it doesn't matter if "a few" people might actually want it.

At the end of the day... if there are people out there who want new material published under the rulesets of previous editions... they ought to be buying as many older products from those editions on DMs Guild as they can just to show Wizards of the Coast that there IS a market they are misreading. Because right now... a person can SAY they would buy new 2E material (for example)... but they are by no means proving it.

 

[Desdichado]

See here’s where I get off the train.

If you want to use older options, just use them. There’s nothing stopping anyone from using any options. You want to use 2014 style racial mods? Knock yourself out. You want to have a ranged fighter in 4e? You absolutely can do that. You want to play a fighter magic user in 3e? You absolutely can.

It’s utterly baffling to me why people freak out about changes to the game. It’s your game. PLay what you want. Why the incessant need to pee in other people’s corn flakes constantly?

But nope. We must resist all changes with the fire of a thousand suns, spending years poisoning any attempt at compromise or live and let live.

It really is exhausting.

Why should there be compromise? I'm considerably less interested in compromise as I get older. As you say; there's nothing stopping me from running exactly the game that I want to. And I mean: exactly.

On the other hand, I don't care what anyone else plays, and I certainly don't advocate that anyone outside of my group plays anything like my game. I know that my tastes are esoteric, and I'm OK with that. Part of that is that I'm kinda a weirdo with weird preferences (probably) and part of that is MPAI. Either way, why should I care what anyone else is doing?

Anyway, I totally get the people who are just now finding this out because 5.5 is less of what they wanted than 5.0 was. Most of the rest of us went through that, maybe even multiple times, over the years. The idea that "I have to play the current version of the game even if I like an older one better" combined with "therefore, the current version of the game has to be exactly what I want it to be" seems like a quixotic hill to die on. But dying on that hill seems to be part of the eventual acceptance process, I guess, if past history is any guide.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Since I am that person, I'll respond:

I've looked at it. I don't like it. It is OP, unbalanced, not to my taste, or whatever. It is a waste of my time. I won't use it, and I don't allow it in my games 99% of the time (I think I've had two exceptions in the last 8 years for 5E).

Can you be more specific? You've looked at "it"... what is "it" exactly? I thought you were talking about 3PP that were remakes of older systems (retroclones) or variations on 5e.2024... like here:

But WotC ignores us. If you like 3PP material, you have that. I don't. Most of it is either 1) retro clones or 2) in line with 2024 game design philosophy. I don't need a retro clone--I have the older editions, making retro clones seems (frankly) silly to me. Why reinvent the wheel??

So, it begs the question: How are systems OP? Or are you now talking about player-facing options for... 5e? Something else? Are you reducing all options from all 3PP into a single "it" that you don't like?

Sorry, it's probably a reading comprehension thing on my end, but maybe I'm not the only one having trouble following and clarification might help your point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why should there be compromise? I'm considerably less interested in compromise as I get older. As you say; there's nothing stopping me from running exactly the game that I want to. And I mean: exactly.

On the other hand, I don't care what anyone else plays, and I certainly don't advocate that anyone outside of my group plays anything like my game. I know that my tastes are esoteric, and I'm OK with that. Part of that is that I'm kinda a weirdo with weird preferences (probably) and part of that is MPAI. Either way, why should I care what anyone else is doing?

Anyway, I totally get the people who are just now finding this out because 5.5 is less of what they wanted than 5.0 was. Most of the rest of us went through that, maybe even multiple times, over the years. The idea that "I have to play the current version of the game even if I like an older one better" combined with "therefore, the current version of the game has to be exactly what I want it to be" seems like a quixotic hill to die on. But dying on that hill seems to be part of the eventual acceptance process, I guess, if past history is any guide.

It's just ego. People don't like having to acknowledge they are not the one being catered to.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Can you be more specific? You've looked at "it"... what is "it" exactly? I thought you were talking about 3PP that were remakes of older systems (retroclones) or variations on 5e.2024... like here:

So, it begs the question: How are systems OP? Or are you now talking about player-facing options for... 5e? Something else? Are you reducing all options from all 3PP into a single "it" that you don't like?

Sorry, it's probably a reading comprehension thing on my end, but maybe I'm not the only one having trouble following and clarification might help your point.

I would imagine @ezo just doesn't want to bother with it. Rightly OR wrongly. But that doesn't even matter because they can choose to not use 3PP AND still be saddened that WotC isn't going to produce product they want. But if they've accepted that reality... that's pretty much all that needs to be done.

 

[Aldarc]

Still hurts lol

The wounds never heal, which is why my partner keeps tissues on hand for this scene.

 

[Desdichado]

Since I am that person, I'll respond:

I've looked at it. I don't like it. It is OP, unbalanced, not to my taste, or whatever. It is a waste of my time. I won't use it, and I don't allow it in my games 99% of the time (I think I've had two exceptions in the last 8 years for 5E).

That's kind of absurd for multiple reasons. The first being that a sampling of some 3PP is indicative of all 3PP, the second being that most of the best and most popular 3PP stuff has always been made by literally the same designers who make the official stuff. As a side gig, the both write official products and also write unofficial products.

But yeah, whatever. You don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You can rant even that you want D&D to be exactly what you want it to be. But ultimately, like I said, if you're wrong in where the market is, all you'll do is annoy everyone else who sees it. And then they'll put you on ignore. I tend to prefer to adjust to new reality without all of the ranting, but you're free to do otherwise, of course.

Only so much as what they are comfortable with.

Even if WotC is potentially misreading the market and that they could make some money on smaller projects from previous editions... if they are happy with what their current product is giving them, then they might not feel the need to take the risk to find out.

But they've done feelers like that before. They did re-prints of the original A-series of modules in a hardcover format in its original AD&D ruleset for instance, and they know how that re-release went. And while that's not a perfect indicator of interest... it's not nothing. And if that product didn't even accomplish a cursory glance from the public... there's no reason for WotC to think making "original" material for AD&D would actually do something worthwhile.

And let's not also forget that they also have all the information regarding sales on DMs Guild of previous edition material. If that's not a fairly good indicator of current interest in previous edition products... I don't know what else there would be. And if the audience just isn't there for those edition materials... it doesn't matter if "a few" people might actually want it.

At the end of the day... if there are people out there who want new material published under the rulesets of previous editions... they ought to be buying as many older products from those editions on DMs Guild as they can just to show Wizards of the Coast that there IS a market they are misreading. Because right now... a person can SAY they would buy new 2E material (for example)... but they are by no means proving it.

Yeah, yeah; I'm not talking about reprinting stuff like that. In the context here, we're talking about doing more of what was already proven to be pretty popular; taking older classics like the Saltmarsh modules, or Ravenloft or whatever, and adapting it to 5e, like Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Curse of Strahd. That's a proven successful model. Deviating even more, or abandoning the old stuff altogether, and going a different direction, and then presenting that as if the only alternative is reprinting AD&D stuff is a false binary.

 

[Staffan]

To be fair, none of the other books had been published yet. Again, we're talking about the specific term "Core Rulebooks". That is a term that didn't exist as it's meant now, before the 3e books were published. LIke I said, the Core Rules CD included the Tome of Magic and the Arms and Equipment Guide.

The idea was that if you were playing D&D, anything that wasn't specifically tied to a specific setting - as delineated by the trade dress - was core. Here's the opening lines from the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook:

View attachment 401376
That doesn't really sound like a book that isn't part of the core set of rules. These aren't new rules - these are the rules they would have given you but ran out of space for in the PHB. Also, one should note the coding for these books - PHBR. As in Player's HandBook Reference. I've also seen it referred to as Player's HandBook Rules. Either way, that's not something that isn't part of the Player's Handbook.

The text of the book is unfortunately rather silent on the issue, but the back cover isn't:

Well, here's the issue: if 3PP see a market, make material, and (presumably) make a profit on it, how is it WotC can't see that?

There's a difference between "can make a profit" and "can make enough profit to satisfy Hasbro execs." 3PPs can often produce things Wizards can't, because they have less overhead and don't have shareholders they need to satisfy.