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

[TiQuinn]

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.

I wouldn't take too much of anything written about 2e in the Complete Handbooks as gospel, with the reason being that they were often contradictory, not well edited from the standpoint of where they fit holistically with the rest of the rules, and often had a lot of passive terminology about what one "could" do with the options. The Combat Rules, for instance, are entirely optional. Equipment were optional rules. I think one of the only parts of the Fighter's Handbook that is not optional is that it says you have to use Proficiencies if you're going to use the Fighter's Handbook.

When looking at the actual adventures for 2e, they would occasionally refer to the Complete Handbooks, but none of them assumed their usage that I recall. Again, this all goes back to the corporate mandate of backwards compatibility. It's not that Zeb Cook didn't want to use some of these as "core" rules, they were expressly not allowed to.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not without going back in time and finding all the 3PP sites and rule systems I've looked at for the past 6-8 years... I didn't really keep track of it and at this point I see no point in continuing what I imagine will be a futile search.

That's not what I'm asking you to do.

Every once in a while someone will post about something that I haven't heard of, and I'll check it out, and then move on. For example, I know a lot of people like C&C, Shadowdark, Kobold Press stuff, etc. and I've never found any of it that works for me. Don't get me wrong, some of it has a good thing here or there or something I'll yonk for my own stuff, but I am talking "as a whole" I am not happy with it.

Other 3PP stuff players have brought to me (from where? no clue.) which I reviewed before I would use (which was hardly never) was always OP for my taste, and sometimes ridiculously so. Of course, much of 2024 is OP for my taste, so that should give you a good baseline to judge from.

Anyway, so I still review new 3PP stuff from time to time, take what (if anything) I like from it, but never feel comfortable adopting it completely.

Ok, I'm now understanding that you have had no interest in 3PP systems like Shadowdark, C&C, Tales of the Valiant, etc.
And I'm reading that you are not wanting any 3PP player-facing options like classes, species, spells, etc.
Personally, I am the same way - although my situation is that I just don't have the time or inclination to deal with either of those categories right now.

But back to you: What about 3PP DM-facing tools like monsters, items, traps, etc?
For example, when I DM, I'll use the KP's Tome of Beasts right along side the WotC MM and Keith Amman's books for advise on monster tactics.
Is that something you won't do? Is that also part of the 3PP "it" you're "never comfortable adopting"?

 

[Shardstone]

I think a lot of people say that they know that their feelings and tastes are just that, but that these people often believe their feelings and tastes are objectively correct.

So I think people who aren't catered to by WotC anymore actually think that WotC is releasing low quality work and going downhill because they are not getting catered too.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think a lot of people say that they know that their feelings and tastes are just that, but that these people often believe their feelings and tastes are objectively correct.

So I think people who aren't catered to by WotC anymore actually think that WotC is releasing low quality work and going downhill because they are not getting catered too.

This leaves no room for criticism except by those who put up with the flaws. It's useful to know what preferences are in play, but someone who dislikes a system can still identify problems with it to allow those who like a system to improve it.

 

[AlViking]

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? I think there are a lot of us out there, but most have moved on because WotC ignored us. If WotC devoted a division to supporting prior editions and making new material for those editions, I think they would find the hobby grow even more. But, as you say, perhaps they've looked into it and just found the cost wouldn't be effective and allow the 3PP to fight over the scraps of prior editions...


I have for myself. I expect the game I am running now (5E) will be my last D&D campaign, at least for a while. Unless I get lucky enough to find people willing to play AD&D, I'm just out of luck. While I can live with 5E, it isn't my preference and playing it is like dieting 100% of the time. I'm surviving, and nourished, but it just doesn't taste as good as AD&D.

Of course, I realize much of that is the "longing for better days" of nostalgia, etc. Someday I might play AD&D again and not care for it--find it lacking, who knows?

Otherwise, there is the 5E alternative @DND_Reborn, @Smythe the Bard, and myself have been developing (albeit slowly) for a couple years now. Someday hopefully we'll finish it and it will be what I'll play moving forward. Time will tell.

There's plenty of reasons for them to not publish alternative rules. Diluting the brand with official product is a main one, it could cause a lot of confusion with people not knowing what to buy. That and it could dilute the brand in ways that third party products would not. Those third parties can take a lot of risks. There's also no guarantee they make any profit at all. They have access to sales data, they know how well having basic and advanced worked for TSR. Last but not least there people who will refuse to buy anything from WOTC.

It's too bad when things don't work for you but going for the mass market is what they do.

 

[payn]

This leaves no room for criticism except by those who put up with the flaws. It's useful to know what preferences are in play, but someone who dislikes a system can still identify problems with it to allow those who like a system to improve it.

If its proportional. absolutely. Problem there is a whole lot of, "darkness in dungeons is not as effective as it ought to be, therefore, capitalism has failed" type criticisms.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Preemptive statement: being exhausted by continuous complaining is perfectly reasonable, regardless of whether the complaining is reasonable/unreasonable, productive/unproductive, whether the complainers have reasonable other choices or not, and anything else. Negative emotions are exhausting.

That said, it is also important to realize that coming to this place is self-selecting towards this. This is the internet, social media specifically, a forum specifically, and tightly subject-matter-focused. This self-selects for people that want to spend more time thinking and discussing a thing than the time they spend playing it. It is going to end up being quite a bit of time discussing what each of us are disappointed in, or would do differently.

Exhausting? Yes.

Baffling? No.

People have an emotional attachment to their hobby. Well, fans do at any case. Nothing surprising about them resisting changes to what they loved.

The only surprising thing for me is that so much of the forum* is focused on the twin teeth-gnashers of what-the-most-recent-changes-got-wrong and perpetual frustrations like caster-martial imbalance, edition wars, etc.; and so little of it focused on homebrew, house rules, and 'how-would-you-fix-_______' inquiries. I've been online since the early 90s and people certainly weren't content with the game they got at any other specific year either, but I distinctly remember more trying-to-solve discussions back in the day.
*and other places like reddit, etc.

On the subject of conservatism, there are still ongoing arguments (some quite bitter) about whether ascending rather than descending AC is a crime against nature. I strongly suspect the same people have strong opinions about which end of a hard-boiled egg should be opened first.

Or the byte order of data?

It's especially weird to say this while also saying that you don't understand the point of retroclones. Retroclones were designed specifically because the old stuff wasn't available, and people who didn't have them handy in good shape had a hard time getting their hands on them. Arguably now that's no longer true, but in the meantime, the retroclones got pretty well established, and most of them are better organized, better written, or fix a few issues that nobody much ever really liked back in the day. Most people who are playing old-style D&D (apparently) prefer playing retroclones rather than the old games.

In my experience, it depends. Firstly on if you are distinguishing retroclones from OSR games based on the old rules but with serious deviation. There are plenty of OSR games like Beyond the Wall and Other Stories or Worlds Without Number that just plain do something differently than the TSR-era A/D&Ds they are based on. I'm clearly going to play those when I want those things they bring to the table. For pure retroclones (almost exclusively re-writes of same ruleset), I generally only use those over reprints of original games only if they do something conveniently different. For example, I think having a level 1-3 intro set and then follow-up was brilliant for the D&D brand, but I'd rather not have B/X split into the B and X booklets when actually being used. Likewise I find reading Gygax's prose to be important in understanding AD&D, if I am to actually play it, I would rather use OSRIC than trying to hunt through the original DMG for the rule I know is somewhere.

The inside cover ads in the Player's Options line of products listed only the PHB and Character Record Sheet packs as being Fundamental for a Player. The DMG, MM, and DM Screen were the only Fundamental DM products, which generally aligns with how my group approached the game back then.

Beyond anything actually printed in the books, BitD there was a basic issue of availability. Various books were off the store shelves after a certain point, and unless your FLGS* had a used bin, you might not be able to get The Complete Aardvark's Handbook if you spent your fun money on Beagles and Cheetahs of the Realms that summer**. IIRC only the PHB, DMG, and either Monstrous Compendium or Monster Manual were in continuous print for all of 2e. Thus, regardless of either game group intent or what the publisher stated, each game group was going to have a different total ruleset.
*if you shopped at one, instead of Woolworths or Walden or whatever.
*or on Vampire: the Masquerade books, or on Magic: the Gathering cards. The 90s were a hard time for collector completionists without infinite funds.

 

[ezo]

Ok, I'm now understanding that you have had no interest in 3PP systems like Shadowdark, C&C, Tales of the Valiant, etc.
And I'm reading that you are not wanting any 3PP player-facing options like classes, species, spells, etc.
Personally, I am the same way - although my situation is that I just don't have the time or inclination to deal with either of those categories right now.

I simply find most player-facing 3PP material to be unbalanced, OP, etc. and more in line with 2024 design than base 2014 for 5E.

As for anything 3PP which is a retro-clone, I have no need for it--I will play the old version of D&D.

But back to you: What about 3PP DM-facing tools like monsters, items, traps, etc?
For example, when I DM, I'll use the KP's Tome of Beasts right along side the WotC MM and Keith Amman's books for advise on monster tactics.
Is that something you won't do? Is that also part of the 3PP "it" you're "never comfortable adopting"?

I just don't need them. I am happy with about 150 core creatures, frankly, and might add up to 50 creatures for one campaign or another which would vary.

Take something like the starspawn (?) and sorrow sworn (?). I've never liked either of these types of creatures thematically so I don't use them. I don't need advice on monster tactics as I've been DMing for decades and run things how I already think monsters should be run according to their lore, biology, intelligence, etc.

Take the Monster Advice books, for example. Much of the stuff I've seen is pretty basic at one end or completely whacky at the other end. I'm not say either of those are bad, especially for a newer DM who can benefit from advice, or one who likes "whacky" and enjoys the playstyle that creates. I just know it isn't for me. I either don't need it or don't want it.

Something I am always on the look out for is a simplified 5E, but anyone who works on something like that is often told "Just use the SRD" or something. I don't see those two things as the same, personally, but I understand it is difficult to nail down the differences. Complexity does not lend to imagination IME, so for stuff like weapon masteries in 2024 it is a needless added level of "stuff" to heap on PCs which already have too many things going on for them IMO.

I've mentioned this as an example before: the AD&D (1E) Fighter. I played dozens of fighters over the decades of AD&D in the 80's and 90's, prior to 2E kits, etc. Each one felt very different from all the rest despite the class being the same in each case. The role the fighter had, the weapons and specialization, later the non-weapon proficienies, and of course the race all made for very different play experiences despite the class not changing one bit. There was an elegance to its simplicity which I can appreciate, but for someone (now) raised on 5E, I can justifiably see where it might seem "lack-luster".

There's plenty of reasons for them to not publish alternative rules. Diluting the brand with official product is a main one, it could cause a lot of confusion with people not knowing what to buy. That and it could dilute the brand in ways that third party products would not. Those third parties can take a lot of risks. There's also no guarantee they make any profit at all. They have access to sales data, they know how well having basic and advanced worked for TSR. Last but not least there people who will refuse to buy anything from WOTC.

It's too bad when things don't work for you but going for the mass market is what they do.

Oh, I know. I am more curious to see how close their research is to saying, "Hey, D&D is the brand, not 5E" and how having smaller departments devoted to creating content for prior editions could be profitable or not.

On a personal level I am more disappointed with 2024 and the direction WotC continues to take 5E than it not catering to prior editions. I haven't bought anything from WotC in a few years at least because of that. But I keep reviewing new content when it comes out, and if anything does work for me then I'll get it.

 

[Shardstone]

This leaves no room for criticism except by those who put up with the flaws. It's useful to know what preferences are in play, but someone who dislikes a system can still identify problems with it to allow those who like a system to improve it.

You made a strange read of my comment.

I'm saying that a lot of people feel this way, not everyone, and not the majority. I'm also not saying anything about criticism or being able to critique. I've obviously critiqued 2014 and 2024 editions up and down this forum.

Don't try to deconstruct my statement. I said what I meant. A lot of people confuse their tastes with being objectively correct.

 

[Incenjucar]

You made a strange read of my comment.

I'm saying that a lot of people feel this way, not everyone, and not the majority. I'm also not saying anything about criticism or being able to critique. I've obviously critiqued 2014 and 2024 editions up and down this forum.

Don't try to deconstruct my statement. I said what I meant. A lot of people confuse their tastes with being objectively correct.

I'm not sure how else to read your second paragraph as-written. Did you mean to imply "some" instead of "all" without actually stating "some"? Darned natural language.