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

[ezo]

I'm saying some people believe their emotions are true to objective reality, and those people will argue that because the game is no longer appealing to their emotions that the game must therefore be getting worse.

To those people... it is [getting worse]. That is their "objective reality". We all know from Star Wars, it depends on your point of view.

You'll never hear me argue that the hobby isn't growing, or sales aren't up, or that many people like the new art, or whatever. Others might say those things, but I won't. What I will say (repeatedly LOL!) is that I don't care for the direction WotC is taking D&D, don't like the new art, etc. For me, if I was somehow forced to play 2024 I would definitely say the game has gotten worse. Fortunately, that can't happen.

 

[Shardstone]

To those people... it is [getting worse]. That is their "objective reality". We all know from Star Wars, it depends on your point of view.

You'll never hear me argue that the hobby isn't growing, or sales aren't up, or that many people like the new art, or whatever. Others might say those things, but I won't. What I will say (repeatedly LOL!) is that I don't care for the direction WotC is taking D&D, don't like the new art, etc. For me, if I was somehow forced to play 2024 I would definitely say the game has gotten worse. Fortunately, that can't happen.

I guess the issue is one of language. It has gotten worse for you because it isn't to your tastes. We typically use the worse both subjectively for situations like this, and also objectively, and they have two different meanings. But people sometimes conflate these meanings, with the latter objective meaning taking on a gestalt ur-truth to it for the speaker. It is this situation I'm critical of.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

Some people disagree with WotC's direction. Some create content favoring their preferences. You may agree with some of these creators and appreciate their work. Some of these creators will have taken directions that you don't like. No creator may take the direction you want.
It is a crazy world.

 

[Shardstone]

Some people disagree with WotC's direction. Some create content favoring their preferences. You may agree with some of these creators and appreciate their work. Some of these creators will have taken directions that you don't like. No creator may take the direction you want.
It is a crazy world.

It just ain't right.

 

[Umbran]

We typically use the worse both subjectively for situations like this, and also objectively, and they have two different meanings. But people sometimes conflate these meanings, with the latter objective meaning taking on a gestalt ur-truth to it for the speaker. It is this situation I'm critical of.

There is a known human psychological phenomenon, in which staking a claim is an act of social positioning, and backing down implies loss of social status.

"That is worse," can have two meanings: "That is worse for me", and "that is objectively worse". In speaking without differentiating, we set ourselves up so that admitting to the subjective meaning is backing down - and thus a loss.

And we don't like to lose.

 

[Incenjucar]

There are some variations regarding deviation from an established standard or goal, which is typically what happens when people are seeking to be objective. As with preference it's rare to label and identify our reference points sufficiently, and a bit exhausting to do so - especially when reference points become an attack point by others.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway; they could very easily BOTH be happening concurrently. WotC hasn't been catering to my tastes in decades, and I also believe that in just the last few years, their work is lower quality and going downhill. And it's probably also not coincidental, although it's possible that it is, that that's also when their notorious bad behavior started making headlines. Lower quality and bad behavior are both indicative the similar problems and it's not shocking to see them correlated.

Lack of catering to my tastes, on the other hand, is just common business sense. My tastes have always diverged from what is apparently the D&D standard, and I've noticed that since way back in the early 80s.

 

[CleverNickName]

Woah. 300+ comments in 48 hours? I didn't think I was going to be this late to the party but here goes nothing.

In the context of Dungeons & Dragons, change is always going to be good or bad, depending on the observer. So without conflating it into some kind of thesis on Society Writ Large: I tend to favor change over stasis. I don't want to play the same version of D&D, with the same people, in the same way, over and over for the rest of my life. I want D&D to evolve, grow, and thrive, I want it to be remade over and over again to reflect the trends and attitudes of society and popular culture, I want it to be a vehicle for new relationships and new memories.

As far as I'm concerned, "new stuff" means "more stuff," which means "more choices" when it comes to customizing our games. No matter what WotC decides to change in the future, we don't have to use it if we don't want it. If they switch to Biblical units of measurement, start referring to dragons as "spicy bois," and lock the whole game behind a paywall, we can politely decline and use the Creative Commons instead.

So bring on the New Hotness. I'll decide if it's better than my Old and Busted.

Side point: everything in D&D--absolutely everything, new or old--can be added, removed, or retooled to our liking. All it takes is a conversation with our players or our DMs. Sure, agreement isn't always guaranteed, but that's human relationships for ya.

 

[AlViking]

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway; they could very easily BOTH be happening concurrently. WotC hasn't been catering to my tastes in decades, and I also believe that in just the last few years, their work is lower quality and going downhill. And it's probably also not coincidental, although it's possible that it is, that that's also when their notorious bad behavior started making headlines. Lower quality and bad behavior are both indicative the similar problems and it's not shocking to see them correlated.

Lack of catering to my tastes, on the other hand, is just common business sense. My tastes have always diverged from what is apparently the D&D standard, and I've noticed that since way back in the early 80s.

But your judgment of quality is also subjective and one I happen to disagree with. I also think any mistake they make is a case of either never being forgiven for something they reversed or something we wouldn't even hear about if it were another company.

There are several things I wish they had done differently, actions I wish they had not taken. It just seems that some people hold them to an impossible "never make a mistake or follow common business practices ".

 

[Desdichado]

But your judgment of quality is also subjective and one I happen to disagree with.

Not entirely, if sales of recent releases are compared to sales of past releases. It's not exactly secret that Spelljammer and Radiant Citadel didn't sell as well as Strahd or Tasha's. It's not even a secret that the 5.5 core books aren't selling as well as Strahd or Tasha's, although there's always folks who will say that we can't know that because book sales don't matter anymore, yadda yadda yadda.

And sure, sales are an oblique measurement of quality, not a direct one, but it certainly is something that can be measured.