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

[James Gasik]

I think it goes well beyond aesthetics within game books - and often has a political aspect - the endless thread here about the Demon Type 5 looking less "cheesesnake" is an example ... but that's not the part that gals me.

What I find frustrating is the way there's a conservatism about rules, and the way that newer editions seem to have to have these "ghost rules" in them - ideas that mattered to older editions and a different play style but persist, making things more complex in the present for no benefit. As an example... Did you know 5E has encumbrance, torch burn time and surprise rules? They don't come up in the majority of games, and the mechanics are silly (Torches last 60 minutes, a 5E turn is 1 minute) - putting aside that most 5E PC's can see in the dark or 5e location design favors smaller lairs and encounters over large dungeons (for reasons related to rest and combat mechanics - but I digress) - that's 60 exploration turns to burn down a single torch... you don't need to track that.

The 5E torch rule is a hold over from earlier D&D editions which focused more on dungeon crawling and used "10 minute turns" - so 6 "moves" before your torch burned down. Much more worth tracking. 5E as played in most cases doesn't need this kind of rule, and if it did it would need to be adapted to the actual style of play (or at least the length of exploration turns...) but the rule exists because it's inherited and it just floats around the rulebook making spooky noises.

Now if WotC were to remove this rule or similar vestiges of editions past ... I suspect a number of fans would freak out. The problem is that this means new editions of D&D can never really be streamlined or intentional about creating a play style - it's always obscured by a haze of ghost rules to keep old players happy.

Sadly, yes, this is the stuff edition wars are fought over. The game evolves (or mutates, if you prefer) in a new direction, but if you eliminate sacred cows or ghost rules (very nice term, btw), people will instantly claim it no longer feels like the same game.

Sometimes, this can become very ironic, however. Someone I play with, who has been playing D&D since it's first decade of existence, will complain very loudly about how the spell Goodberry makes tracking rations pointless. Which, in truth, tracking rations has been rather pointless for a long time in D&D (I still remember my 3.5 Druid supplying the entire party and their mounts with food daily with nothing but my bloated Survival check- "edible bugs and tubers", went the joke), but it continues to be a thing.

So when he took his turn at running a 5e adventure, his solution was to remove the calorie value of the spell, introducing "diet Goodberries". Which I found amusing because, in order to preserve the "feel" of D&D (in his mind), he did by taking something away from the spell that it's had since first edition AD&D!*

*Possibly longer, I don't know exactly when the spell was added to the game.

It's like the Darkvsion vs. Infravision debate. Lots of things had Infravision in AD&D (heck, Gnomes had Ultravision in 1e!), yet when people see lots of things having Darkvision now, that's a problem- I often hear people say they want to go back to Infravision, "because it has limitations". Thing is, when you point out that turning darkness into dim light is still largely inferior to using torches and the like, they either pretend that's not the case, or if pressed, will say "it's too hard to enforce that penalty"- as if enforcing the penalty of what can/cannot be seen clearly with "heat sight" isn't also a chore.

What it comes down to, really is "I was used to the game running one way, that's the way I prefer, anything else is unwelcome". What's really amusing is how Darkvision suffered a massive nerf in 2014 (previously, it just worked, no penalties beyond not being able to see color), but nobody seems to ever comment on that.*

*It can also be seen as something of a nerf to Low-Light Vision as well. Sure, it works in darkness, but "treating darkness as dim light" is far from 100% superior to:

"Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to her as a source of light.

Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day."

 

[Minigiant]

isnt the problem behind that is that D&D is trying to be all things to all players ?

Nah.

It's due to WOTC being a large company and wanting to make profit and thus a large customer base.

Only smaller companies can survive being niche and putting little money into marketing.

 

[Theory of Games]

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

Couching intolerance as "just a rant" is still bigotry. I'm not fond of Storygamers, but I don't use EnWorld threads in an attempt to force them into "my way of thinking". I see it more than I like on this forum and it's weird to me that the Mods allow it. I mean I get red-text for being snarky, but others on here can outright bully people?

People are, as human beings, allowed to think and speak as they like, as long as they aren't causing a panic. And the same freedom that enables you to post that nonsense in the OP, enables others to dislike D&D or certain aspects of D&D.

 

[James Gasik]

Nah.

It's due to WOTC being a large company and wanting to make profit and thus a large customer base.

Only smaller companies can survive being niche and putting little money into marketing.

So people want to try and put D&D back in the bottle, so to speak, bringing it back in line with the version of the game they prefer. The strange thing, they perfectly can- you can roll back to a previous version of the game. You can make modifications and house rules (what DM doesn't?).

But either because they can't get people to play that version of the game, or it just galls them that other people are playing "wrong", they continue to grumble and rant about it.

Maybe they feel if everyone would just accept that their way of playing is simply superior, D&D can have a new golden age. Couldn't tell you. I'm one of those crazy fools who agrees, we totally should revert D&D back to an earlier edition.

It's just that for me, that edition would be more like 3e and 4e, lol.

 

[Minigiant]

So people want to try and put D&D back in the bottle, so to speak, bringing it back in line with the version of the game they prefer. The strange thing, they perfectly can- you can roll back to a previous version of the game. You can make modifications and house rules (what DM doesn't?).

But either because they can't get people to play that version of the game, or it just galls them that other people are playing "wrong", they continue to grumble and rant about it.

Maybe they feel if everyone would just accept that their way of playing is simply superior, D&D can have a new golden age. Couldn't tell you. I'm one of those crazy fools who agrees, we totally should revert D&D back to an earlier edition.

It's just that for me, that edition would be more like 3e and 4e, lol.

They can't admit their preference is profitable enough to be the market leader.

I see it in other hobbies of mine.

Like Wrestling

"Why are we catering to kids and families? There should be a bunch of blood and cursing like the Attitude Era?"

"Promos and Stories outside the ring are overrated. Just wrestle good and do cool moves like the 10s indies."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And this sort of statement really highlights the fact that a huge part of distaste towards 2024 5e comes from how a large part of its fans have a "who cares" attitude to how the changes negatively affect other players and their characters.

You misread me, sorry.

Given that Adventurer’s League has apparently moved on to 5e.2024 (I gathered from your previous post), is there another way that you can continue with the character you value? In other words, since you or I can’t really control what Adventurer’s League does, I’m wondering if there is another way forward for players, like you, who wish to continue with their 5e.2014 AL-legal PCs. You know, control the controllables.

 

[DEFCON 1]

From direct personal experience:

Best way? Yes. Most efficient way? Very much no.

It's more efficient than waiting for someone else to make what you want for you.

 

[KYRON45]

Wasn't all of 5E built with surveys??

Isn't that what playtesting is?

 

[Gus L]

Sadly, yes, this is the stuff edition wars are fought over. The game evolves (or mutates, if you prefer) in a new direction, but if you eliminate sacred cows or ghost rules (very nice term, btw), people will instantly claim it no longer feels like the same game.

I think that's the core of it - but I wish people were comfortable acknowledging that it's just not the same game. 4E, 5E, and 1E D&D are designed to create different play experiences. If I was a big 5E player and a new edition comes out that wants to be a grid based tactics game for skirmish sized units (something like Trench Crusade say) I'd be unhappy ... but I think I'd be far less unhappy if instead of saying "This is D&D now" WotC said something like "Dungeons & Dragons Tactics will be the next game to join the D&D family..."

Acknowledging what play style one likes and that a game is or isn't trying to do that is liberatory. The new edition simply doesn't have to be something one cares about anymore if one only wants to play a specific style, and if one is open to lots of styles it's much easier to pick which to play. Of course it'd be very helpful if the publishers of games (not just D&D) didn't always try to claim universality.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't that what playtesting is?

Public playtesting, yes.