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

[Mind of tempest]

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.

look I have issues with the fiends art but cheesecake is not it, I want all extraplanar entities to be more evocative and to be more different.
I know Hasbro can do it, they make collectibles so it is the same logic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

This is why in a recent thread I called last year the 50th anniversary of the brand, not the game. There have been many games over the years with the name "Dungeons & Dragons", with many different degrees of compatibility with each other.

 

[NN]

Gus - some ghost rules create cover for a variant playstyle (perhaps more supported in another edition) hence their undeath ?

also a game design can be incompetent and not support the playstyle it purports to espouse

 

[CellarHeroes]

If WotC could just sell me something that's basically a hardbound version of the SRD for around $40 I would be delighted.

I don't need drawings taking up space and jacking up the price of a rulebook. I don't need any fancy formatting in a rulebook. I just need rules.

I have bounced off of so many modern games because of these formatting and art decisions. If there was a version of Shadowdark without illustrations or the wasteful formatting, I would be all about that game.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Part of the problem is that D&D is viewed as a toolkit rather than a game unto itself, and as a toolkit people get really mad when it lacks (or changes) the tools that are in it. I think too many people don't look at D&D as a specific game with a specific playstyle and instead want it to emulate several at once (akin to a board game that can be played as Monopoly, Risk, or Life, all at once).

 

[Hussar]

look I have issues with the fiends art but cheesecake is not it, I want all extraplanar entities to be more evocative and to be more different.
I know Hasbro can do it, they make collectibles so it is the same logic.

See, now, if that was the general gist of the criticisms that we saw in that giant thread about Mariliths, then, fine. No problem. But, that wasn't what was being complained about. It was, at least in the majority of criticisms, endless kvetching about the marilith not having boobs. That Mariliths were usually pictured as decidedly female and this new art wasn't decidedly female, thus it was bad.

Or something to that effect.

"I want the art to be more evocative. I want mariliths to be (insert adjectives and description here)" is a FANTASTIC topic and one I'd love to participate in. "We've always had cheesesnake art for mariliths and I want my snake boobs back" is just exhausting. Particularly since that's a drum that's been beaten pretty much non-stop for over a decade now.

 

[Remathilis]

If WotC could just sell me something that's basically a hardbound version of the SRD for around $40 I would be delighted.

I don't need drawings taking up space and jacking up the price of a rulebook. I don't need any fancy formatting in a rulebook. I just need rules.

I have bounced off of so many modern games because of these formatting and art decisions. If there was a version of Shadowdark without illustrations or the wasteful formatting, I would be all about that game.

The SRD is free and self-publishing sites are a thing. Just make your own book?

(A friend of mine in college used the university printers to make a binder book of the 3.5 SRD, printing a few pages at a time. He had the whole game in a 2" binder.)

 

[The Firebird]

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?).

In practice, it is not that easy. Changing 5e to 3.5 via houserules would be a pretty massive document. When you advertise for a 5e game, people expect a few houserules. They don't expect AD&D.

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.

This is I think the main problem. If it were easy to find older editions, I doubt so many people would waste time saying what they dislike about 5e. There's such a high level of discontent because 5e is unavoidable. You cannot play rpgs and insulate yourself from it, unless you have a long time group of people with identical interests.

It's tempting to say "well that must mean no one likes old editions, and they have to deal with being unpopular". I think this ignores the importance of network effects. Most players in the community are not posting on enworld. They don't know what chainmail is. They've not heard of skill points. If they spend 4 hours a week gaming, that represents a pretty big time commitment for this hobby, and they don't have the time to evaluate all sorts of other systems. And, they want to play what everyone else is playing.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Mod Note:
Well, this time it isn't for being snarky.

Likening what goes on between gamers of different preferences as "bigotry" is hyperbole, and kind of an insult to those who have fought and are fighting such oppression.

Nobody is getting bullied here. This was an expression of personal frustration, just like everyone who doesn't like the 2024 rules also gets to express their frustration.

And, by the way, meme references to political figures are not really appropriate here. Please don't use that again on this site.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I don’t see why OSR gets so little credit for fixing (or attempting to fix) what so many edition warriors are upset about.
New adventures for prior additions.
New setting material for prior additions.
New player options for prior additions.
New optional rules for prior additions.
Attempts at rebalancing rules in prior additions.