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

[TiQuinn]

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.

Agreed. Our group has been playing a lot of OSR/NSR games the past year, and they've been so enjoyable. We're currently in the midst of a Mothership campaign, after also playing some Forbidden Lands, DCC, and Shadowdark, and the thing I've realized above all is that these are all different games that have a different perspective on how the games should work. It seems self-defeating to try to make 5e's square peg to fit into that their round holes. That's not a knock on 5e, either. It's just each of these games plays so radically different.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

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.

I have a ton of 3.5 books if anyone wants them! Heck, I have almost everything in .pdf format! And those books mostly collect dust unless I want to adapt something from them or use them as inspiration.

The same goes for 2e, 1e, and even older D&D books- it's not hard to actually play a previous version of a game if you want to. At least, I don't think it is.

The problems are more that 1) not everyone wants to play those versions of the game, and 2) people want to see those versions of the game "fixed"* with updates, without having to do the work themselves (the whole reason we buy books, right? So a professional can do the job for us?).

*Whatever this means for the individual.

But instead, publishers decide to go in some other direction, and getting people to play something they may (rightly or wrongly) see as "old and busted" leaves you with little choice but to embrace the new game- grumbling mightily about the things you don't like. I play and run 5e. I don't want to!

But it's what the people I play with currently want, so I must go where the gaming is. If I had my druthers, we'd be playing 4e, Pathfinder 1e, 3.5, or hell, Earthdawn! But instead, it looks like we'll be switching to Tales of the Valiant. What can you do?

I wish 5e2024 looked more like those games I mentioned, but it's not going to happen any time soon. I can't make it happen, and I'm resigned to that fact.

Every edition/version/variant of D&D has gone in a different direction that the others. Yes, even 2e, despite remaining highly compatible with 1e, veered off into it's own lane. We're seeing that now with the 2014-2024+ split. Expecting things to change now is futile. Expecting people who are fine with the current direction to change their minds, probably equally so.

I wish we lived in a world that, when someone asked me what game I'm playing, I could say "D&D" and not have to clarify which version I'm talking about! But a lot of different factors led us to this point. If, like me, you have to accept it or not find play, I feel for you, but we lack the power to turn the ship now.

Even if we vote with our wallets and protest loudly, it might not happen. We don't have the same broken base as there was with the 4e split. There isn't a lone competitor threatening to take the lion's share of profits in the Fantasy TTRPG space- not yet, at least. The Balkanization of TTRPG's will continue, but D&D will continue to exert a pull, like gravity, on both the market and pop culture.

For now. We don't have to like it, but I think we all have to come to peace with it.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, see, that's the thing. Someone complains about 5e - whatever the complaint. Someone says, "Well, here's exactly what you want, all nicely packaged for you". And the response inevitably is, "No, that's not good enough. It MUST be from WotC. It MUST be for 5e D&D. Accept no substitutes!!"

And around and around it goes.

 

[Desdichado]

I’ve got 1e books from the 80’s that have seen years of abuse and are still in excellent condition.

I know, right?

 

[The Firebird]

But, see, that's the thing. Someone complains about 5e - whatever the complaint. Someone says, "Well, here's exactly what you want, all nicely packaged for you". And the response inevitably is, "No, that's not good enough. It MUST be from WotC. It MUST be for 5e D&D. Accept no substitutes!!"

And around and around it goes.

The complaint isn't about the rules existing. We know how to run the kind of game we want. The complaint is that WotC sets the tone for most of the community because of brand and therefore is relevant whether we like it or not.

The same goes for 2e, 1e, and even older D&D books- it's not hard to actually play a previous version of a game if you want to. At least, I don't think it is.

I think it is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The complaint isn't about the rules existing. We know how to run the kind of game we want. The complaint is that WotC sets the tone for most of the community because of brand and therefore is relevant whether we like it or not.


I think it is.

This is why people get invested in D&D discussions. I play 2E. I did like 5E when it came out though. But the thing that matters to people is D&D shapes the direction of the whole hobby. And sometimes things like the OGL fiasco have broader implications as well (that didn't just impact D&D but anyone using D&D derived products)

 

[Hussar]

The complaint isn't about the rules existing. We know how to run the kind of game we want. The complaint is that WotC sets the tone for most of the community because of brand and therefore is relevant whether we like it or not.


I think it is.

See, but, that's what I don't get. There are other communities out there. Honest. I've been playing Ironsworn for the past several months. Took a break from D&D to give it a try. And, imagine my surprise when I found several quite healthy Ironsworn sites. Helpful people who want to discuss the game and exchange ideas. Fantastic.

Now, I'm pretty sure that there are all sorts of these communities just a quick search away. But, instead, we see poster after poster who gleefully proclaim that they DON'T play 5e, heck, might not even be playing D&D at all, but still want to drive the conversation in a 5e D&D chat forum around the fact that they hate D&D.

I just don't get it. There's lots of games I don't like. But, I just don't talk about them.

 

[Umbran]

I have bounced off of so many modern games because of these formatting and art decisions.

Unfortunately for those with your preferences, it has been found by empirical study in user experience that for most folks, art makes the book easier to use. Art works make solid "landmarks" for the mental map of where things are found in the book. "The rule I want is just a bit past the pic of the halfling being strangled by the marilith..." kind of thing.

 

[James Gasik]

The complaint isn't about the rules existing. We know how to run the kind of game we want. The complaint is that WotC sets the tone for most of the community because of brand and therefore is relevant whether we like it or not.


I think it is.

Ok, I mean, I don't know your situation. But if you have people willing to play older games, then it shouldn't be hard.

If the problem is not finding people willing to play, that's going to happen no matter what game we're talking about.

 

[Umbran]

The complaint isn't about the rules existing. We know how to run the kind of game we want. The complaint is that WotC sets the tone for most of the community because of brand and therefore is relevant whether we like it or not.

Complaining about that to people who are not WotC does little to help that, though.

I can understand wanting to vent your frustrations, but doing so at people who don't share your personal preferences, and who have no clear power to change matters if they wanted to, isn't what we'd call constructively engaging.