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

[Alzrius]

Good grief, how many 5e D&D versions are there right now? Level Up, Tales of the Valiant, Pathfinder... the list is endless.

Pathfinder is in no way a version of D&D 5E.

 

[Desdichado]

My point was if I say my old school idea was running Keep on the Borderlands using Moldvay, I have a plethora of competing options all catering to me. If my memory was Night of the Walking Dead using 2e, my pickings are a few slim scraps.

That seems a bit harsh to call out the OSR for that (and I say that as someone who doesn't identify as an OSRian) when the same would be true for any edition of D&D ever. What if you wanted Night of the Walking Dead in 3e? Heroes of Horror? What if you wanted it in 4e? 5e? I'm sure there's some slim scraps of someone cobbling something together in their house rules on a blog post, or a pdf on D&D Beyond, but I mean, c'mon. What's really available to support that, and how well organized and well-thought out is it really? No matter what edition you want to play in, you've got to DIY it a lot yourself.

 

[GothmogIV]

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

Can you accept the possibility that some people just don't like the new stuff? That they think all, or even some, of the changes aren't good?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Can you accept the possibility that some people just don't like the new stuff? That they think all, or even some, of the changes aren't good?

Sure.

The issue is, they think that the company has no right to produce stuff they don’t like, and should continue to cater solely to their tastes forever.

 

[Umbran]

If you think anything I've said in particular is not constructive then I welcome that feedback. I think if people are complaining just to complain then sure. But if they're asking like, 'how can I make my 5e games feel more like this other system that is hard to recruit for', not as much.

Folks coming in and saying, "I have issues with 5e, and want some help," should totally be getting that help. We've got a bunch of people who are good at giving it.

But, you just specifically said you know how to run the kind of game you want! You just specifically said that the complaint was about WotC setting the tone for the community at large!

What do you expect folks to do with, "Don't give me help running my game. I wanna gripe at you about WotC!"

 

[NN]

My point was if I say my old school idea was running Keep on the Borderlands using Moldvay, I have a plethora of competing options all catering to me. If my memory was Night of the Walking Dead using 2e, my pickings are a few slim scraps.

maybe thats because B2 + Moldvay is rules and adventure in harmony while 2E Ravenloft is like eating soup with a fork?

but to be fair im missing an “osr” as well.
A low-mid magic moderately versimmilissitudiosnessish engine for running early to mid 80s sim-drifted quasi-medieaval brit d&d (u1, uk1.2,3, pellinore, embertrees, starstone, irillian).

 

[Minigiant]

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.

If WOTC ran 3 different D&D lines, fans would just switch from edition warring to being upset that "their" preferred line is supported the most and another book got their book's spot.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pathfinder is in no way a version of D&D 5E.

I noticed that (it’s a 3.5 clone) but that doesn’t affect the point that there are a great many 5e clones out in the wild - probably more than any other edition.

 

[The Firebird]

Folks coming in and saying, "I have issues with 5e, and want some help," should totally be getting that help. We've got a bunch of people who are good at giving it.

But, you just specifically said you know how to run the kind of game you want! You just specifically said that the complaint was about WotC setting the tone for the community at large!

What do you expect folks to do with, "Don't give me help running my game. I wanna gripe at you about WotC!"

I think you're reading in a more...whiny attitude than I have. The main topic of the thread was why people complain about 5e. I responded to explain why many of us who don't like 5e nevertheless have an interest in 5e. Sometimes, sure they can involve complaining. I think it can also lead to productive discussions about what works, what doesn't, the state of the RPG industry more generally, what other projects are out there, and so on.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, at least in my case--as I fully recognize I'm what some once called a "4venger"--a goodly portion of what I say on the topic comes from having to fend off claims that in many cases are simply, outright false.

But why though? Why do you have to defend it? You could just ignore it, and let someone be wrong. What makes it worse than a misspelled word or a typo?

I think that's the heart of the matter.