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

[Micah Sweet]

Gotcha. For me, playstyle in this context is talking about whether it’s a resource management game (equipment, encumbrance, rations, NOT HP and spells) versus a tactical skirmish game versus a storytelling heroic action (or storytelling horror or storytelling mystery, etc). To me the mechanics for each of those are so different that mixing and matching them creates a bad kind of Frankenstein monster. I personally don’t think 1e or 2e ever got out of being a resource management game even if the adventures were trying to make it a heroic action game. The two never blended well.

Agreed. Fortunately a resource management game is what I wanted.

 

[Mournblade94]

I remember a while back in a thread I made a post, which I thought was obvious hyperbole, about how to appease the grognards that hate all types of change and updates in the new books, WotC should just reprint the old books with updated mechanics. No new art, no new options, no new lore, no new anything. Just reprint the same books over and over again forever, only changing the mechanics to fit the new edition.

I thought this would demonstrate how ridiculous it is for people to insist that there should be no changes to lore in the 5e setting books for Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape and so on. However, someone responded to the post saying that is exactly what they want WotC to do.

Which is to say, I absolutely do not understand “D&D conservatives” in any way. Their only positions seem to be “change is bad” and “it’s the youth who are wrong.” They refuse to even consider the possibility that change can be a good thing and that anything from the old books should change. Nostalgia is all that matters. Progress is not allowed and any hint at criticism of the older books or their contents is a direct personal attack on them (remember Thaco the Clown?).

Yes Thaco the clown was everything wrong with the attitude of the current D&D Stewards. You don't have to understand D&D Conservatives. Planescape, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer are worst than the previous iterations. You just (Apparently) weren't around for the better version. You don't need to understand. You just have to deal with the consumer feedback the same how we have to deal with what we consider an awful art direction.

 

[AlViking]

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.

With the caveat that it's been ages since I played 1e, and with the exception of 4e, the game doesn't feel like it's all that different to me. But what you want as a style of play and what stands out for a player as important. I've always looked at the rules as enabling me to play a character whereas other people I've played with the character is defined by the rules and whatthecharactercan do. Seems to me to be kind of diametrically opposed approaches to the game which will impact your experience.

 

[Argyle King]

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

I think, as a game that is part storytelling and part game, there is an element of art via cooperative storytelling built into the experience.

As such, "official" aesthetic choices tend to influence the actual meat of the game and the vision of the game throughout the cycle of an edition.

Additionally, over time, certain specific aesthetic choices become shorthand code for certain gameplay expectations and gameflow visions.

You can see this in movies too. There are some cliche character aesthetics (the leggy femme fatale; the shifty-eyed merchant; etc) that can sometimes be a helpful genre trope to being the audience in without need for extra explanation. But there are also those that have become a tokenized eye-roll to indicate that a director wants to highlight something to the audience, even if it is out of place for the type of story or movie the audience wants.

In terms of D&D, I imagine that (especially in times of economic hardship) portions of the audience want to ensure that they get an adequate return on investment by putting money toward getting to play a game. For some of that audience, a perceived abundance of the coded-aesthetics (mentioned above) can erode confidence that a game they have traditionally spent money upon will continue to provide the same fun-return and experiences that they desire from the same monetary investment.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes Thaco the clown was everything wrong with the attitude of the current D&D Stewards. You don't have to understand D&D Conservatives. Planescape, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer are worst than the previous iterations. You just (Apparently) weren't around for the better version. You don't need to understand. You just have to deal with the consumer feedback the same how we have to deal with what we consider an awful art direction.

For me it depends. Darksun I want a faithful adaption of the 1991 boxed set. Sone changes are needed of course scapel though not chainsaw. Mostly I just need defiling mechanics maybe psionics.

Not best example. Doesn't bother me if the make the most over the top variat of Book of 9 Swords or whatever. They can do whatever they like with a new setting. I may or may not buy it but they can surprise me eg Eberron. Not my cup of tea normally but the quality was good enough to change my mind.

A modern setting for modern audiences go for it. But yes this means there's limits to what they can do with the setting and that's fine by me.

I know people weren't enthused about Planescape, Dragonlance or Spelljammer as they butchered them. Their cultural impact will be 0 no one will care to much now or a few years they won't have much appeal imho.

I didn't care to much about the 2E versions tbf. Their existence doesn't bother me. 2E Darksun isn't that easy to run either tbh.

As per usual the internet weaponizes things. Diversity to me means variety. That means old school Darksun can exist beside Radiant Citadel. For some it means making Darksun like new worlds and big surprise it doesn't appeal to old fans or the new. Old fans hate the changes new fans have seen it all before there not much that's distinct about it eg Spelljammer. Old school Spelljammer was bizarre and had ship to ship combat front and center.

You can't reconcile some things. Simple-complex, gritty and the hippy. Waste of time trying.
Doesn't bother me if they cater to someone else's tastes but if you're trying to remove what I like that's a problem. If push comes to shove I'm picking me over you if it's a zero sum game.

Basically I dont buy it. If enough people agree with you WotC will learn the hard way. I'm not to worried about D&D popularity or fate anymore. I bought 5.5 if it tanks it doesn't bother me or of it blows up same thing. 4E taught me I don't need to run the current edition to have fun I can opt out.

It's really only an issue if you can't find players. If you can't there's a reason for that may be location could also be not enough people agree with you.

I've played D&D in a town of 12k and small city of 130k it's easy to find players as long as you leave your house. Also means you might have to run your own game or do the organizing. Used to do that in MtG so easy enough.

 

[Azzy]

Yes Thaco the clown was everything wrong with the attitude of the current D&D Stewards.

I dunno, I thought it was funny.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dunno, I thought it was funny.

How did you feel about 2e?

 

[Zardnaar]

I dunno, I thought it was funny.

Humors subjective. It didn't bother me to much mind amusement maybe.

I wouldn't have done it myself though.

 

[Hussar]

Gotcha. For me, playstyle in this context is talking about whether it’s a resource management game (equipment, encumbrance, rations, NOT HP and spells) versus a tactical skirmish game versus a storytelling heroic action (or storytelling horror or storytelling mystery, etc). To me the mechanics for each of those are so different that mixing and matching them creates a bad kind of Frankenstein monster. I personally don’t think 1e or 2e ever got out of being a resource management game even if the adventures were trying to make it a heroic action game. The two never blended well.

Totally agree. That's kinda why I put DL and the GDQ series under very similar play styles. They're both AD&D module series that use the same ruleset. They're both very much in the vein of resource management and whatnot. Or to put it another way, they're far closer together than, say, a Blades in the Dark adventure.

Even going through something like AD&D to 5e, there's a lot of similarities there. Sure, 5e pulls back a lot on the resource management thing - the point about ghost mechanics is well made. Tracking light becomes a bit silly when the light sources last so long that it never actually matters. But, at the end of the day, I can still run something like Keep on the Borderlands in 5e and it will work pretty well without a lot of work. To me, that says that there aren't a lot of differences in playstyle.

 

[TiQuinn]

Totally agree. That's kinda why I put DL and the GDQ series under very similar play styles. They're both AD&D module series that use the same ruleset. They're both very much in the vein of resource management and whatnot. Or to put it another way, they're far closer together than, say, a Blades in the Dark adventure.

Even going through something like AD&D to 5e, there's a lot of similarities there. Sure, 5e pulls back a lot on the resource management thing - the point about ghost mechanics is well made. Tracking light becomes a bit silly when the light sources last so long that it never actually matters. But, at the end of the day, I can still run something like Keep on the Borderlands in 5e and it will work pretty well without a lot of work. To me, that says that there aren't a lot of differences in playstyle.

Except I think the experience of playing Keep on the Borderlands under Basic rules or AD&D 1e/2e plays a lot differently than under 5e. The intent of KotB under earlier rules was that you had to sneak in, find allies, and treat the entire cave system as a stealth mission and do lots of hit and run because there was no way PCs at that level could take it on directly. 5e would take that same adventure and likely turn it into a heroic “storm the dungeon” adventure and perhaps a bit of a slog as a result. It will be interesting to see how the new adventure on KotB that they’re releasing modifies the original.