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

[MonsterEnvy]

That's not what conservatism is though. It's about preserving what works and what is true. I get where you're coming from but change for the sake of change isn't a virtue. From the publisher's pov it's always good because you're revising everything so much your fans need to buy everything again, but at the same time you might be losing the essence of what made the game popular in the first place. That's what e.g. OSR is about - restoring the elements and game dynamics that were fun in the older editions. There's a "feel" to D&D that's disappearing or is gone.

What I dislike about D&D's direction is the materialist philosophies that have turned formerly archetypal and mythical themes into bland corporate fantasy that caters to American political trends instead of speaking to the archetypal level in all of us on a human level. Literal reading of myth shows that the new designers are just blind to the resonance it used to have. WOTC themselves acknowledged this sci-fi-cation of fantasy in their own blog and panel discussions years ago.

It might also be that the new d&d audience is less literate in the sense of fantasy and classics, and their reference points lie in computer games. Dunno. I think D&D will far outlive WOTC and Hasbro through its dedicated fans.

Conservatism: "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation."

I have to wonder what materialist philosophies have altered the game, or how it's blander. Like I am serious the game has changed much less than you think.

 

[Bae'zel]

That's not what conservatism is though. It's about preserving what works and what is true.

Therein is the problematic bit: what is "true"? Who defines truth?

You may see change as meaningless, others see potental in evolution and refinement of past ways.

The part that gets some frustrated with the reluctance to evolve a game's rules is that all of the previous editions of the game are readily available, either in their original form, or lovingly recreated by fans of those previous editions, so we find it absurd that when conservative gamers complain about new editions when they can happily stick with what they already love.

I'm a hyprocrite though, because I just recently complained in a thread about Dungeon World 2e how I viscerally disliked the evolution of the rules; that the original was just about perfect the way it was. So, I strongly believe that we ALL have a conservative view point about something.

Here's another: I strongly dislike 3D computer animation. Always have. I feel that classic, hand-drawn animation was peak artistry and everything else since is hollow and lifeless. Absurd, I know, but I can't shake that and several of my peers (from our graduating year of traditional animation) feel the same way. We're dinosaurs.

Humans are not always rational creatures, amirite?

 

[Zardnaar]

Some preferences are wrong.

Subjective and depending on situation may not be best idea to express that opinion.

 

[Bae'zel]

Conservatism: "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation."

I have to wonder what materialist philosophies have altered the game, or how it's blander. Like I am serious the game has changed much less than you think.

I love the newest edition of the 5e rules, art, prose and all.

But I UNDERSTAND why some don't.

Privately, I love the old school D&D cheesecake art and sometimes grittier subject matter. But I would never bring that into my games unless I knew the other players were into that. I do miss some of that stuff, but... that's why I bought those older books (for the art and purple prose, not for the rules).

For the latter (art, prose AND rules) I bought Old School Essentials and Dungeon Crawl Classics

 

[Zardnaar]

Therein is the problematic bit: what is "true"? Who defines truth?

You may see change as meaningless, others see potental in evolution and refinement of past ways.

The part that gets some frustrated with the reluctance to evolve a game's rules is that all of the previous editions of the game are readily available, either in their original form, or lovingly recreated by fans of those previous editions, so we find it absurd that when conservative gamers complain about new editions when they can happily stick with what they already love.

I'm a hyprocrite though, because I just recently complained in a thread about Dungeon World 2e how I viscerally disliked the evolution of the rules; that the original was just about perfect the way it was. So, I strongly believe that we ALL have a conservative view point about something.

Here's another: I strongly dislike 3D computer animation. Always have. I feel that classic, hand-drawn animation was peak artistry and everything else since is hollow and lifeless. Absurd, I know, but I can't shake that and several of my peers (from our graduating year of traditional animation) feel the same way. We're dinosaurs.

Humans are not always rational creatures, amirite?

For me it's more change is inevitable.

With pop culture stuff change doesn't always mean better it's very much a ymmv.

D&D for me has to hit certain tropes. Ymmv of course. 4E failed and 5.5 is flying close to the sun on them. It's power level is very high and complexity level is creeping back towards 3E and 4E levels.

I suspect I've played more editions tgan mist and transitioned from 2E/BECMI to 5.5 along the way.
I'm not the typical gamer though and i suspect I play more D&D than most posters here as well.

If D&D goes to far they usually bring back cut content from previous editions a'la 3.0 and 5.0.

 

[Zardnaar]

I love the newest edition of the 5e rules, art, prose and all.

But I UNDERSTAND why some don't.

Privately, I love the old school D&D cheesecake art and sometimes grittier subject matter. But I would never bring that into my games unless I knew the other players were into that. I do miss some of that stuff, but... that's why I bought those older books (for the art and purple prose, not for the rules).

For the latter (art, prose AND rules) I bought Old School Essentials and Dungeon Crawl Classics

I've asked sone female players about old D&D art. They don't generally like it bit also admit they don't really notice it that much/old art who cares.
They don't waste to pkay 1E though du to fender maximum. They will play B/X or 2E though.

Ones 24 and the old D&D arts an improvement over what she see's in her home country in SEA. Cheesecake but worse with tentacles.

 

[Faolyn]

What if the person says.. but I just personally enjoy cheesecake art?

Cheesecake is male-gaze oriented. If the books also have art that is female-gaze oriented (which is not necessarily the same as regular cheesecake but gender-flipped), and that doesn't bother the person ("more cheesecake for everyone!) that's not gatekeeping.

(Whether the cheesecake is appropriate or not is a completely different question for a different post.)

If the person says "women should just lighten up and accept it" or get angry or upset that there is female-gaze oriented cheesecake, then that person might be sexist or have some other issues going on.

If the person says "if a woman can't lighten up and accept it, then they shouldn't be playing in the first place," that's gatekeeping. It's saying "we want to ogle women, and women shouldn't play unless they shut up about their problems."

 

[Micah Sweet]

no one was talking about exclusively marketing to them, this started as

and I disagree that this would make any sense at all, or was ever the target audience (exclusively)

What age group do you think this ad was targeting?

View attachment 402306

Teenagers?

 

[James Gasik]

Teenagers?

Yeah, it's not like TSR had some kid-friendly mascot in order to entice younger players...

Oh, hey there, Morley!

 

[mamba]

Teenagers?

would be my take too, so not college students then