D&D 5E 5E: A Danger of Fragmentation?

[LurkAway]

Longish preamble: I recently read about the fascinating history of Esperanto, the most successful artificial language in history. (This account comes from Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader, which is way more interesting than the Wikipedia entry.)

Apparently, Esperanto was reviewed by the Delegation for the Adoption of an International Language in 1904, but critics wanted to fix some "problems" with the language. Yet Zamenhof (the inventor of Esperanto) was adamant that Esperanto would only survive if the central core grammar and vocabulary remained unchanged.

From pg 298 of Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader:

With artificial languages, however [compared to natural languages], everything is up for grabs. And once the tinkering starts, it's hard to stop. Soon there are multiple "reformed" versions of the language, each with its own unique grammar, vocabulary, and spelling conventions. Once that happens, how is a prospective language learner supposed to know which version to study?

Volapük (another constructed language) was splintered and displaced in the 1880's in that way. In contrast, the Fundamento de Esperanto prevented the "movement" (Esperanto was a culture as much as a language) from splintering into numerous factions each thinking their version was the best.

As for the Delegation for the Adoption of an International Language, they made a new version of Esperanto, called it Ido (literally "offspring" in Esperanto) and announced it the world's international auxillary language in 1907. It was an immediate failure. From pg 374:

And just as Zamenhof had feared would happen to Esperanto, once Ido opened its own door to tinkering, it was doomed. One reformer after another split off from Ido to create their own "improved" version of the language, each of them sapping Ido's strength without any of them catching on.

D&D is not a language, and so the analogy surely fails on several levels, but it does face similar obstacles in trying to be a unifying subculture or movement with a common artificially constructed vocabulary/grammar. So can any takeaway lessons be applied to 5E, which wants to have a robust default and be modular and unifying all at the same time?

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

Edit: My two cents for a solution is here

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

The only "danger" they have to prepare themselves for is the fact that even creating a more universal game experience will not quell complaints entirely. Partly because some players just don't like the game company itself and will rail against anything WotC does... partly because some players as so attached to their own particular version of the game that any attempt to "include them" in this new one will be seen as either sucking up or "too little too late"... and partly because some players just like pissing in other people's cereal.

So as long as WotC just tries to make the best darned D&D game they can while earning a few ducats to keep the lights on, at the end of the day that's all that matters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D is not a language, and so the analogy surely fails on several levels, but it does face similar obstacles in trying to be a unifying subculture or movement with a common artificially constructed vocabulary/grammar. So can any takeaway lessons be applied to 5E, which wants to have a robust default and be modular and unifying all at the same time?

Well, one big difference is that language is something embedded in culture and society, while D&D is just a game. You learn a language growing up. Unless your parents speak mainly Esperanto (and since it's an invented language, no one's parents speak Esperanto), you're not going to "pick it up," so it's never going to "catch on."

A related difference is that no particular iteration of a modular D&D ruleset needs to "catch on" for more than just one group. We want every group using the best version of the game for themselves. It's not a problem if every group uses their own version.

Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?

Personally, I think the things they need to watch out for the most are (a) that it gives a strong game out-of-the-box, and (b) that it avoids feeling "generic."

There's a few reasons I don't play GURPS, despite the fact that it's an exceptionally flexible system. Among these reasons is the reason that it is a lot of effort to compose a game, to select the right options, and to throw things together in the right way, and to create something quickly that is complete enough.

A game that says "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!" isn't worth the price of admission, since I've been doing whatever I wanted play-wise since the age of 2. If 5e is going to be open and modular, that is the real risk it runs.

 

[TerraDave]

Fragmentation is the present reality.

5E is supposed to be the solution....actually...much like Esperanto...hmm.

 

[P1NBACK]

The only "danger" they have to prepare themselves for is the fact that even creating a more universal game experience will not quell complaints entirely. Partly because some players just don't like the game company itself and will rail against anything WotC does... partly because some players as so attached to their own particular version of the game that any attempt to "include them" in this new one will be seen as either sucking up or "too little too late"... and partly because some players just like pissing in other people's cereal.

The good news is, no matter what they make, there are fanboys morons who will buy their product even if it is complete crap and herald it as "the best system of D&D ever!" just because it says 'D&D' on the cover.

Let's avoid the 'fanboy' term at these sensitive times please. Thanks. Plane sailing, enworld admin

 

[DEFCON 1]

The good news is, no matter what they make, there are fanboys who will buy their product even if it is complete crap and herald it as "the best system of D&D ever!" just because it says 'D&D' on the cover.

Absolutely. I'm sure you'll find someone out there who will say that Lulu is the best thing Metallica's ever done.

 

[WizarDru]

Personally, I think the things they need to watch out for the most are (a) that it gives a strong game out-of-the-box, and (b) that it avoids feeling "generic."

Arguably, this has been a problem for D&D since Basic was released. There has not been an adequate entry-point into the hobby like this for a long time. WotC has tried several times, but I still don't think they've managed it, yet. Too many recent efforts have either come across as incomplete attempts or have the feel of a euro board game but encumbered with too many rules from the 'real' game.

The European D&D board game from 3E and the 4E Ashardalon/Ravenloft games are great...but they're no more D&D than Descent is. They don't perform the same basic function that the Moldvay red box does...and something needs to. I don't have a good idea how to do that...but then I'm not a game designer.

D&D is always going to be somewhat fragmented. Since the release of AD&D, when there was more than one ruleset in play, there have been people with a preference. The trick is to get the lion's share of gamers to favor one edition consistently. And that will be quite a trick to perform.

 

[hanez]

From the OP "Or to put it another way, if 4E encountered unexpected problems by not being inclusive to all/most playstyles, what equal but opposite dangers should WoTC watch out for if/when 5E swings in the other direction?"


I disagree with that assertion, for one reason. I dont see how 4e was an attempt to create unity. I doubt it was a heavy consideration in the design goal. I see every other editions with the ability to add, refine, edit previous work. But 4e was something completely new, more elegant, streamlined, more graceful... but NEW. And then to make it seem linked to the past they added flavor and trademarked names so that it would appear the same.

I agree that it will be a hard goal to achieve but I dont see how the previous edition is a relevant comparison.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

4E was already a danger of fragmentation. 5E is the mine and WotC is standing on the mine. Be careful where you place your next step.

 

[nnms]

I actually don't think they can really make things any worse than they are now. It's already super fragmented. Even if the D&D Next process can get that few percent of the online population to stop edition warring and finally realize that the game changes and some people like some things and some people like others and it's all okay, that'll be a big improvement.

 

[kitsune9]

There is a marketing adage that goes like this, "If you try to be everything to everyone, you're nothing to no one." WotC has their work cut out for them to create a "unified" game system that will appeal across different types of players.

I'll reserve judgment until I actually see the copy of the rules in my hand, but WotC is going to have to do some really really really awesome stuff in order to get me to switch from my current system of choice to 5e. The same for other folks who gave up on D&D after their favorite edition died.

Anyways, we'll see where it goes. Should make for an interesting 2012 year.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjeeOZradOM]New is always better - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TwinBahamut]

The Esperanto analogy is a bit forced... especially when you consider that Esperanto is not a learnable language. People have tried to raise kids with Esperanto as their first language, and they've failed. Esperanto is a language with no irregular verbs, but anyone raised with Esperanto as their first language will use a version that has irregular verbs. As such, it is a language that quite literally can not be passed on from one generation to the next without breaking that ideal of not changing core aspects of the vocabulary and grammar... If anything, Esperanto might be proof that you need change and alteration to get things to work. This is especially true considering the most successful languages (natural ones) are ridiculously flexible and are fundamentally changed and diversified all the time.

A more appropriate linguistic analogy for what 5E would be trying to do is the concept of pidgin languages designed to bridge pre-existing linguistic divides in a naturalistic way. And those succeed all the time (often evolving into passed-down creole languages).

 

[LurkAway]

Well, one big difference is that language is something embedded in culture and society, while D&D is just a game. You learn a language growing up. Unless your parents speak mainly Esperanto (and since it's an invented language, no one's parents speak Esperanto), you're not going to "pick it up," so it's never going to "catch on."

A related difference is that no particular iteration of a modular D&D ruleset needs to "catch on" for more than just one group. We want every group using the best version of the game for themselves. It's not a problem if every group uses their own version.

Remember I didn't know anything about Esperanto until a few days ago, and I'm not trying to compare D&D to Esperanto as you may know it today, but to the story that I read in the book about artificial languages back in 1904.

I have read users on this forum complaining that it can be difficult to find a gaming group all wanting to play this or that system, so I do think it's comparable to trying to find people who speak your variation of a language that has gotten fragmented.

So if someone asks you, "What edition do you play?" and you answer "5E" and they answer "Duh, but which mod(s) of 5E?" then we have a problem, if -- like failed artificial languages -- the modularity opens the door to tinkering enough to splinter into factions.

True, we live in a fragmented market today, but at least when someone says "I play 4E" or "I play Pathfinder" then I know what they mean, and I know more or less what to expect from the system before the 1st session.

P.S. I've also briefly read that Android's big worry is seeing the open platform fragment into various brand-specific incompatible versions.

P.P.S. I think this 'New Horizons' subthread is most in danger of fragmentation -- I can't keep up with all the different threads!!

 

[Spinachcat]

The D&D fanbase is hugely fragmented. 5e is only going to fragment the fanbase further. Also, since it will be a modular game, practically nobody is going to play the same version of 5e which then fragments the 5e fans from day one.

The only thing that can unite D&Ders is a truly awesome and heavily marketed VTT.

 

[enrious]

The D&D fanbase is hugely fragmented. 5e is only going to fragment the fanbase further. Also, since it will be a modular game, practically nobody is going to play the same version of 5e which then fragments the 5e fans from day one.

Given where we are in the process of 5e creation, I think it's extremely premature to make these assertions, after all - 5e could be such a universal method of gaming that does appeal to fans of all generations that they use it to supplant or enhance their existing version, which would serve as a lingua franca for D&D players.

D&D unity has never been about everyone at the table playing the exact same set of rules, given that house rules were around from the very beginning. Instead it's always been about shared experiences and as it stands, that's something that's hard to do with the OD&D, 1e, 2e folks + 3.x folks + 4e folks - the languages spoken between those three groups are too dissimilar.

 

[Dice4Hire]

There is always a danger of fragmentation.

Less than currently exists would be nice.

 

[LurkAway]

I've articulated my own takeway lesson from the OP. How about...

Fundamento de D&D: a bare-bones, stripped-down version of D&D that unites, say, 80-90% of the fanbase. Probably only several pages long. The DNA, if you will, of the D&D brand family. Probably OGL/GSL. The default setting is 'fantasy'. These ultra-light rules are inviolate. If you don't play by these rules, you're not playing 5E. And that's it, that's the core language for D&D, everything else is dialect.

Starter boxed set: Introductory fluffed version of the Fundamento de D&D for newbies (maybe this is what the beta playtest is?)

D&D family: Everything else. Self-contained "language packs" all under the D&D brand. Each "language pack" will have a very strong identity (unlike Essentials, maybe more like Gamma World) with the inclusion of a default campaign setting, races, etc. that meshes best with its grammar. You unite the market by offering just enough distinctive "language" packs to offer real choice but not so many as to compete/confuse with each other. Maybe each has a distinct playstyle. Maybe one bundle is the least modular for tournament/tactical play. Maybe another is designed to fracture through modularity but the differences are too small/minor to be disunifying, because the brand is stronger than the sum of its parts.

Perhaps this is what Mearls meant by not being a 5th edition per se, because it will be the start of a D&D brand family. Or least I think they will embrace this solution if the open playtest reveals (as I'm confident it will, based on this forum) irreconcilable differences within the fanbase such that WoTC will need to offer at least 2 distinct play options.

So one ring to rule them all, and several rings to bind them.

 

[enrious]

A gaming comparison I can think of would perhaps be the Squad Leader / Advanced Squad Leader game, which is a WW2 wargame.

You have a very basic core set of rules with tons of optional rules and you pick the rules you want for a given scenario ala cart (or buffet style or cherry picking if you prefer those terms). For example, a scenario set in Europe wouldn't need the U.S. Marines or Japanese soldiers modules, but may need the module that handles beach landings.

And yet, ASL players who are using Marines modules can discuss ASL with people using the beach landing module because they have a shared foundation of rules and experiences.

 

[delericho]

Yep, the market is already fragmented. What 5e is trying to do is reverse that, and pull everyone back together.

I wish them well in this endeavour, but unfortunately I see no chance of them actually succeeding.