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

[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.