D&D 5E 5e's big problem - Balancing "Being D&D" versus "Being Not D&D"

[enigma5915]

Two things:

1)You feel 5e is uninspiring having not seen the game! How fair is that as a basis of judgement, really? Do you find the game uninspiring, or the things said about the game uninspiring?

2) "the best RPG possible" sounds good, until you realize that "best" is completely undefined, such that the statement is not meaningful.

Thats a horrible reason to not strive for and attempt to make the best RPG ever. Nothing great comes from fear of trying. with that attutide why bother continues making any games?

 

[Mattachine]

The difficulty, though, it that many things some people think prevent D&D from being the best game it can be are the same things that others want to hold on to.

Likewise, some of the changes that many think will improve the game are things that others say don't feel like D&D.

 

[BobROE]

I think the problem that the designers face is that game design is about coming up with solutions to problems.

Problem: How does character 1 hit character 2 with a sword?
Solution: Games have come up with a bunch of different ways to solve this.

What people are attached to are the solutions, not the problems.

Someone isn't looking for the best game that "simulates" medieval fantasy they're looking for the best game that "simulates" medieval fantasy and uses THAC0.

What this means is that as soon as that solution is changed/removed, the player is question doesn't like it. (even if the solution may be "better").

So when people think of D&D they think of the collection of these solutions that they like the best and hope that the next edition includes those, and when it doesn't they stop buying.

 

[the Jester]

So if WotC makes the best rpg possible but it's not D&D, what should they call it?

And then what about us D&D players?

 

[Umbran]

Thats a horrible reason to not strive for and attempt to make the best RPG ever. Nothing great comes from fear of trying. with that attutide why bother continues making any games?

Riddle me this - how would they *know* they'd made "the best RPG ever"?

When NASA builds a rocket, they don't say, "let us build the best rocket ever!" They carefully lay out the exact performance targets. Now, writing an RPG is not rocket science, but the principle still holds - you need to define your goals if you actually want to meet them.

"Best" is meaningless, because it is subjective. The "best RPG" for you may stink like fetid meat to me.

With my attitude, one continues to make games, because one first defines the target before trying to hit it!

 

[Dimitrios]

D&D is "an rpg so why not just make the best rpg you can?" in the same way that coke is "a beverage so why not make the best beverage you can?"

If Coca Cola started marketing a non-carbonated orange flavored drink that comes in a box as "coke", a lot of people wouldn't accept it, even if it was a fine tasting drink.

Because a non-carbonated orange flavored drink in a box isn't coke.

 

[billd91]

I don't think it's rude to ask that people who are more attracted to the former go seek something like the OSR--if you don't like the modern elements of D&D, why are you playing it?

(cut out this lame factionalism - it's not getting the hobby anywhere)

Actually, I think this question is an important one to analyze. Not because we want to promote factionalism but to figure out why there is factionalism around different flavors of the game. To many fans of particular editions, when faced with an update or redesign, there are always the lurking questions "Well, if you weren't satisfied with D&D before, why stick with it and change it? Why not play something that fits your needs better?"

This isn't all players, clearly, but there are always some for whom those questions are important. And who's to say they're wrong? If D&D isn't scratching your itch, why continue to play it? Why demand a new edition other than reprints? For some, the answers to these are - "I like the system OK, but tweaks here and there would make it even better." That's an argument for evolutionary revisions and development. Call of Cthulhu and Champions fit into this model pretty well for most of their histories. The update from 1e to 2e AD&D also fits this model pretty well. Games that answer the progressive players in this mode are generally quite backward compatible.

But what happens when the game goes from one edition to another with major restructurings? What if there are a few big structural changes? How about many? What if the restructurings wipe out nearly all backward compatibilities? At that point, doesn't pushing the initial two questions become relevant? Why are you a D&D player if you wanted changes this massive? Why not play another game that fit your desires better?

I think that's a relevant question. And I suspect part of the reason is product identification. D&D is a big identity. It's a huge geek/nerd/fanboy(girl) flag. People want to identify with the big dog, get on the big bandwagons, even if it's within a niche population. It gives them geek cred. It's a sub-cultural marker. This is why people get so upset about changes, from 2e, 3e, and 4e. They identify with the D&D they played and preferred. This is why 4e fans are getting so upset about changes away from their platform. It's messing with their identity, even telling them that their identification with 4e will not be supported. And this is why people demanded changes to D&D in the first place rather than play something else. They saw themselves as D&D players but wanted D&D to better support their tastes rather than adjust their identity as players of X game instead.

So, yeah, I think the question is relevant. It doesn't need to be asked in a rude fashion, but I think it really needs to be examined.

 

[TheFindus]

I doubt that the design goal for 5e is to be the best rpg out there. I think the design goal for 5e will be to make a game that DnD gamers of all editions will like.
And the question is: what do they like?
All of the things I am reading about the 5e design effort is revolving around the question "What do the players of DnD like about DnD?"
If they have discovered that, they will try to make that into the game.

Will it be the "best rpg"? Certainly not. And I do not think it will end up being a very innovative game. It does not have to be. If all goes well, it will be a game that 80% of DnD will play eventually.

Since they have to fight with the everlasting OGL, they can only go for a game that sells well and brings those that became dissatisfied with 3e and started to play 4E because of it as well as those who did not like 4E and therefore kept playing 3e (and it's clone PF) together.
They have to satisfy those who think that 4E is "excrement" and those who think that most 3e mechanics should die in a fire at the same time.
So 5e is all about uniting all DnD players. Good luck with that!

But seriously: IMO there is no company better suited to achieve this than WotC. Because being able to publish clones just won't be enough.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

If the latter is knock at 4E, I have to wonder what the heck you are talking about.

Mostly, it's the art and "feel" of it.

 

[dkyle]

Mostly, it's the art and "feel" of it.

I honestly perceive very little difference in the art and feel of 4E vs 3.5. Other than, you know, non-casters actually being awesome, finally in line with classic fantasy literature. I understand perceptions are our own, but I object to the assumption that people who like 4E like it for the weird non-traditional-fantasy things that you seem to think 4E evokes, and that we should play supposedly "similar" junk like Exalted.

I like 4E because I think it's a well-designed game, that I think very well reflects classic fantasy (at least, as well as DnD ever has). Not for some Dragonball/manga/whatever BS that I don't even see it as having.