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

[mkill]

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.

You're spot on, but I really want people to stop with that kind of behavior. I've already started a thread about that but D&D editions aren't football teams. You don't need to self-identify with them just because you attend a game every Sunday. The choice of rules system isn't even the biggest factor whether a gaming session is fun or not.

But ah well, I guess it's a lost cause. At least, if you have to show this kind of fan behavior, be the dad who takes his son to the game, and both wear the shirt of their favorite team.

Don't be the hooligan who comes to the game to pick a fight. And don't be the idiot who wants all other teams to be kicked out of the league so your own team can be champion.

 

[mkill]

My recommendation is to produce a game that starts from the last 'good build' (in terms of fan participation) and extrapolate from there. Meaning, in essence, build from 3.5 and see where you can go.

While of course a significant portion of gamers think that D&D3.5 was the "last good build", I'm not sure whether it's the majority. I'd like to see a poll on that (maybe I should start one?)

However, if my memories of 3.5 heydays serve me correctly, it wasn't universally loved even then. Caster dominance, splatbook overload, system mastery... Just to throw the three most common criticisms out there.
At least it's not some self-evident truth.

The main reason it has seen so many derivates is the OGL.

 

[seregil]

While of course a significant portion of gamers think that D&D3.5 was the "last good build", I'm not sure whether it's the majority. I'd like to see a poll on that (maybe I should start one?)

However, if my memories of 3.5 heydays serve me correctly, it wasn't universally loved even then. Caster dominance, splatbook overload, system mastery... Just to throw the three most common criticisms out there.
At least it's not some self-evident truth.

The main reason it has seen so many derivates is the OGL.

You'll no argument from me that 3.5 wasn't perfect. Paizo didn't hold an open playtest for Pathfinder because they love reading thousands of emails from geeks. They did it because there were issues that needed to be addressed.

However, the complaining for 3.X was less severe and far far less sustained than 4E. It will be 6 years in June since 4E's release and the whining has not really abated. It has increased,to a degree, BECAUSE 5E has been announced.

While this is very subjective, I simply do not remember this level of factionalism for 3.X, which leads me to say that 3.5 seems to be the last build people seem to agree on. At least, the common complaint about 3.5 was not 'this isn't DND', while that what it is for 4E.

Not much to go one, I admit, but they have to start somewhere, right?

 

[WheresMyD20]

But I've got to be honest--if 5e so far doesn't feel all that inspiring to me, I think it's because the designers are "stuck," as it were, trying to make the best version of D&D that they can--rather than simply being able to make the best RPG possible.

If they put the D&D name on it, then they should be trying to make the best version of D&D possible, with all the sacred cows intact.

If they want to make the "best RPG possible", then by all means do so. Just call it something else and don't pretend it's D&D.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm in the somewhat unique position of loving 1e-3e, really liking huge swathes of 4e, and having run 5e now over a dozen times. 10% done or not, it's not breaking my NDA to say I love the core. The first thing one of my players said as he stood up from the table was "Now THAT feels like D&D."

It's got a long way to go, and goodness knows what will change. I like where it's headed, though.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm in the somewhat unique position of loving 1e-3e, really liking huge swathes of 4e, and having run 5e now over a dozen times. 10% done or not, it's not breaking my NDA to say I love the core. The first thing one of my players said as he stood up from the table was "Now THAT feels like D&D."

It's got a long way to go, and goodness knows what will change. I like where it's headed, though.

And now I'm totally jealous....and psyched up.

 

[Tovec]

I know you are wrong. Evidence? 4e.

The people who play it, swear it is fun. It's being replaced sooner than normal because it's not selling. It split the player base immensely.

What is a HUGE complaint? "It doesn't FEEL like D&D"

I would rather have a good game that feels like D&D than a "better" game that doesn't. There are all kinds of "good" games out there I could play. I want to play D&D.

I would add, since you didn't, that HUGE complaint is coming from those who don't like 4e. A very self reinforcing argument you have there.

And with regards to it "being replaced sooner than normal because it isn't selling." Unless you have some sort of evidence to back that this isn't proportionally hitting the same sales targets as the previous editions, this statement will not hold water.
Maybe it just isn't fitting Hasbro's model, or maybe a full change every 4 - 6 or so years is Hasbro's model. Or maybe the grace period has expired, or maybe they don't like the GSL and it is easier to start over, etc.
Fact is, we don't know why and chances are there are many reasons for a business to make such a large and far reaching decision.



This may be one of the most amazing "...it's not D&D." arguments I have heard to date. Could you elaborate?

I liked the nachos comment that came after this but I just wanted to follow it up by asking, is your objection that he said "sooner than normal"?
I mean if that one part had been removed would it have been suddenly palatable? How can his comments about it not selling being the reason behind Hasbro or WotC calling for 5e be wrong?

Oh, and if it were a Hasbro model to have the game only run 4-6 years that would be applied to its many other games (including board games) and that the WotC staff would be fully aware of this AND that it would be the first thing we heard when 5e was being announced. It wouldn't have been that they made mistakes and alienated part of their demographic, it would have been that Hasbro games have a 4-6 year design model and therefore 5e had to come out instead. Would you retract any part of your explanation if 5e made it to 5-7 years?

Also, of course it was non-4e people saying that 4e didn't feel like DnD. As he DID say, 4e people thought it was fun. So, slightly un-self reinforcing I would say as it seems to be the line share of the reasoning why 4e wasn't liked by non-4e people. If we had said that we disliked it because it didn't give us enough cheese, then that would be different.

You state that 4e did something wrong, and submit that it went too far in the changes to the basic game. But didn't 3.x fundamentally change the nature of how D&D was played with the D20 system?

Finally, do we have figures for sales of the various editions? I hear people say that 4e sold poorly, but whenever I ask for references, nobody seems to respond back.

To paragraph 1: I'll agree that 4e went too far in the changes to the game. I'll agree that 3e made changes to the game. I won't agree that 3e fundamentally changed the nature of how DnD was played. It added a number of things, it codified many others - non-weapon proficiencies/skills (If I have been properly informed). As far as I know it left many of the basic and necessary things in place though. It kept around Vancian magic, the basic way attacks were used and resolved. It kept around many of the same terms, abilities, classes, items and, I'll say it, sacred cows of previous editions. I remember when 4e was proposed how many anti-3e people were on the WotC boards giving ideas and suggestions on which cows should be butchered and how. If 5e can do an adequate job of resurrecting those sacred cows then I think it will bring a lot of older gamers back to the new edition.

To paragraph 2: As you said in my previous quote, it didn't sell at least as well as Hasbro wanted, or well enough to allow for continued support. 3e was able to do it for 8 years but 4e isn't. *shrug* Sales figures are either non-existent, wrong, biased or incomplete so you can keep asking for them but you aren't going to get them.

You're spot on, but I really want people to stop with that kind of behavior. I've already started a thread about that but D&D editions aren't football teams. You don't need to self-identify with them just because you attend a game every Sunday. The choice of rules system isn't even the biggest factor whether a gaming session is fun or not.

But ah well, I guess it's a lost cause. At least, if you have to show this kind of fan behavior, be the dad who takes his son to the game, and both wear the shirt of their favorite team.

Don't be the hooligan who comes to the game to pick a fight. And don't be the idiot who wants all other teams to be kicked out of the league so your own team can be champion.

Oh the topic of DnD as a sports (football) team - You support both by buying their products. You enjoy both in a community more than you would solo. You do identify with both of them about as much by being a fan. And yes, supporting an edition or team isn't really a factor in whether you have fun that week or not. In these ways as well as others (which I went on a tangent about) DnD is exactly like a sports team. Just as with a sports team you can wish they make changes to a line up and they won't listen (or even hear) your suggestions. You can get angry with it while still supporting it. And if you hear your sports team is suddenly closing down or moving to a new city (or new edition) then you can feel betrayed. How is DnD not a sports team?



Also, Pirate Cat can you break your NDA if we promise not to tell anyone (also is there no good way to @ you?)

 

[pemerton]

There is no such thing as a 'best RPG possible.' A Startrek holodeck wouldn't qualify, the Matrix wouldn't qualify.

An RPG is a system for portraying a world, and sometimes building one as well. And then for building and portraying individuals within that world.

I certainly agree with the first sentence of your first paragraph, given that I don't think I agre with the first sentence of your second paragraph.

I don't look to an RPG as a system for portraying a world. I look to it as a system for enabling protagonists (the PCs) to face challenges (situations/scenes/encounters) and to find out what happens - to the situation, to the protagonist. The world/setting is a backdrop for this, not the main point of play. And the protagonists matter because they are protagonists - I'm not interested in them just as individuals (eg I don't generally care what their favourite dessert is, or the name of their first pet as a child).

That's not to say that no RPG can be about portraying a world, and individuals within it. I know that some players like to play RPGs that way. I'm just not really one of them.

the complaining for 3.X was less severe and far far less sustained than 4E. It will be 6 years in June since 4E's release and the whining has not really abated. It has increased,to a degree, BECAUSE 5E has been announced.

My impression is that, before and leading up to 4e, the majority of the complaints about 3E came from those who played it, whereas when it comes to 4e, most of the complaints come from those who don't play it.

This assymetry in what I perceive as the source of the complaints makes me see the situations as assymetrical more generally.

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?

<snip>

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.

In my own case, I stopped GMing AD&D in 1990, and started GMing Rolemaster instead, for all the same sorts of reasons as D&D players from the late 70s drifted to Runequest, HERO, Chivalry & Sorcerery, etc: richer PC builds, richer and more evocative action resolution, etc.

In 2009 I stopped GMing RM and started GMing 4e because finally D&D had become a game whose PC build and action resolution mechanics had the richness and evocative feel that I was looking for, and didn't have some other baggage that I had come to find frustrating in Rolemaster (and comparable systems).

It's not as if material produced for D&D in the intervening 20 years was irrelevant to me, however. I used plenty of B/X, AD&D and 3E material in the course of running my RM game, and still use plenty of that material for my 4e game. (In both cases, I rework the mechanics, either in advance or on the fly.) It's not about product identification. As [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] posted above, it's about the fantasy tropes.

 

[pemerton]

3e made changes to the game. I won't agree that 3e fundamentally changed the nature of how DnD was played. It added a number of things, it codified many others - non-weapon proficiencies/skills (If I have been properly informed). As far as I know it left many of the basic and necessary things in place though. It kept around Vancian magic, the basic way attacks were used and resolved. It kept around many of the same terms, abilities, classes, items and, I'll say it, sacred cows of previous editions.

What counts as a fundamental change obviously is contentious. But I think 3E changed quite a few things:

*fighters went from having good saves and a high degree of versatility in both build and play (potentially athletic, charismatic, knowledgeable etc) to having generally bad saves and a low degree of versatility (2 skill points per level with a fairly narrow class list);

*magic attack rules were changed, so that as spellcasters gained levels it tended to become easier, rather than harder, to hit comparable HD monsters with their spells.

*monster build rules changed fundamentally - both by basing them around PC stats, and by introducing the idea of "natural armour";

*as a result of changes to monsters, druids became supercharged (because of their pets and their wildshape);

*as a result of changes to monsters, the relative mechanical threat posed by high HD monsters compared to low HD monster became greatly increased;

*and many other things that I'm sure those who are more familiar with 3E than me could describe.

Whether these are fundamental changes I'll leave for others to judge. They seem fairly different to me.

 

[mkill]

While this is very subjective, I simply do not remember this level of factionalism for 3.X, which leads me to say that 3.5 seems to be the last build people seem to agree on.

Gary Gygax is on record on this very forum where he said that 3E just isn't the same game.

But if you really want to be crucified for this opinion, try posting it on Welcome to Dragonsfoot . Good luck.

Or maybe you'd rather suggest it here?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/