7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Wicht]

So, yeah, when Mercurous talks about the irrational hatred of 4e, I think he has a pretty strong point. The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were. People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e. They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.

I never hated 4e.

I never played it, but there was no hatred.

Disappointment was probably the strongest emotion. And it was not solely mechanics. The whole timbre of the edition, from the world-view, to the dropping of alignment, to the assumed style of play, rubbed me wrong and made me feel uninterested in trying it. But there was never animosity. Its not in my nature to wish ill on others, or even to cheer against the other guys in sports. I want everyone to do their very best. But 4e was not the game for me.

However, when one says that, there are others who have consistently jumped to the conclusion that you must be some sort of irrational hater and who close their ears to actual conversation about the reasons. Such close-mindedness leads to some other problems, like an inability to see that the number of people who grew tired of 4e swiftly approached the number of those who simply did not care for it. It also leads to a lack of empathy and a lot of bad assumptions about what it was that made the edition more unpopular than popular.

My 30+ years of gaming doesn't quite have Mark's pedigree, but I see a lot of what he sees. As a RPG, 4e lacked something that a lot of RPGers actually want. One can explain it by pointing to the combat styles. Personally, I am not sure that completely explains it. But instead of pointing to the similarities between 4e and 5e and use those to justify 4e, it is probably more worthwhile to look at what they did different and try to understand those differences (at least assuming 5e continues to have success). (One could say the same about the success PFRPG enjoyed that 4e did not. Look at what was different and try to understand why the one was more popular. Hint - if you think it was "validation" keep looking. 2nd Hint - notice what people are clamoring for from 5e at the moment, and what they are excited about).

 

[Wicht]

Honestly, Mark, I think it is a mixed bag. I have also spoken to many people who had strong and negative opinions about 4E that was not at all based upon experience, just hearsay. I mean, I hear what you are saying and agree with it to some degree, and thus do think I "get it." I think you are assuming that I am some gung-ho 4E fan, which is strange considering my post on the "three camps" - which presumably you didn't read. One of those camps loves 4E, one hates it (often irrationally), and one tried it, was ambivalent or liked it a bit, but eventually moved on; I consider myself in that third camp. But it seems you are ignoring that second camp - which I think had a strong role in the edition wars through incessant and often nasty (and irrational) bashing of 4E.

In the interest of promoting peace and harmony - let me try to interject a thought...

I think the actual disagreement is on Camp Two. Camp Two is actually two seperate groups. Granted that there is a group who "hated" 4e. They are actually a rather small group imo. There is a larger group of us who disliked 4e. As well, it is presumptuous to assign irrationality to the opinions people have concerning 4e. Such an assumption poisons the discussion. Rather than labeling such feelings as irrational, it is better to simply accept that they exist and, either move on, or try and understand the causes. By labeling it as irrational you do a disservice to your own potential understanding and empathy.

 

[TwoSix]

Irrational edition wars existed.
Not playing 4E for irrational reasons did not (significantly) exist.

Disagree. There were plenty of people who made rational, considered decisions to not like 4e. There were plenty of people who tried 4e and eventually found it not to meet their needs. There were plenty of people who rejected 4e off of hearsay and or negative initial preferences and never revisited the issue. It's that third group that's the most tiresome online, as the people who found 4e's divergence from being the next evolution of the 3e paradigm as a personal attack are disproportionally drawn from that group.

 

[Mercurius]

I'd like to ask: would it be fair to say that virtually none of the people not playing 4E were irrationally motivated, but once people have developed an opinion, the debates become emotional and the content of an emotional debate quickly becomes irrational.

In other words, irrational edition wars is one thing, but lack of completely rational foundations for why people take their positions is quite another.

Irrational edition wars existed.
Not playing 4E for irrational reasons did not (significantly) exist.

Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational? They heard negative things about it and just assumed they were true - and many couldn't even pinpoint what those negative things were! Humans beings are often irrational.

You understand the irony of suggesting that? The difference is that I only need to be right about one person and you need to be right about the "largest part" of the people who don't like 4E. Even if you only broad brush to "large" it is absurd to assume that most folks don't have rational reasons even if you consider their actions to be irrational (like posting two words in a comment without giving reasons, essentially using shorthand). You don't get it.

I'm more inclined to believe that the person painting so many others with the broad brush and tagging them as irrational haters has some sort of persecution complex. You're looking for a way to explain a sweeping feeling you have regarding people who didn't (don't?) like 4E. You're going out of your way to open old wounds you have and in the process purposefully insulting people with whom you disagreed in the past. That is what you don't get. Let it go, man.

Wow, you are really off base about me - to the point that I'm wondering if there's any point in having this conversation, because you're creating a complete straw man. You don't know me at all and seemingly aren't interested in hearing what I'm actually saying. It is actually quite astonishing to me to what degree you are falsely categorizing me as some kind of 4E crusader. Mark, I have no wounds about 4E. The "edition wars" didn't affect me all that much. I can't help but think it is massive projection on your part. Who has old wounds here?

Once more, and please pay attention: I am NOT saying that all people didn't or don't like 4E had irrational hatred for it. I am saying that SOME did/do, and that this vitriol was a major part of the edition wars. As I was arguing to pemerton up thread, many people who didn't (don't) like 4E actually gave it a shot and didn't hate it, even liked it for awhile, but grew weary of it.

If you want to have an actual conversation, PLEASE don't assume you know what I think or what my position is off one sentence taken out of context. You are simply way off based about what I actually think. If you need a straw man, find that elsewhere.

 

[Rejuvenator]

This is what happens when a judgment label (like "irrational") is applied to a given reason, and then argued over.

People have reasons to like or dislike 4E. Why is it important if it's rational or not? I think it seems important, because then you can draw a line between reasons that are legitimate or illegitimate, or between people are who are being reasonable or wrong headed. And then you know if you're on the "correct" side of the Edition War, or can judge if someone is on the wrong side of the War.

Unless there's some unspoken criteria for rational behaviour underpinning the roleplaying of elves with pointy years that I'm unaware of.

 

[billd91]

Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational? They heard negative things about it and just assumed they were true - and many couldn't even pinpoint what those negative things were! Humans beings are often irrational.

That's not necessarily irrational. After all, that's what the industry of criticism - whether of movies or books or anything else - is all about. Someone publishes an opinion and people who trust that opinion react to it. It isn't inherently irrational to look at a critic, evaluate how well your own opinions and tastes have matched theirs, and then conclude that their negative opinion of <movie, book, TV show, RPG, etc> is good enough for you to avoid said product.

 

[Wicht]

Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational?

No. In all honesty it does not have to be irrational.

There are plenty of ways to analyze a game prior to playing it and if the game fails in the analysis before it gets to the table, that is not a sign of irrationality.

Lets move out of RPGs a moment and consider Boardgames. There are thousands of board games published every year. It is impossible to play all of them. It is certainly not likely one is going to own all of them. Decisions must be made. The intelligent gamer operates by word-of-mouth, considers reviews, takes into account prior preferences, and examines the artwork and production of a game all before ever deciding to play. None of these are the totality of a decision. Spyfall has yet to be published in the US, but word of mouth and reviews convinced me to write up my own copy on note cards and give it a shot with the family. Other games look stellar, but I know from analyzing the game beforehand that I will likely not enjoy it (Chaos in the Old World comes to mind).

There are, of course, far less RPGs published each year, but analysis can be done in the same way and is quite rational and common.

 

[Wicht]

Once more, and please pay attention: I am NOT saying that all people didn't or don't like 4E had irrational hatred for it. I am saying that SOME did/do, and that this vitriol was a major part of the edition wars.

And let me once more, kindly, point out that you are poisoning the well of your own conversation by making this point. It is an assumption on your part, and one done in bad faith, as it assumes faulty motivations in others. Once you have made such an assumption you must then also try and figure out whether the person you are discussing the issue with are guilty of the irrationality you have accused others of, and it just goes downhill from there.

The edition wars, in my opinion, were not so much caused by vitriol as by a lack of empathy.

 

[Umbran]

There is an excessive amount of edition warring and personal sniping going on in this thread, apparently mostly among some old-timers who should know better, and seem not able to put down wars that have now extended over years. Maybe they think their comments are under the radar - this is to tell them they aren't. They have been noticed, and marked upon.

If they don't put aside their warring ways in this thread (and, really, elsewhere, as we are kinda tired of the repeated headbutting), they can expect tempbans without further ado or warning.

This may surprise a couple of them, as they don't *think* they are warring. But they are incorrect - the long-term pattern says otherwise.

So, really, folks - play nice. Play *RESPECTFULLY*. Speak as if the people who disagree with you actually matter. Thank you.

 

[Mark CMG]

[Umbran and I crossed in the post]