D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Micah Sweet]

For your metaphor to work... you would have had to say something like "I have millions and millions of dollars. I'm going to give you some..." and then you give someone $20 even though they thought they were getting a million. You have not lied to them... they got what you said you were giving them-- some money... the listener just expected something different because of desperate hope and a matter of degrees.

We have seen plenty of people here on these boards talk about their 5E games, and the feeling they got from them being like the feelings they got playing other editions. To them, the stuff they could put into their 5E game to feel like whatever edition they enjoyed previously was good for them. So did WotC state a falsehood? Not for those people.

But sure... there are also a heck of a lot of people who expected all these new rules being written in all these new books to be so airtight such that the two games would be almost the same-- nevermind the fact none of us could conceive of any way that could be remotely possible. But since 5E was not a direct continuation of their other preferred system and there was going to be no way to make 5E into their preferred system... in their mind they were lied to. Which... fine. If they think they were lied to, then so be it. But if I had to guess... I'd say the amount of things said by a lot of players with (at least in my opinion) really outrageous expectations of how much 5E would mimic 4E for example (or any of the previous games)... WotC just threw up their hands and shrugged their shoulders because of those outrageous expectations.

Now could they have just come out and said "Okay... the game has changed from what our original hopes were in terms of modularity, and now the game is this..."? Sure. And that would have placated some people. But I don't for a second believe it would have made everyone happy. I think plenty of people would still be pissed off and constantly complaining about this if for no other reason that they didn't get what THEY wanted. So instead WotC just let their actions with 5E speak louder than their words.

Because at the end of the day, I don't believe a lot of people want honesty... they just want to be RIGHT. At least, that's how I feel about it.

I certainly want honesty. Say what you want about 4e, for the most part it was honest (except for some marketing at the beginning).

 

[DEFCON 1]

That wouldn't be my analogy.

Because in yours, you got the thing I said, just not what you expected as opposed to nothing.

Then it comes down to the interpretation of the English language and what the designers feel are the important parts of each of the editions that they thought they were bringing forward. If someone disagrees with those parts as being the important bits to make 5E feel like the previous edition... then sure, they will think WotC lied, and WotC will not have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then it comes down to the interpretation of the English language and what the designers feel are the important parts of each of the editions that they thought they were bringing forward. If someone disagrees with those parts as being the important bits to make 5E feel like the previous edition... then sure, they will think WotC lied, and WotC will not have.

Again, WotC should have IMO explained what they thought the important parts of those previous editions were then.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Again, WotC should have IMO explained what they thought the important parts of those previous editions were then.

And I'm sure they would just point to all the variant rules in the DMG and say "a lot of it is right here". For them, their actions in what they included in the written portion of the game was probably all they felt they needed to say... and not an addendum written out that explained it all. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. Whether that was actually enough or not would be a matter of each person's feeling on the matter.

Now I know you most certainly prefer that designers do that... explain all their processes so you know where exactly they are coming from... but I think you tend to be one of the outliers on that front. There's nothing wrong for wanting what you want... but you seem to have accepted that you know you usually aren't going to get it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Um. Sorry, man. I don’t keep a chart or journal of my enjoyment of TTRPGs.

I'm not suggesting you should; it was just an example of why people sometime stay with games that may cause them problems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely. But as the designers were quite clear when 5E was being made and came out that it was going back to the DIY aesthetic... people should have listened to them. And if that meant sticking with 3E or PF or 4E so that they had their established and set rules, then they should have done so... rather than continually try and get 5E to also go in that direction.

People are always going to want to push the current version of D&D in the direction they'd want it to go, because there's too much networking benefit to be playing the current version over older versions or offshoots. That's event true with current editions of other game systems, and its much more the case with D&D.

Mike, Jeremy et. al. never once tried to cover over what 5E was doing. Rulings, Not Rules. Always there, always the focus of 5E. If people didn't want to believe them or didn't want to go along with it, that was on them. And no one was under any obligation to try and make them feel better for going against the type of game 5E was.

On the other hand, there's no obligation for them not to have a problem with it. Like I said, any incarnation of D&D is going to have people its not serving, and at least within the ones trying to stay in the D&D ecosystem, those people are always going to want it to be closer to what they want. The fact WOTC and big parts of the fandom may want it the way it is doesn't change that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you have a goal in this conversation? Is there something you are expecting of me?

I did, and I largely expressed it for the first part, and for the second part, not in particular; I was simply springboarding off your posts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I'm sure they would just point to all the variant rules in the DMG and say "a lot of it is right here". For them, their actions in what they included in the written portion of the game was probably all they felt they needed to say... and not an addendum written out that explained it all. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. Whether that was actually enough or not would be a matter of each person's feeling on the matter.

Now I know you most certainly prefer that designers do that... explain all their processes so you know where exactly they are coming from... but I think you tend to be one of the outliers on that front. There's nothing wrong for wanting what you want... but you seem to have accepted that you know you usually aren't going to get it.

You're not wrong; I'm pretty resigned to what I see as WotC's failures at this point. I just like to talk about D&D, and this where virtually all the discussion is at.

I still don't think it's unreasonable to explain your design intentions, especially if you keep printing news rules for new games with the same name and a large portion of the same fanbase.

 

[DEFCON 1]

People are always going to want to push the current version of D&D in the direction they'd want it to go, because there's too much networking benefit to be playing the current version over older versions or offshoots. That's event true with current editions of other game systems, and its much more the case with D&D.

On the other hand, there's no obligation for them not to have a problem with it. Like I said, any incarnation of D&D is going to have people its not serving, and at least within the ones trying to stay in the D&D ecosystem, those people are always going to want it to be closer to what they want. The fact WOTC and big parts of the fandom may want it the way it is doesn't change that.

Sure. But when those people then come here onto EN World and argue for what they want for HUNDREDS of thread pages back and forth... I can't help but laugh to myself and wonder what exactly it is they think they are accomplishing, LOL.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. But when those people then come here onto EN World and argue for what they want for HUNDREDS of thread pages back and forth... I can't help but laugh to myself and wonder what exactly it is they think they are accomplishing, LOL.

Maybe they just like being part of the community talking about D&D.