D&D General Ben Riggs interviews Fred Hicks and Cam Banks, then shares WotC sales data.

[Hussar]

Wait . . . I thought D&D has not innovated over the past 50 years . . .

That's the point. Where is the Delve format now? Is it in use? Are we seeing it in any of the 5e adventures? Oh, right. No we aren't. Why not? Because it was immediately dumped on by the fandom that hated it. So, out the window it went.

Just like any other time WotC tries to do anything different. I mean, @mamba didn't even know what it was. That's how much of an impact it managed to have.

Tome of Magic was mentioned before. Hey, I adored that book. I still pine for the days when I could play a Binder. There is an excellent 5e version from Head of Vecna that I keep pitching to DM's to let me try out. But... again, what happened to those three classes - the Binder, the Shadowcaster and the Truenamer? Oh, right, the binder got stripped down to the bare bones and became the 5e warlock without pretty much any of the actual innovations that we saw with the Binder. The Shadowcaster and the True Namer have disappeared like the dawn in the morning.

So much for innovation.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

The Delve Format was a 4e innovation where the formatting of adventures was changed so that everything you needed to run a given encounter was always on a single page. Errr, that's not quite right. Two facing pages (whatever that's called). Meaning you never had to flip pages or reference another book during an encounter. All (or at least almost all) relevant information was right there.

Compare that to how many adventures put NPC stat blocks at the back of the book or just tell you to look in the Monster Manual without even giving you a page number reference.

Not to be pedantic but it first started to appear in late 3.5E.

 

[Reynard]

Stepping away from all the other stuff we've discussed, what would this new D&D look like? If you were in charge, what would a new version of D&D have that you'd want?

I did not mean to ignore this, it just got away from me.

Not too long ago we had a "what should 6E look like" thread and I went into more detail there, but broadly speaking I would like to see a focus on talent trees for characters instead of subclasses, a full mechanical embracing of non-binary action resolution, and the inclusion of subsystems that are designed specifically for what they do, rather than trying to shoehorn them into the skill system or whatever. To be clear, I don't think only my preferences for 6E would be viable -- lots of folks suggested some pretty cool stuff in that thread -- but what I don't want is a slight iteration on 5E.

And as another example, if Daggerheart had been D&D 6E (with allowances for some classic D&D tropes) I would have been totally happy -- except for the paucity of monsters.

 

[Alzrius]

That's the point. Where is the Delve format now? Is it in use? Are we seeing it in any of the 5e adventures? Oh, right. No we aren't. Why not? Because it was immediately dumped on by the fandom that hated it. So, out the window it went.

Just like any other time WotC tries to do anything different. I mean, @mamba didn't even know what it was. That's how much of an impact it managed to have.

Tome of Magic was mentioned before. Hey, I adored that book. I still pine for the days when I could play a Binder. There is an excellent 5e version from Head of Vecna that I keep pitching to DM's to let me try out. But... again, what happened to those three classes - the Binder, the Shadowcaster and the Truenamer? Oh, right, the binder got stripped down to the bare bones and became the 5e warlock without pretty much any of the actual innovations that we saw with the Binder. The Shadowcaster and the True Namer have disappeared like the dawn in the morning.

So much for innovation.

Aren't you the guy who hated all over Planescape's innovations as a "needless intrusion", with its "bogus distinction" between demons and devils that was being "crammed down your throat"?

 

[Hussar]

Aren't you the guy who hated all over Planescape's innovations as a "needless intrusion", with its "bogus distinction" between demons and devils that was being "crammed down your throat"?

And? You needed to go back thirteen years and dredge up a change I didn’t like? Talk about petty.

Oh no I didn’t like a single change they made to the game thirty or forty years ago. What’s your point?

OTOH, is everyone excited about the new purple dragon knight? A class where you get to ride a dragon? That’s pretty new. Pretty original.

Oh wait…

 

[mamba]

I mean, @mamba didn't even know what it was. That's how much of an impact it managed to have.

to be fair, I left TTRPGs during 2e and returned during 5e, so I missed some stuff that came and went (and some stuff that is sticking around too, I am sure) Sounds like something the OSR is using in its adventures today however.

Not sure 4e was the first to use it or if it would fail your ‘innovative’ criteria by having been used somewhere else first. Also not sure why it was rejected, or did it just go down with the 4e ship instead of being rejected specifically?

 

[Alzrius]

And? You needed to go back thirteen years and dredge up a change I didn’t like? Talk about petty.

Would you care for a more recent example of you complaining about "incorporating a bunch of lore I happen not to like" instead, then?

Oh no I didn’t like a single change they made to the game thirty or forty years ago. What’s your point?

That you're criticizing people for saying now what you said then.

OTOH, is everyone excited about the new purple dragon knight? A class where you get to ride a dragon? That’s pretty new. Pretty original.

Actually, Council of Wyrms not only let you play a dragon, but also a demihuman "kindred" that specifically had a dragonrider kit. Which was quite innovative and popular (it sold so well that they reprinted the boxed set as a hardback book several years later), and added to the game's lore without overturning anything prior.

Oh wait…

So you sympathize with the people who don't like that the way you don't like Planescape, is what you're saying?

 

[SlyFlourish]

One reason to buy big name anything at big name prices is you can expect continued albeit not free support.

Another is the networking effect.

There’s also usually a decent quality and compatibility standard. Those without that big guy logo can be all over the map in terms of quality, some better. Some worse. Little networking effect. Spotty continuing support.

Buying something because of a well known and established logo isn’t just cheap tricks and gimmicks and irrationality, there’s value in it.

Sure, I'm not saying we shouldn't buy or enjoy D&D. I do. I have a D&D 2024 / D&D 2014 / A5e game this every evening! If I was starting a new 5e campaign, it would almost certainly be D&D 2024. I dig it.

I'm arguing that if we have a hope that D&D somehow evolves beyond 5e into something else, we should instead enjoy the wide plethora of other RPGs who are innovating in different ways, often developed by 5e designers and previous D&D designers.

I'm not pulling D&D down. I'm trying to push all the other awesome games up!

Whatever the general popularity is – for those we're talking to and playing games with, one book has the same weight as another.

 

[SlyFlourish]

if Daggerheart had been D&D 6E (with allowances for some classic D&D tropes) I would have been totally happy -- except for the paucity of monsters.

I hear you but this is where my brain breaks down. We have Daggerheart! It's right here! The only thing it's missing is the trademark.

Anyone outside of the hobby wouldn't bat an eye if you called it D&D to get them in the door and anyone who would know the difference shouldn't really care, right?

And imagine the outcry of D&D fans if Daggerheart was D&D 6e? No squares?? Different abilities?? People would lose their minds!

 

[Lanefan]

But, doesn't innovation mean to create something new?

Yes, and that creation of something new can simply involve synthesizing existing elements in a way not done previously.

Bolting on the skill system from Role Master into D&D wasn't an innovation, IMO. 1e didn't innovate anything over OD&D.

In both cases, I disagree. Taking RMs skill system and synthesizing it with what D&D already had is IMO innovative, in that the end result is something not seen before. The various additions to OD&D that became 1e were each innovations, with further innovation arriving at the local level each time a table did some kitbashing or significant houseruling to the 1e system.

To me, if something is innovative, that means it is new. As in it hasn't been done before. How could 5e innovate when it was 100% intended to be a recreation of earlier versions of D&D? The whole point of 5e was to create a version of D&D that was based in the past versions of the game. Mechanically, it's a hodge podge of 3e and 4e mechanics, bolted onto earlier edition aesthetics.

And here, the innovation lies in how that creation and bolting-on process has been done and what results came of it.

I mean, all cars have engines and wheels and so forth, but if I find a way to make a functional car that - while still using the same root parts - has five wheels instead of four you can't tell me that's not innovation.