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

[Parmandur]

Songs all use existing notes, does that mean there is no such thing as new music?

Or a better analogy: WotC isn't writing music, they are manufacturing the instruments for musicians. Which, having known enough seruous musicians (rock, jazz, and classically trained)...they can be very grognardish about their tools.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is there though? A million threads on why this rule is bad, or how this class is terrible, or when are the going to fix this spell... and yet, sales grew rapidly. So much so, it makes everyone saying the game is broke look a bit ridiculous. Especially, since, you know, we're all gaming nerds and actually read rules. It must mean they were in a very distinct minority. Maybe, just maybe, all those issues were simply table issues, and the actual purchasers of D&D understood that.

Maybe just maybe most people don’t demand perfection. Maybe just maybe the broken game is houseruled into being fixed at most tables. I think there’s lots of better maybe just maybes than the game has no problems because it’s popular.

 

[Hussar]

or improve / change something existing


by combining existing things in a new way (and adding some ideas of its own)

Songs all use existing notes, does that mean there is no such thing as new music?

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I was talking about how I view innovation and why I don't particularly think of D&D as being innovative. I don't really care about other people's definitions.

 

[AlViking]

That sort of iterative design, across industries, is about improving the experience for users, product design: and yes, WotC has pushed forward on thst front, particularly with 2024. The rules changes were minimal, but targeted after a large amount of user trials.

This sort of product design is not like writing music, it is liek website design or phone engineering.

Isaac Newton once said "If I can see farther, it's because I stand on the shoulder of giants."

Sometimes taking ideas from different sources and using them in slightly different ways or combinations is what innovation is all about. Most ideas are not like the Greek goddess Athena, born full grown wearing armor. They can still be innovative.

 

[Reynard]

Or a better analogy: WotC isn't writing music, they are manufacturing the instruments for musicians. Which, having known enough seruous musicians (rock, jazz, and classically trained)...they can be very grognardish about their tools.

I think the instrument vs music analogy breaks down way too easily to be useful for RPGs.

So the rules are the instruments and the group is the jazz band. Fine. What are adventures? Sheet music? What are APs and advice videos and other RPG ephemera that aren't strictly "rule books" yet still strongly contribute to the RPG industry and hobby?

 

[Hussar]

I think the instrument vs music analogy breaks down way too easily to be useful for RPGs.

So the rules are the instruments and the group is the jazz band. Fine. What are adventures? Sheet music? What are APs and advice videos and other RPG ephemera that aren't strictly "rule books" yet still strongly contribute to the RPG industry and hobby?

The point being, if you look at things like adventures and AP's and other stuff that isn't rule books, what innovations do we see?

Take any of the latest AP's and how are they any really different from a module written in the 1980's? WotC tried to do something different with the Delve format - an attempt to make modules easier to run at the table, and it was completely rejected. My Light of Xaryxis or Shattered Obelisk adventures would be immediately recognizable as modules to anyone from thirty years ago. Sure the terminology might be a bit different, but the structure and presentation of these modules haven't changed.

Fifty years of module production and WotC STILL can't put actual usable information on a map. You get a map and a number that you have to reference somewhere in the book. Even basic information like the height of ceilings is never written on a map. To me, THAT would be innovation. The one adventure that kinda innovated - Dragonheist - was routinely pilloried as being terrible for not being the same old same old.

Look, I get wanting some new stuff. Believe me, I understand. But this ship sailed a LOOOOONG time ago. The fandom has very much put its foot down and demanded that WotC do nothing to stray outside the line. It's been like this for over a decade now.

 

[mamba]

That sort of iterative design, across industries, is about improving the experience for users, product design: and yes, WotC has pushed forward on thst front, particularly with 2024. The rules changes were minimal, but targeted after a large amount of user trials.

agreed, the original question was not limited to 2024 however but to 50 years of D&D

This sort of product design is not like writing music, it is liek website design or phone engineering.

agreed, but based on the ‘innovation means it needs to be something new, not just using parts that already existed’ even songs would not qualify, Based on that criteria, 99.9% of ‘innovations’ would not be considered innovative

 

[mamba]

Or a better analogy: WotC isn't writing music, they are manufacturing the instruments for musicians. Which, having known enough seruous musicians (rock, jazz, and classically trained)...they can be very grognardish about their tools.

it wasn’t a comparison to what WotC does, it was trying to see where @Hussar draws the line on

To me, if something is innovative, that means it is new. As in it hasn't been done before.

It means nothing assembled from preexisting parts can ever be innovative, even if they never were assembled in this particular way in which they now serve a different purpose or better meet an existing purpose, and I disagree with that notion of ‘innovative’. If we accept it there were basically 0 innovations in the last 50 years across the world

 

[mamba]

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I was talking about how I view innovation and why I don't particularly think of D&D as being innovative. I don't really care about other people's definitions.

you cannot just redefine what words mean and then say ‘but this is how I use them’, not without causing confusion at least

 

[Dire Bare]

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I was talking about how I view innovation and why I don't particularly think of D&D as being innovative. I don't really care about other people's definitions.

Then why are we having the conversation if you don't care what others think?