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

[Hussar]

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

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

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.

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

I'd point out a significant difference. I lost the argument. The changes went through regardless of whether I liked them or not. Unlike the thousands of other changes that never see the light of day because the fandom crushes any real changes. I mean good grief, Council of Wyrms? Seriously? You're going to dredge back another product from 40 years ago that virtually no one ever played? And, wow, they reprinted it. You don't say. That's certainly innovation right there.

The fact that you point to "overturning" lore as a reason for blocking change is precisely what I'm talking about. WotC aren't allowed to do anything different because of the stranglehold the lore police hold over the hobby.

I mean, I'm really looking forward to all those innovative, new mechanics and ideas around psions... oh, wait...

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I'm really looking forward to all those innovative, new mechanics and ideas around psions... oh, wait...

I mean, not to get in the way of a good rant...but the recent Psionic UA was apparently well receoved.

 

[Alzrius]

I'd point out a significant difference. I lost the argument.

Which is to say, you were opposed to Planescape's innovations, and yet they went through anyway. So clearly D&D has innovated over the course of its fifty-plus years of history.

The changes went through regardless of whether I liked them or not. Unlike the thousands of other changes that never see the light of day because the fandom crushes any real changes.

Leaving aside the prerequisite bickering over what constitutes "real" changes, this is a good reminder that not all innovation is worthwhile in terms of quality or improvements.

I mean good grief, Council of Wyrms? Seriously? You're going to dredge back another product from 40 years ago that virtually no one ever played? And, wow, they reprinted it. You don't say. That's certainly innovation right there.

You're the one citing D&D's entire history, and yet now you're incredulous about me citing a book that was innovative for what it offered? That's like being against Planescape's innovations and then turning around and complaining that the fans don't let innovation happen.

Oh wait...

The fact that you point to "overturning" lore as a reason for blocking change is precisely what I'm talking about. WotC aren't allowed to do anything different because of the stranglehold the lore police hold over the hobby.

Except for when the people doing that lose the argument, the way you did.

I mean, I'm really looking forward to all those innovative, new mechanics and ideas around psions... oh, wait...

Unless those innovations make reference to Planescape, you mean.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not sure what your point is. We all know as a first principal that we would like different things from a new edition. It's self evident.

So do you not see the contradiction in what you say about this? You claim you're just speaking for your own opinion and preference. Then you state "We all know..." we all know what? That you would like a new edition and that it includes things that I do not?

About the only thing that's self evident is that there is no such thing as perfection and that different people want different things.

 

[Hussar]

I mean, not to get in the way of a good rant...but the recent Psionic UA was apparently well receoved.

Again, that's my point. Look at all those really innovative mechanics... oh right, the new psion is a warmed over caster. Exactly what people demanded.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, that's my point. Look at all those really innovative mechanics... oh right, the new psion is a warmed over caster. Exactly what people demanded.

I mean, yeah. And again, iterating till discovering what users want is innovation and improvement.

 

[Hussar]

I, for one, liked the Delve format for what it was. The main issue was that it took up a lot of space, one or two pages per encounter, compared to something like: "Dire apes, 35 hp each, Monster Manual page 62".

I think Wizards might have become a little too enamored with it. Looking at Eyes of the Lich Queen which used the format, it is used in every encounter. Eyes spends 70+ pages (out of 128) on its encounter set-pieces, and most of them are not worth that space. Save it for designing complex encounters with lots of interesting terrain.

Oh, totally fair. I agree.

However, regardless of what we may think, the entire format was ejected and we're now right back to square one.

 

[Hussar]

I mean, yeah. And again, iterating till discovering what users want is innovation and improvement.

Which has been my basic point all the way along despite the words being put in my mouth.

D&D has NEVER been allowed to really make any changes. Any changes are tiny, incremental and take a really long time. Which is, IMO, the opposite of being innovative. I mean, good grief, @Alzrius has to dredge up changes that were made decades ago to find actual changes in the game. If the last time we've seen a big change in the game was thirty or forty years ago, is it really all that unfair to say that D&D isn't really all that innovative and the fandom is not interested in innovation?

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, good grief, @Alzrius has to dredge up changes that were made decades ago to find actual changes in the game.

You're playing fast and loose with the truth. Again.

I brought up Council of Wyrms not because it was the most recent "actual" (whatever that means) change in the game, but because it directly undercut your assertion that having mechanics for riding dragons was an innovation that WotC pulled because the innovation-hating fandom shouted them down. Not only is that not an accurate summary of the issues with the Purple Dragon Knight, it's not even true for dragonrider characters, since CoW was received so well that it was reprinted a few years later.

 

[Parmandur]

Which has been my basic point all the way along despite the words being put in my mouth.

D&D has NEVER been allowed to really make any changes. Any changes are tiny, incremental and take a really long time. Which is, IMO, the opposite of being innovative. I mean, good grief, @Alzrius has to dredge up changes that were made decades ago to find actual changes in the game. If the last time we've seen a big change in the game was thirty or forty years ago, is it really all that unfair to say that D&D isn't really all that innovative and the fandom is not interested in innovation?

Yeah, I would agree with your point...largely see that as a good thing.

Of anything, I think the hobbybmight be healthier of D&D had stayed much more conservative: no AD&D, juat iterations on OD&D along the lines of B/X.