D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Guest 85555]

I think D&D is a genre at this point as much as anything else, with a few sacred cows sitting around it. And I'm confident a skilled group of designers could pull it off - making another fresh & innovative approach at D&D. Check out Dungeon World - it's very D&D despite the mechanical differences.

my understanding is dungeon world, while it does indeed focus on dungeon crawls and similar D&D tropes is much more of a storygame rpg (i could be wrong as I am justbgoing by the positive reviews that describe it as such). If that is the case, I think it is something only a small portion of D&D players are looking for in the game.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am entirely unfamiliar with any of those people's works but I'd like to emphasize this point. I agree that in order to make D&D, you need people who are familiar with D&D, not just good RPGs in general. I'm certain that those folks could likely design a very good game, but I'm not sure they could design a very good D&D, which I think at this point is more than simply a layering a fluff on top of mechanics.
.

Well it looks like we agree on something Like you, I dont doubt they could design a solid game, it is just questionable whether it would be a solid version of D&D that regains lapsed players and grows the base. The kinds of games they make are geared for a particular rpg audience, but D&D needs multiple audiences at the table.

 

[TwoSix]

I am entirely unfamiliar with any of those people's works but I'd like to emphasize this point. I agree that in order to make D&D, you need people who are familiar with D&D, not just good RPGs in general. I'm certain that those folks could likely design a very good game, but I'm not sure they could design a very good D&D, which I think at this point is more than simply a layering a fluff on top of mechanics.

I don't think any top RPG designer doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with D&D.

Historical footnote: Arneson & Gygax had never played any previous version of D&D when they designed D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well it looks like we agree on something Like you, I dont doubt they could design a solid game, it is just questionable whether it would be a solid version of D&D that regains lapsed players and grows the base. The kinds of games they make are geared for a particular rpg audience, but D&D needs multiple audiences at the table.

I wouldn't be adverse to growing the design base though, and calling in those sorts of folks to help ensure that the mechanics of the game are sound, or to perhaps pull in some new ideas that could be incorporated into D&D.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't think any top RPG designer doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with D&D.

Historical footnote: Arneson & Gygax had never played any previous version of D&D when they designed D&D.

I dont think it is about familiarity as much as design approach. Laws, I am sure, understands the D&D mechanics and brand, but he doesn't make games like that. It just isnt what seems to excite him as a designer. He has a much stronher interest in games with a narrative bent and games designed to facilitate a certain kind of play (Gumshoe being a good example). Nothing at all against what Laws does. i have played essoterrorists and feng shui, and wouldn't deny he has design and writing skills. I just dont see those types of design connecting with your typical D&D audience as mucn (maybe a narrow subsection of it).

 

[Sunseeker]

Historical footnote: Arneson & Gygax had never played any previous version of D&D when they designed D&D.

Not a valid point, as there was no D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

Not a valid point, as there was no D&D.

Wow, did you need to get a hunting license to kill all that joy?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I just want to point out that I'm seeing an awful lot of 'othering' from a certain camp in this thread towards gamers that like a narrative thrust in their D&D. I think that it's wrong to assume or claim that it is a necessarily small number of gamers, particularly as most of these arguments are based on anecdotal evidence, which I don't think is very helpful in trying to present that particular case.

It would be just as easy (and pointless) for me to say that I think the simulationist crowd is small and insignificant because I've never or rarely seen people play that way (which is in my case true), but I know that my experience is far from universal. I'm not even going to pretend it is.

So, that said, posts containing things like, 'most gamers,' 'many of us,' and, 'the majority of,' are, to my eyes, basically unhelpful at best and blatantly misleading at worst, unless you happen to have any hard stats to back them up (and even then, their origin should rightfully be questioned).

Just my opinion, of course. Argue however you wish, but those kinds of comments make it hard to take seriously any argument based on them.

 

[Guest 85555]

I just want to point out that I'm seeing an awful lot of 'othering' from a certain camp in this thread towards gamers that like a narrative thrust in their D&D. I think that it's wrong to assume or claim that it is a necessarily small number of gamers, particularly as most of these arguments are based on anecdotal evidence, which I don't think is very helpful in trying to present that particular case.

It would be just as easy (and pointless) for me to say that I think the simulationist crowd is small and insignificant because I've never or rarely seen people play that way (which is in my case true), but I know that my experience is far from universal. I'm not even going to pretend it is.

So, that said, posts containing things like, 'most gamers,' 'many of us,' and, 'the majority of,' are, to my eyes, basically unhelpful at best and blatantly misleading at worst, unless you happen to have any hard stats to back them up (and even then, their origin should rightfully be questioned).

Just my opinion, of course. Argue however you wish, but those kinds of comments make it hard to take seriously any argument based on them.

I am not trying to 'other' anyone, but there are sharp differences of opinion around things like narrativism. Particularly if you are talking about bringing in things from games like fiasco. There isn't anything wrong with those sorts of games but I do think they cater to an expectation and understanding of play a large number of D&D gamers don't have. If you make that the focus of Next's design I just don't see it being all that popular with the base.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Next is supposedly predicated on the idea of being inclusive of all playstyles. I'm not saying they have to 'cater' to that one exclusively, but I think you underestimate the amount of people who like the narrative element in D&D. I could just as easily say that a 'large number' of gamers DO have that expectation, and we'd thus both be on equally shaky ground unless we could call up some hard evidence to back up that point of view

So when you make claims like that, and insinuate that you are in touch with what 'the base' wants, I become immediately dubious. You certainly don't speak for me, or for my experience. Clearly that is not universal, but then neither is my experience, and I am not claiming otherwise.

That said, if I find Next unsatisfying or supportive of my chosen playstyle, then they've lost me as a potential customer, and failed in their mission.

Another point and form of 'othering' that goes on a lot, is the faux-inclusive type where folks can agree that the other side's preference can appear in Next, but only if segregated, walled off, and clearly marked as 'optional,' which is quite frankly insulting.

Perhaps it's acceptable to those who put it forward because that way there is something they can point to as 'bad' and the fact that it's 'optional' only serves to reinforce that idea in their minds, but it certainly doesn't foster any idea of inclusivity in the ruleset (an oft-stated aim, which so far they are failing at).