D&D 5E Can D&D Next Unite Fans of Different Editions? I think there is some hope now.

[billd91]

For me Dungeon World provides a more compelling D&D experience than D&D. But Mike Mearls really doesn't have room to design a new system like that - he's locked into D20, AC, HP, Saving Throws, fire and forget magic, pages and pages of canonical 'spells', Classes, Levels. The only reason he's locked into those things is the assumption by the buyers of the system that those things are required. Those assumptions may be wrong, but how many people have been totally open about what D&DN could look like?

I think they have pretty good empirical evidence that at least some of those things are required for a new D&D edition to have the level of success they need it to have. That's why we're getting the D&D Next that we are so far.

If you're going to design a game from the ground up without building on mechanics that came before it in a particular game line, then set out to do so. Don't set out to come up with the latest revision in a legacy product that comes with baggage, buyer assumptions, and a base of players and fans. They won't think you're doing them a favor even if the game play is so good it's better than sex. Forge a new IP entirely.

 

[billd91]

These comments suggest that it is some sort of character flaw for someone to want to play a game that suits his/her tastes; or (flipping it around) that gamers have some sort of duty to compromise their tastes so as to keep the designers of less-than-optimal games in business.

To echo Majoru Oakheart, it's not a character flaw to want to play a game you prefer or try to organize people to play it. I don't even think it's a character flaw to not compromise as long as you accept that a game may not happen. But I do think it's a character flaw to not compromise to the point that a game doesn't happen, and then complain about it. That's a bed you made for yourself and it's appropriate to lie in it with good grace.

I don't see it like that, myself. I have only a limited amount of time to spend RPGing. I want to spend it with a system I enjoy. It needn't be the same system all the time - I'm probably not as poly-game-ous as Obryn, but there are multiple systems that I like - but I'm not going to play D&Dnext if it doesn't satisfy my preferences to some pretty significant degree.

That's the boat most of us are in, with any game, particularly ones we feel strongly about (either for or against). I am not at all interested in playing Vampire, so when a gaming group I was part of started playing it, I sat out. And I was content to do so because I really don't want to play it. But I also had to accept that I wasn't going to be hanging out with those friends on those game nights.

 

[Umbran]

These comments suggest that it is some sort of character flaw for someone to want to play a game that suits his/her tastes; or (flipping it around) that gamers have some sort of duty to compromise their tastes so as to keep the designers of less-than-optimal games in business.

Duty? No. Not in the least. Character flaw...?

When taken too far, yes, I think excessive specificity of tastes can qualify as a character flaw. My father referred to it as, "making perfect the enemy of good," and engaging in it can mean you end up with nothing, and/or generally make the people around you miserable.

A real-life example: There is a woman I know who fancies a particular breed of rose, that is a deep, deep, dark red, almost to the point of being purple-black. The breed is extremely rare in the US, difficult to cultivate, and therefore extremely expensive. Her beau, in grad school (so, very little money), sought to get her said roses for the anniversary of their relationship. He searched for months, but no source for the roses could be found. Just before the anniversary, he found something close, at least to his eye. They were still rare, and expensive, and he put himself to eating ramen for a couple of weeks to get her a huge bouquet of the things.

When he handed her the roses, she looked at them, sniffed, and said that they weren't her favorite roses, so he could keep them, and handed them back to him.

So, yes, I think being too specific in one's preferences can be a character flaw.

The fact of the matter is that gaming, as a social/group activity. There are others at the table, and the chances are small that their perfect game will match yours. Moreover, unless you commission the work, the designers cannot make a game for you, personally, or even specifically for your group. They need to be able to make a game that sells to some size of audience. The chances that everyone in that audience has the same perfect game are virtually nil. So, you may need to compromise. The ability to find your fun in a wider range of forms is a virtue and useful skill for a gamer.

 

[Roland55]

"Perfect is the enemy of good."

Seen enough of that in my life.

I'm ready to be united. Well, in an RPG-ish way.

 

[tuxgeo]

Duty? No. Not in the least. Character flaw...?

When taken too far, yes, I think excessive specificity of tastes can qualify as a character flaw. My father referred to it as, "making perfect the enemy of good," and engaging in it can mean you end up with nothing, and/or generally make the people around you miserable.

A real-life example: There is a woman I know who fancies a particular breed of rose, that is a deep, deep, dark red, almost to the point of being purple-black. The breed is extremely rare in the US, difficult to cultivate, and therefore extremely expensive.

Citation? What's that name of that breed of rose?

 

[pemerton]

I think people do have at least a slight responsibility to their friends to compromise their tastes in order to make sure a game happens.

OK, no disagreement with that. My own feeling is that it will take more than such local compromises for D&Dnext to succeed, though. Because that local compromise could just as easily be on 3E, PF, 4e or some non-D&D game.

When taken too far, yes, I think excessive specificity of tastes can qualify as a character flaw.

Sure, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. But I don't think this is a fair diagnosis of (say) a group who stick with 4e, or PF, rather than change to Next. If they have a stable, local, pleasure-generating agreement on what game to play then a mere disinclination to change to Next is not a sign of excessive specificity of taste.

Hmmm.

Before I bought and ran HeroWars in 2000 I had no idea that HeroWars was possible. Then Robin Laws wrote it for me and it was incredible. Before I bought and ran Apocalypse World in 2010 I had no idea that a game like Apocalypse World was possible. After I ran it I thought 'Sweet Jesus, this is amazing!'

So if you'd asked me in 1999 or 2009 what my favorite game would look like I wouldn't have had a clue. Then Robiin Laws and Vincent Baker came along out of the blue and wrote these amazing games that I had no idea could be written.

I agree there's nothing wrong with broadening your horizons, or trying new things. But - and the rest of your post means maybe you agree? - I don't see D&Dnext as really fitting this description.

A lot of the talk of "unity" seems to me to be appealing to some goal or experience that goes well beyond the actual experience of playing a game (be it a safe and comfortable game or a new and avant-garde game). It seems to appeal to the idea of being part of a broader movement or collective - like becoming a member of your football team, say. For me, at least, that sense of belonging to something bigger and unified around a single game is not a big part of the RPG experience.

 

[adamc]

We all have a skewed perspective. We care enough about RPGs to post on a message board about them. We're fanatics.

I think there is a quiet majority of roleplayers who want to play D&D, but don't want to put a lot of effort into it. They enjoy playing their characters, and some tactical combat, and some character building, but only so long as it isn't cumbersome. These players still have various tastes, from the super simple to fairly complex. From high fantasy to gritty realism. They just aren't invested in it the way we are.

And I think D&D Next is being built for these players.

The problem I see with that is that most GMs are drawn from the more interested players. If D&D Next isn't appealing to the GMs (not proven, IMO), it's DOA.

As I said, I'm sure it will be fun enough, but I don't see it as solving their problem of being one D&D version in a fractured market. I see it as likely making the situation worse (yet one more varient, but no real coalescence of players or play-styles).

 

[Weather Report]

I would just like a cleaned up 2nd Ed, what 3rd Ed should have been back in 2000.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would just like a cleaned up 2nd Ed, what 3rd Ed should have been back in 2000.

Well, what have you been doing these past fifteen years? ;-)

 

[AlterTu]

I am cautiously optimistic about 5E. I think it's different enough, simple enough and yet familiar enough to get people to at least want to try the thing before hating it. More so, in my opinion, than when we transitioned from 2nd to 3rd edition.