D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Celebrim]

And I have no sympathy for the player-base. Because...the player-base is fractured NOT because really of the games themselves... but because of each player's complete uncompromising unwillingness to make concessions to how they play their game.

I completely sympathize with that despite being self-admittedly part of the problem. I'm little interested in a game that includes a 'Warlord' class, because it suggests that the basis of defining classes in the game is going to be radically far apart from mine. In my game, a "Duelist" is a fighter with a lot of dexterity and dexterity related character resources, and a "Warlord" is fighter with a lot of charisma and intelligence and a lot of character building resources invested in that. Paladin's and Anti-Paladins and every other paladin variant in my game are the same class. If you feel the need to create them as full separate classes or 'advanced classes', it suggests you don't approach the game the same way I do.

I really don't want to be locked into my own little corner with my own preferences not shared by anyone else, but I also don't want to give up on decisions I made for what I feel are completely reasonable and rational reasons that have worked for me. Any suggestions on a way forward would be great, but I don't see how to reunite the community behind things we can all agree on.

 

[Jester David]

It's axiomatic that if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

I think D&DN is heading down this road.

It's not a case of trying to please everyone so much as have broad and varied appeal. 4e really focused on appealing to a single audience, perceived as the largest minority. It made assumptions on playstyle and what people wanted from the game. For people who liked that playstyle, 4e was amazing. For everyone else, it just didn't do what they wanted. WotC had expected everyone would just follow along because the game was D&D. And, of course, they didn't.

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd. I realize there are OD&D, 1E, and 2E players out there, but I find that in most arguments, they're gonna come down on the side of the 3rd Edition folks. They'll remain united so long as the 4E people are a threat.

I would disagree strongly with this. There are a large, large number of old 1e and 2e fans, who want very different things and were disappointed by 3e. And there are likely quite a few players who are not perfectly satisfied with either edition.

Life is very seldom convenient enough to divide things into two equal sides.

What the 3E/PF player is supposed to see is a return to 3E inspired combat mechanics, the exit of grid-combat-is-required, a renewed emphasis on non-combat abilities and skills, class flexibility, and setting flexibility.

3e was a flexible and very hackable system. I would be very wary about lumping all 3e players together.
Many might also want balance (just not the symmetry as balance of 4e), fighters with something to do, wizards with at-will spells, and other traditionally 4e concerns.

What the 4E player is supposed to see is a continued commitment to game balance, especially where combat is concerned, clear and well defined roles within a party, action oriented design with little downtime, etc. etc. etc....

From what I've seen, 4e players mostly want to feel like their edition was not considered a mistake and not to be thrown under the bus in an attempt to appeal to a different demographic.

I made the comment in one thread that I believed that Wizards has an opportunity with D&DN to either A.) win back the 3e crowd or B.) retain and grow the 4e crowd, but it would be difficult to do both, and on their current path, they'll accomplish neither. It was sort of off-hand at the time and I didn't really think about it before I posted it, but it got several replies in agreement and spawned a bit of a side conversation on its own.

First, WotC has already tried to grow the 4e crowd via Essentials.
They didn't embark on three years of design and low-profit recouping despite high design expenses for fun. Making a new edition is very, very expensive.

They clearly want to grow their numbers and have realized what you say above: the audience is very splintered and divided into angry factions. They cannot move forward without at least attempting to unite as much of the fanbase as willing. It's toxic and not conducive to growing the game. Who what to get into the game with this hate everywhere?
The attempt won't reach the hardcore edition warriors, so they get left behind. But everyone willing to compromise and let the edition wars go can be welcomed by the new edition. And that's an audience WotC wants.

The more I think about it, the more I think the very mentality that the design team is taking is going to doom the product. As a 3E guy myself, I actually feel like the best thing Wizards can do at this point is re-up on the ideas that produced 4th Edition and grow that market rather than attempting to bring two disparate groups together and missing the mark with both. Accept that the Fantasy RPG market has been divided into two markets, and target the one you already have, make them your own, and let Paizo pick up the remainder.

If 4e had sustainable numbers and its books were generating enough profit, wouldn't WotC continued to publish that game rather than have their in-house staff not produce any content for three years and generating a fantastic amount of debt?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The nerve of some people, playing a game that suits their needs better! It's an outrage!

We're in a great new age of RPGs, and D&D isn't the only game in town. As gamers, we're spoiled for choice; between 6+ major branches of D&D which continue to "work", retro/OSR games, modern rpgs like Savage Worlds and FATE, etc... Well, why NOT pick a game that suits your table?

If you're in a position to run or play games that suit you, why wouldn't you?

If you do, then great! But why then all the complaints we hear about WotC "fracturing the player-base?" If people play many games (which they should), then it shouldn't matter if there are several versions of D&D that get played at any one time.

But based on people's reaction TO THAT... obviously they have a real problem with it. And more often than not, the reaction is coupled with a complaint that they have nobody to play with (or the fear that they will have nobody to play with.)

If you can't find anyone to play the version of D&D you want to play... that isn't WotC's fault. And they shouldn't hold back on new editions just to make sure everyone stays within the same holding pattern so that you always can find one. That ain't their job.

 

[Umbran]

We're in a great new age of RPGs, and D&D isn't the only game in town. As gamers, we're spoiled for choice;

Well, he has a point, in that people who are spoiled sometimes become, well... spoiled brats, don't they?

If you're in a position to run or play games that suit you, why wouldn't you?

I analogize...

When I host games at my home, my wife and I generally provide dinner and dessert for the gathering. We have had issues with picky eaters, who will either refuse to eat, or grumble and complain about how the food provided doesn't meet their preferences - even while reaching for a third helping! Picky eaters may not prevent meal-planning, but they do restrict choices and make the thing a complicated bother.

That issue transfers to gaming - it is all well and good to have your preferences in a game, but you must remember that you're in the context of a group, and a body of other gamers who may potentially play at your table. The more picky you are, the fewer games you can enjoy. Now, maybe you've had a stable group for a decade that isn't going anywhere, and your preferences all match. If so, that's great. But by and large that's not how gaming works, is it? Most of us don't that that luxury, and ought to be a little more open to compromises and flexibility.

And, taken to the extreme, some of us do sometimes seem to think that the rules are more important than the people. Around here, it produces edition warring, where the rules you play by are apparently more important than interacting well with your fellow human beings, to the point of being insensitive or rude, or even outright insulting and mean top real people. Certainly we shouldn't be beating each other over the head to have the rules we want individually. And a great way to avoid that is to cultivate a greater appreciation and openness for a variety of mechanical systems.

 

[Obryn]

If you do, then great! But why then all the complaints we hear about WotC "fracturing the player-base?" If people play many games (which they should), then it shouldn't matter if there are several versions of D&D that get played at any one time.

But based on people's reaction TO THAT... obviously they have a real problem with it. And more often than not, the reaction is coupled with a complaint that they have nobody to play with (or the fear that they will have nobody to play with.)

If you can't find anyone to play the version of D&D you want to play... that isn't WotC's fault. And they shouldn't hold back on new editions just to make sure everyone stays within the same holding pattern so that you always can find one. That ain't their job.

I don't know what's with those arguments because I'm not the one making them.

I hope Next is hugely successful. I also hope it turns into a game I want to play. But right now, I don't feel the need to compromise on the game I'm playing, because I have a strong group. If I didn't, or if my players weren't happy, it might be different.

I also think the increasing popularity of vtt games means that there's even less need to settle, but that's neither here nor there.

-O

 

[adembroski]

I don't think it matters A.) how many factions we perceive their to be, B.) the constitution of said factions or C.) who or what fractured the player-base. The myriad of comments focusing on those kinda miss the point.

5E, based on what evidence we do have (the reactions of those who've played it), isn't going over particularly well with any subset of players. That's not to say that 5E is going to be when it is released what it is now, clearly that's not the case; but I also doubt we're going to see a drastic change in design direction from this point on.

It's quite possible that there's a huge silent majority, but I would venture to guess that A.) people willing to signup and participate in a playtest are also people likely to post on these and the Wizards boards and B.) it's likely at least a large enough sample size that we can assume a relatively small margin of error. Thus, I do feel confident in my conclusion that the game simply isn't getting over conceptually (when I say conceptually, I'm trying to avoid the whole "but the game's not even out yet, it's going to change" arguments... we're talking direction, design philosophy).

I'll be the first to admit; it plays better than it reads. I've run several sessions, and it went quite smoothly and was very easy to DM. But there are plenty of aspects of it at this point that rub me the wrong way conceptually. I'm not interested in paying for a system I have to house-rule into submission, and that's where I'm at right now (I'm using no house rules in my playtest, for the record).

 

[Obryn]

Well, he has a point, in that people who are spoiled sometimes become, well... spoiled brats, don't they?



I analogize...

When I host games at my home, my wife and I generally provide dinner and dessert for the gathering. We have had issues with picky eaters, who will either refuse to eat, or grumble and complain about how the food provided doesn't meet their preferences - even while reaching for a third helping! Picky eaters may not prevent meal-planning, but they do restrict choices and make the thing a complicated bother.

That issue transfers to gaming - it is all well and good to have your preferences in a game, but you must remember that you're in the context of a group, and a body of other gamers who may potentially play at your table. The more picky you are, the fewer games you can enjoy. Now, maybe you've had a stable group for a decade that isn't going anywhere, and your preferences all match. If so, that's great. But by and large that's not how gaming works, is it? Most of us don't that that luxury, and ought to be a little more open to compromises and flexibility.

And, taken to the extreme, some of us do sometimes seem to think that the rules are more important than the people. Around here, it produces edition warring, where the rules you play by are apparently more important than interacting well with your fellow human beings, to the point of being insensitive or rude, or even outright insulting and mean top real people. Certainly we shouldn't be beating each other over the head to have the rules we want individually. And a great way to avoid that is to cultivate a greater appreciation and openness for a variety of mechanical systems.

I don't see anyone saying they wouldn't play Next if invited to a game. I see consumers trying to determine if the game will be a good candidate for their "main" game of choice, or worth buying in to. Also, trying to steer development insofar as that's possible.

So I don't think your analogy is apt here.

-O

 

[delericho]

So, if we don't hear from them, how on earth do *you* know they are larger than either of the other two? You in a special psychic link with them, or something? Data source, or it's just another unsupported assertion like the OP.

That's fair. The claim that the pre-3e group is larger is indeed an unsupported assertion. However, the existence of a large pre-3e grouping is easily supported (see Dragonsfoot and the OSR), and it's also quite easily established that many of these would object to be bracketed with the 3e folks.

However, the existence of a silent majority of gamers who are not online is not unsupported - Wizards' estimates put the number of active gamers at some 6 million, while the communities here and at Wizards.com reflect only a minority of those. (But before you point it out - there's no evidence to support the statement that the intersection of not-online-gamers and pre-3e gamers is a majority view. That was, indeed, a mistake.)

 

[Aeolius]

...because they've gone so over the bend about every single nitpicky little thing that every single player has become an island unto themselves.

To be fair, some of us are oceans.

 

[Li Shenron]

D&DN is going down the right path. It will be a new game that people will buy. In much greater quantity than a 4E DMG3 all about the Epic Tier or another Heroes of the Friendless Wastes player's essentials book would have.

That's all that matters. They write books, people buy books, they make money, they spend money to write more books. The cycle continues.

And I have no sympathy for the player-base. Because if all this incessant complaining about the 4E rules by the 3E crowd and the D&DN rules by the 4E crowd about every single stinking little rule is any indication... is tells me that the player-base is fractured NOT because really of the games themselves... but because of each player's complete uncompromising unwillingness to make concessions to how they play their game. If it includes X they aren't play it! If it doesn't have Y, then they're not switching! Really, it's no wonder players can't find groups to play with... because they've gone so over the bend about every single nitpicky little thing that every single player has become an island unto themselves.

Player in Nebraska today: "If Next doesn't include the Warlord as a class, then I'm not switching to the game when it comes out!!! They've lost me as a customer!"

Cut to same player 3 years from now: "I can't find anyone to play non-Essentials 4E with me in my area!"

About time someone said it. That's pretty much the reason why I prefer gaming with casual players (who unfortunately don't buy many books tho).