D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Micah Sweet]

Though part of this is that, once established, games in general tend to be hesitant to change in really substantial ways, often for the simple reason its often greeted with hostility by extent fan bases. This isn't universal, but its pretty common.

Unless that game is named Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unless that game is named Dungeons & Dragons.

Are you being sarcastic? Its the only way I can read this. D&D's changes when they happened at all were often greeted with great hostility, and its still more similar to what it was in 1978 than any other game not deliberately derived from it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you being sarcastic? Its the only way I can read this. D&D's changes when they happened at all were often greeted with great hostility, and its still more similar to what it was in 1978 than any other game not deliberately derived from it is.

The claim was that games are hesitant to make big changes. D&D has done so multiple times, regardless of the blowback. They can't be that hesitant.

 

[Hussar]

Are you being sarcastic? Its the only way I can read this. D&D's changes when they happened at all were often greeted with great hostility, and its still more similar to what it was in 1978 than any other game not deliberately derived from it is.

You have to realize that some people have wrapped their identity around the notion that D&D has undergone radical changes in the past four or five years, despite there being zero evidence of this actually being true.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The claim was that games are hesitant to make big changes. D&D has done so multiple times, regardless of the blowback. They can't be that hesitant.

The fact you think a game that still has classes, levels, level elevating hit points and armor class after all these years demonstrates you don't understand what big changes are.

 

[Reynard]

The fact you think a game that still has classes, levels, level elevating hit points and armor class after all these years demonstrates you don't understand what big changes are.

I mean, it may just be a matter of a difference of opinion on what "big" means. The changes between 2E and 3E are certainly "big" when taken as a whole: no more class restrictions or level limits, huge differences in damage output potential and overall swinginess, feats alone, etc... Many themes have remained the same but there have also been major mechanical changes.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah I'm finding the argument that OD&D to 5e doesn't represent major mechanical changes between the versions of the game to be... strange. This feels more like an argument for them not making the major mechanical changes for a particular preference.

 

[Oofta]

The only "big" change we had was with 4E. All the rest of the changes were incremental and/or cosmetic. Add up all those incremental changes after half a century? Sure, it adds up. But each revision made relatively small changes. I happen to like 5E so while I want minor improvements, I don't want a different system. Then again I don't think innovation in the form of big changes is inherently good or even necessary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact you think a game that still has classes, levels, level elevating hit points and armor class after all these years demonstrates you don't understand what big changes are.

Cute. Apparently politeness is relative.

 

[Reynard]

The only "big" change we had was with 4E. All the rest of the changes were incremental and/or cosmetic. Add up all those incremental changes after half a century? Sure, it adds up. But each revision made relatively small changes. I happen to like 5E so while I want minor improvements, I don't want a different system. Then again I don't think innovation in the form of big changes is inherently good or even necessary.

You are positing that the 2E to 3E jump was not a big change?

Odd.