D&D 5E Dear 5e design team: Please research earlier editions

[BobTheNob]

I just dont know where the OP's assumption comes from, to assume that the designers havent done their homework.

Here is the thing. Its their job, they do this for a living. That means their livelihoods are based on their success. When Im in that position, I do everything in my power to ensure a quality result. My kids depend on me doing so.

How many here design games for a living? I dont. Im interested in if the OP does.

Why do so many assume that they are in a position to give such sage advice?

 

[johnsemlak]

Doesn't it practially go without saying that the D&D designers at this point have played all or most of the editions of D&D and are familiar with most of the important D&D products of times gone past? These guys are gamers.

 

[Shemeska]

Doesn't it practially go without saying that the D&D designers at this point have played all or most of the editions of D&D and are familiar with most of the important D&D products of times gone past? These guys are gamers.

You would think so yes, but I'm not so sure that's the case. For me at least, I've never played OD&D, 1e, or any iteration of the non-Advanced-D&D line. Of course, I'd play them given the chance, but my gaming group that introduced me to D&D and that I still game with a decade later, largely influences what games I've played outside of conventions.

And an example from WotC from a few years back, as far as experience and knowledge of previous material, I remember some leading-up-to-4e comments on a podcast or two that showed either mocking disregard or serious ignorance about various pre-4e parts of the game. So either epic fail on the PR trying to build up a game by breaking down its immediate predecessor (which might have been the intent), or just not knowing what the heck came before you in a disturbing way.

This was the "what's a guardinal?..." and "bytopia?...." podcast.

Personally, if I'm going to be writing for a game system and they're paying me for it, I need to understand the rules and the flavor content of any shared world I'm writing within to a pretty keen degree or I'd turn down the project. The only time I might not is if I'd be collaborating with someone who could fill any gaps in my knowledge so the final product didn't suffer.

Here's hoping that 5e work is informed about previous editions, even if it's not their personal favorite, just to know where the game has been and what their prospective buyers have experienced in part or in whole.

 

[johnsemlak]

You would think so yes, but I'm not so sure that's the case. For me at least, I've never played OD&D, 1e, or any iteration of the non-Advanced-D&D line. Of course, I'd play them given the chance, but my gaming group that introduced me to D&D and that I still game with a decade later, largely influences what games I've played outside of conventions.

Oh, I understand that even a relatively experienced gamer hasn't actually immersed themselves in everything. However, as long-time gamers I imagine the D&D designers, leaving their professional work aside, have a wide breath of D&D experience. Some of them will be young enough that they don't' go back further than 1e, 2e or, even 3e naturally. But add to that that these are pros, who are paid to game, and have been told specifically to play games, on work time, in all editions. I just can't believe that all or nearly all the designers aren't familiar with all the editions as much as I'd want them to be.

Of course, I don't want them to get too carried away with the old edition familiarity and come out with a game where all weapons do the same damage.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Of course, I don't want them to get too carried away with the old edition familiarity and come out with a game where all weapons do the same damage.

Which edition was that?

 

[avin]

Right now I would think would be a waste of time for developers to check Gary Con, the basic frame of DDN, which is probably what would look like what's being played on Gary Con, is already written.

By this time this kind of research, I think, must be focused on fluff, not crunch...

 

[Scribble]

Which edition was that?

I know it was that way in at least the Tim Moldvay version of Basic D&D... Variant weapon damages were an optional rule. Everything by default did 1d6.

 

[johnsemlak]

I know it was that way in at least the Tim Moldvay version of Basic D&D... Variant weapon damages were an optional rule. Everything by default did 1d6.

modular game design!!!!! that's where it comes from

 

[Hussar]

MarkCMG - by and large, I do agree with you. It would be an excellent resource to avail themselves upon.

But, my latter point I think still remains. No matter how much research they do, some stuff will fall through the cracks. Some obscure resource that's been out of print for a decade will inevitably be brought up by someone as evidence that WOTC just didn't do their homework.

As the audience, I think it somewhat behooves us to realize that our own particular fetishes just might not be as important to other people as we would like.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I know it was that way in at least the Tim Moldvay version of Basic D&D... Variant weapon damages were an optional rule. Everything by default did 1d6.

Ah, in my 1981 Basic Rules (Moldvay) weapons have separate damage values (the classic d4 dagger, d6 shortsword, d8 longsword), must be an earlier version of Basic?