Disconnect Between Designer's Intent and Player Intepretation

[MGibster]

They're parasites. But parasitism isn't a perfectly safe process either; even though killing a host is a failure, it still happens on occasion.

Fair enough. That's probably a better description for them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or infecting them with vampirism when they come to their senses after losing control.

True. That's probably more problematic in a number of situations than accidentally killing someone.

 

[GreyLord]

Which is funny because old schoolers (maybe even Gygax himself) hated what Diablo did to D&D.

No, not really.

We HATED that 3e was BASED on Diablo (and more so on Diablo 2).

Ironically, something very few of the hardcore 3e players caught onto or forgot when they went crying about 4e having ideas from WoW.

Whirlwind was such a direct nod to Diabo 2 among a ton of other items that you could find in 3e that many just shook their heads.

Of course, that same crowd also would say in many instances (and probably rightly) that 3e was a completely DIFFERENT game than what Gygax and Arneson designed, it was a game the MtG guys created and then bought the D&D name so they could slap the title onto their own home made game rules for their own RPG based LIGHTLY off D&D, and heavily off of Rolemaster.

The edition wars between 2e and 3e were FAR worse than anything I ever saw between 3e and 4e...but then again...

Over 24 million players drifted away from AD&D by the end of 2e.

3e brought in 5 million players (some say regained...but to the old guard who never came back...they'd probably say lost) but completely abandoned and lost 20 million players.

In comparison...3e to 4e only probably lost 3 to 4 million players total...small change to how many 3e lost.

5e has gained quite a gathering, regaining some of the old guard, but building a whole NEW generation of millions of players.

I think an edition change today akin to what 3e did, or what 4e did, would be the biggest disaster yet in regards to losing players. Good thing it's an update rather than a new edition, and it's going to all be under one banner (5e and the updated edition) of ONE D&D.

But yeah, it wasn't what Diablo did to D&D, but what the 3e designers used as direction and inspiration from Diablo to make 3e.

 

[Aldarc]

But yeah, it wasn't what Diablo did to D&D, but what the 3e designers used as direction and inspiration from Diablo to make 3e.

Whether it's blaming Diablo for 3e's direction, WoW for 4e's direction, or the MCU and anime for 5e's direction, all these accusations come across as people blaming changes that they dislike on whatever is the hot pop culture item.

 

[pemerton]

Whirlwind was such a direct nod to Diabo 2 among a ton of other items that you could find in 3e that many just shook their heads.

I always assumed it was based on the kensai's Whirlwind Attack in the original OA (p 17):

At 11th level the kensai can make a whirlwind attack. This is an additional ki power. The kensai concentrates his bodily energy and bursts into a blurring whirlwind of motion. This ability requires all of the character's ki power for the day (i.e., he cannot have used any ki power previously that day). The whirlwind attack can only be made with the specialty weapon. Using this power, the kensai can attack all opponents within 10 feet of him once in the same round.​

This has a publication date of 1985 (and I bought a copy in 1986), which I think predates Diablo.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Whether it's blaming Diablo for 3e's direction, WoW for 4e's direction, or the MCU and anime for 5e's direction, all these accusations come across as people blaming changes that they dislike on whatever is the hot pop culture item.

And let's not forget blaming 2e and 3e for players drifting away when all you need was the combination of people who no longer had time for the game or figured out that, hard as this is for some D&D fans to believe, that D&D fundamentally wasn't giving everyone what they wanted out of RPGing, and that was just as true of every edition; in some cases it just took a long time for some people to figure that out.
But no, it has to be the fault of changes in edition. No other explanation is possible.

 

[billd91]

Unintended consequences may be a thing (3e magic item creation rules and the Big Six + wands of CLW, I’m looking at you), but some of this discussion also sounds like the difference between players playing to the rules vs playing to the genre.

 

[pemerton]

the difference between players playing to the rules vs playing to the genre.

If these come apart, to me that suggests terrible rules.

 

[Lanefan]

Whether it's blaming Diablo for 3e's direction, WoW for 4e's direction, or the MCU and anime for 5e's direction, all these accusations come across as people blaming changes that they dislike on whatever is the hot pop culture item.

So then, should D&D try to follow the then-hot pop culture item or instead try to forge its own path and maybe become the hot culture item other things follow? I ask this because hot culture items don't always stay hot. (that, and I blame M:tG far more for 3e's direction than I do Diablo)

I would say in the 0e-1e days D&D forged its own path, then starting with 2e's response to the Satanic panic it started becoming a follower rather than a leader.

 

[MGibster]

This has a publication date of 1985 (and I bought a copy in 1986), which I think predates Diablo.

I think there's kind of a loop when it comes to video games and table top RPGS. It's fairly clear that video games like pedit5 were influenced by D&D and were quite popular on mainframes located on college campuses. But at some point I think pen and paper RPGS have been influenced by video games. I happen to think 4th edition D&D was highly influenced by MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. And I don't mean that as an insult.