Micah Sweet
Legend
I agree they was describing marketing and not design.So You agree it's not art, which was the point.
I agree they was describing marketing and not design.So You agree it's not art, which was the point.
Mod Note:If only I had Micah’s wisdom I wouldn’t be so easily manipulated into buying books I don’t need. Woe is me!
Cool. The D&D you like still exists, as do all the old books you may have.I don't need everything to cater to my tastes either. But D&D did a pretty good job for many years, and then rather abruptly stopped.
I mean, it isn't a label, but whatever. I was describing my own attitude here.I don't appreciate being insinuated to be selfish and not want other people to be happy. That's a label too, by the way.
You said your attitude was the opposite of mine. Your words. How did you expect me to take that?Cool. The D&D you like still exists, as do all the old books you may have.
I mean, it isn't a label, but whatever. I was describing my own attitude here.
I think we're operating with very different ideas of what 'structure' means, then. Particularly with the 'describe what you're doing' vs. 'push a button' split: that is one of the very first rules in the PHB. It's foundational to the game's basic play loop.
Defining D&D is like that of porn, you know it if you see.Eh. I think there's been enough common elements from all the way back to OD&D that you can point at them, and a number of them are pretty rare (levels, classes, significant hit point advancement over time) outside of D&D and its clear offshoots that you can call them that. No one of them says D&D per se, but as a set that structure has been fairly consistent.
Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.that fact that 20 pages in we see divide and we are still in playtest shows there will be... However this weekend at a store I ran into people who didn't even know 1D&D was a thing talking about it with the store owner and getting mad.
1 of the two players had JUST bought there PHB either beginning of this year or end of last and said they would be upset if the 2024 reprint was adopted by there group because they were not rebuying a book after only 2 years, and the other (younger) player said there parents warned them that D&D changed edition every few years and they didn't understand it until now... when the store owner told them it wasn't 'really' an edition change they both laughed. Both are new players, neither played any RPGs before 5e D&D and even THEY felt this was both unneeded and an edition change even if not called such.
When I tried to help by saying that if there group all agreeed to stay with older rules it would be fine the older of the two said he had heard stories about people staying with 3rd edition and loosing friends when 4th edition came out... and me and store owner had to admit that did happen.
I think (and I may be way off I have not been young since the T rex went extinct) that we still sell the TTRPG as 'not video games'. I doubt either (although I don't really know them and only have seen 1 of the 2 of them before in passing) would be suprised at the new madien or assassins creed game coming out, but the idea that D&D could change so soon seemed to shock them.Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.
Regarding your first paragraph: to what extent is a rule non-structural because some people don't follow the rule? No game designer can make players do things by the book. I think there's a difference between a game that people play 'wrong' in some instances, and a game that people play 'wrong' in most instances, or a game that doesn't have an obvious 'right'. This is all possibly a matter of degree, to be fair.It might be my fault for not making it clear; I'm talking about the structure of the system. While resolution approaches are not completely disconnected with that, its far more vulnerable to, from lack of a better term "local conditions"; no matter how a game describes how you're supposed to approach dealing with particular types of problems, people will use the core mechanics in other ways to do that. That comes up outside the D&D sphere too (dip into enough threads about PbtA games and its abundantly clear a non-trivial amount of GMs ignore the way they're told to use the system, sometimes in ways that seem kind of appalling to PbtA proponents, and PbtA games and related have always been far more rigid in that way than virtually any editions of D&D.)
As such, I don't think a lot of things that are theoretically part of a game loop don't seem particularly core to people because they've played in a lot, maybe all their games that don't follow it. But they've still probably played D&D with classes, levels, level elevating hit points and a couple other things. Its far more central to the overall D&D hobby than any specific playstyle (though there are certainly some styles that have been very common throughout its history).
at this level of abstraction 4e basic and 5e are all identical.The more important question is: if everyone plays with classes, levels, and ascending HP, does that yield some kind of 'core' D&D experience?
I would argue that it does not, and point the the incredible wealth of D&D-derived games (including video games) that all contain those same elements, and yet play very differently.
It really is different. Updates to the base game are generally free in video games, and hard to avoid, so everyone is basically on the same page. DLC is extra, but is more like an rpg supplement in that it's there if you want, but you have to opt in.Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.
Regarding your first paragraph: to what extent is a rule non-structural because some people don't follow the rule? No game designer can make players do things by the book. I think there's a difference between a game that people play 'wrong' in some instances, and a game that people play 'wrong' in most instances, or a game that doesn't have an obvious 'right'. This is all possibly a matter of degree, to be fair.
The more important question is: if everyone plays with classes, levels, and ascending HP, does that yield some kind of 'core' D&D experience? I would argue that it does not, and point the the incredible wealth of D&D-derived games (including video games) that all contain those same elements, and yet play very differently.
at this level of abstraction 4e basic and 5e are all identical.
It really is different. Updates to the base game are generally free in video games, and hard to avoid, so everyone is basically on the same page. DLC is extra, but is more like an rpg supplement in that it's there if you want, but you have to opt in.
This is an area where I feel it is impossible to be objective. IMO, the more you as an individual like the new rules or at least don't think they're a big deal, the more likely you will believe that there won't be a schism or that it will be small. And of course the reverse is true.If WotC does what they say they intend to do, this whole conversation will seem ridiculous in a few years. When you can walk into a store, grab an updated PHB when you feel like it, go home and still use it with your Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign you've been planning to run, and it works fine, folks will be like "eh." I'm sure you will get the occasional grognard insisting that only the 2014 PHB is real D&D, but most conversations will be something like: Player: "Are we using the updated Bardic inspiration rules?" DM: "Sure." I don't think we are gonna exactly get a Protestant/Catholic schism here.
And there's also the other facet, which is that even if there does end up being a schism... whether that actually matters or not?This is an area where I feel it is impossible to be objective. IMO, the more you as an individual like the new rules or at least don't think they're a big deal, the more likely you will believe that there won't be a schism or that it will be small. And of course the reverse is true.