D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[GMforPowergamers]

Game designing and marketing are two different skills and fields, though. Making a commercially successful product involves both, but they are not the same thing.

this is why you not only need 2 teams that are GREAT at there jobs you need a management that can keep them on the same page.

 

[HammerMan]

a great example is the world of darkness setting/rules/themes

for years the theme was supposed to be an uncontrollable thirst or rage... a monster that you have to fight down every night. Some people played that way, but others made vampires into 'super heroes' with cool powers... cause the base rules made it work really easy.
A few years ago new vampire (5th edition ironically) came out and had a VERY different mechanic that meant every time you did almost anything you risked losing control... (the mechanic now not just the flavor) and it changed the whole way people play.

I will add to this I know people who refuse 5e Vampire BECAUSE it enforced the fluff that was always there because they had built the old ways up

 

[DEFCON 1]

You think the majority of 5e players will just shell out another $150 to re-buy the core books, especially if the changes are all as minor as you claim? Even minor changes need to be accounted for if you intend to use them.

Yep. People like buying D&D books. And they like thinking they are using the new shiny. And with 2 years to save $150 (which is about $6 a month), having the cash to buy them isn't that much of an issue for the majority of players.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Being burned out on 5e and not enjoying the direction WotC has taken during the last few years, I would actually rather have seen a real new edition with massive changes. That I probably would have bought, but I won't get any One or other D&D stuff for the foreseeable future.

 

[Olrox17]

I did not imply that.
I said exactly what I meant: "good design" is not always appealing to the audience.

The problem: if you want D&D, you are somewhat limited by the expectations of the game which has been there for nearly 50 years now. So you need to make sure the game has the right feel.

4e was good design. But it did not carry the feel correctly. I say, 3.5 did not carry the feel correctly. 5e, for me, is a lot closer to my expectations. And better designed than the editions before 4e.

So I expect one to be a bit more coherently designed (as shown in the playtest), but still carrying the correct feel (which seems to be somewhat off for the ranger at least, going from the reactions here).

No disagreements on my part, then.
You can indeed have superbly designed games that just don’t appeal to the right audience, or to a vast enough audience. On the contrary, you can have crappily designed games with amazing general appeal, carried by smart marketing. The video game market offers a tremendous amount of interesting examples of both and everything in between.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So you’re not a game designer, then. Got it.

Do you even lift?

 

[Morrus]

I think there has to be a democratic element to what is good design, if you are a publisher. In other words, I don't think it's a cop out to say that, objectively, good design is what the most people like.

What you're describing is popular design, the largest influence on which is marketing budgets.

Art is not democratic. And it's not bad if it's not popular, whether it be an RPG, a book, a painting, food, or anything else.

My local restaurant makes awesome food, but it's 1-billionth as 'popular' as McDonalds. That does not make is an 'objectively' bad restaurant.

I have made stuff I knew wouldn't be universally popular. I did this consciously. But the target audience liked it a lot. If Disney suddenly bought it and sold it to a million people, it wouldn't suddenly have become 'objectively good design'.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

What you're describing is popular design, the largest influence on which is marketing budgets.

Art is not democratic. And it's not bad if it's not popular, whether it be an RPG, a book, a painting, food, or anything else.

My local restaurant makes awesome food, but it's 1-billionth as 'popular' as McDonalds. That does not make is an 'objectively' bad restaurant.

I have made stuff I knew wouldn't be universally popular. I did this consciously. But the target audience liked it a lot. If Disney suddenly bought it and sold it to a million people, it wouldn't suddenly have become 'objectively good design'.

Design isn't art, neither is developing a game. Design is per definition the creative process of making something as appealing as possible to a large or small group of people with the goal of increasing their willingness to acquire the designed object. This is most often done for a commercial purpose, but can have other motivations.

In a culture of overconsumption, design can be perceived and mistaken for art. That doesn't make it so.

That doesn't mean that designing or developing a game is easy, or that I don't have respect or gratitude to the very creative people who spend large amounts of time on products that I enjoy and buy.

But it still isn't art.

 

[Morrus]

Design isn't art, neither is developing a game. Design is per definition the creative process of making something as appealing as possible to a large or small group of people with the goal of increasing their willingness to acquire the designed object. This is most often done for a commercial purpose, but can have other motivations.

In a culture of overconsumption, design can be perceived and mistaken for art. That doesn't make it so.

That doesn't mean that designing or developing a game is easy, or that I don't have respect or gratitude to the very creative people who spend large amounts of time on products that I enjoy and buy.

But it still isn't art.

Yes it is.

 

[Olrox17]

Design isn't art, neither is developing a game. Design is per definition the creative process of making something as appealing as possible to a large or small group of people with the goal of increasing their willingness to acquire the designed object. This is most often done for a commercial purpose, but can have other motivations.

In a culture of overconsumption, design can be perceived and mistaken for art. That doesn't make it so.

That doesn't mean that designing or developing a game is easy, or that I don't have respect or gratitude to the very creative people who spend large amounts of time on products that I enjoy and buy.

But it still isn't art.

If we had a disagree button, this is where I would press the heck out of it.