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

[overgeeked]

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.

You’re wrong.

 

[Scott Christian]

It’s also weird how people often equate “my preference” with “good design.”

Knowhatimsayin’?

To be fair to everyone here, I have rarely (I'd even stand on very rarely) ever seen anyone here point out bad design as not my preference. And I would say the opposite is true too. People on this site know how to differentiate a design or rule as being functional/useful/flavorful, but also not to their liking.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

If I may interject into your conversation...
Yes. Yes, I do think they will buy them. And in greater numbers.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

The definition you offer is wrong because it only considers one of many possible design parameters, but otherwise I agree that design and art are not the same thing, even if they often overlap. Good design is design that meets parameters, and those parameters might have nothing to do with art. (Unless one is using the somewhat archaic definition of 'art' to simply mean 'skill', but that would make the arguments that depend on it rather trite.)

 

[Clint_L]

WotC has outright stated, repeatedly, that they don't like the old "editions" model of D&D publishing and are abandoning it. They have outright stated, repeatedly, that their goal is for players to NOT feel compelled to have to replace all their books, and for new releases to play well with existing 5e releases.

They are, in other words, trying to change the D&D paradigm.

Paradigm shifts are hard and always meet with entrenched resistance. They challenge the ego. Thus, this thread.

Will WotC succeed in their project? I dunno. It seems hard...but what if they are right and we're wrong? What if there is a better model for how to update the game without alienating big chunks of the player base? What if Gary Gygax and Lorraine Williams set the game on a flawed "editions" path back in the 80s when sales were collapsing and they were desperately looking for short term fixes? Are these things possible?

WotC specifically used the term "evolution" for their new model of updating the game. That is interesting. In evolution, there aren't new "editions." There is just incremental change, with interbreeding possible at every stage amongst a given population. Over time, the changes can be enormous. But there is no one moment you can point to and state, "THAT is where the new species began." Well, that is what they are describing for their new vision for D&D. No giant changes. Just gradual adaptations to a changing environment.

Edit: just thinking that there are interesting parallels here back to when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution driven by incremental change through a process of natural selection, and was immediately met by choruses of "No, that's impossible! Species are immutable!"

 

[Clint_L]

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

ETA: Good game design is about making the game work to its mandate. You want a game of cat burglars, then you need to design a game that works to bring that fantasy to the table. The better the design achieves this the better the design. If you say your game is about personal horror yet the mechanics all point to superheroes with fangs, for example, that’s bad design. This is all completely unconnected to sales.

A) I actually am a published board game designer: I designed the educational game Up the Creek: The Salmon Survival Game as a side gig back when I was in grad school. I got paid a whole 3 grand, which was a bit of a windfall at that time of my life. So there! It is minimal experience, but it is experience.

More to the point, as is typical of this thread you ignored the actual words of my post to create the "gotcha" statement that you wanted. Specifically, you ignored the words "element" and "if," in order to make your super obvious point as if I did not understand the basic intent of design. So...good job? You stated the obvious? You want a gold star?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That isn't design. That's marketing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I may interject into your conversation...
Yes. Yes, I do think they will buy them. And in greater numbers.

It is clear that I don't understand the current fandom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC has outright stated, repeatedly, that they don't like the old "editions" model of D&D publishing and are abandoning it. They have outright stated, repeatedly, that their goal is for players to NOT feel compelled to have to replace all their books, and for new releases to play well with existing 5e releases.

They are, in other words, trying to change the D&D paradigm.

Paradigm shifts are hard and always meet with entrenched resistance. They challenge the ego. Thus, this thread.

Will WotC succeed in their project? I dunno. It seems hard...but what if they are right and we're wrong? What if there is a better model for how to update the game without alienating big chunks of the player base? What if Gary Gygax and Lorraine Williams set the game on a flawed "editions" path back in the 80s when sales were collapsing and they were desperately looking for short term fixes? Are these things possible?

WotC specifically used the term "evolution" for their new model of updating the game. That is interesting. In evolution, there aren't new "editions." There is just incremental change, with interbreeding possible at every stage amongst a given population. Over time, the changes can be enormous. But there is no one moment you can point to and state, "THAT is where the new species began." Well, that is what they are describing for their new vision for D&D. No giant changes. Just gradual adaptations to a changing environment.

Sounds like an excellent way to manipulate people into buying slightly updated corebooks over and over and over again.

 

[bloodtide]

It will create a divide, like it always will. A group of players will fall allover themselves to say D&D 5.5 is "the best" and some new players will be "drawn in" by the "new" and whatever shinny new gimick it has game. Some will stay with 5E. Same thing that ALWAYS happens.