Fragmentation Fears

[Texicles]

I want to start off by saying that I'm VERY excited about 5e, and can think of no deal-breaker features (present or absent) that would keep me from playing it.

However, one of my absolute favorite parts of the 5e design philosophy is one that has given me a pause of concern on more than one occasion. I'm talking about modularity.

I love that DMs, alone or with input from the group, can use an array of tools to shape their game the way they want it, but I see an inherent risk with this as well.

With previous editions, generally, you had a pretty good idea of what the game would feel and play like when someone said it's AD&D, 3.5, 4e, etc.. Sure there might have been some houserules and what have you.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that, after it's released, everyone who plays D&D will play some variant on 5e. How do you find a game that uses the version of 5e you want to play?

I don't expect that you'll find 5 or 6 other people who want to use the exact set of modules you want to use, and that's fine; communal activities, by definition, require compromise.

But what if you can't find a group that wants to use even half the modules that you want to use. With such myriad potential modules, their permutations are virtually endless.

Am I just giving myself the heeby-jeebys here, or does anyone else have any fears of fragmentation among the future 5e-playing community?

 

[jadrax]

I have never played in two games of AD&D using the same rules. In fact I re-read the rules recently I and half of what I saw was unrecognisable as anything I had seen used in play.

TBH, with the amount of d20 material out their you can have massively different play experiences. I have used armour as DR, condensed skills, all attacks against flat footed opponents force a death save, and numerous other rules in games.

All of this has pretty much worked fine.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't think it's a big deal. It just means that you'll probably have to find compromise with different groups.

 

[Croesus]

Three points:

1. Some modules shouldn't matter (we hope). The designers have talked about one player having a character with lots of options, while another player at the same table plays a simpler character, but both at roughly the same power level. So you could have a 3E/4E style fighter with selected feats and maneuvers along with a stock fighter that feels more like 1E.

That said, some modules may be problematic - spellcasting variants, using/not using a grid, and so on. As you say, some things a person just has to compromise on, or play a different game.

2. Having experienced D&D back in the white box era, I can say that no two games were exactly alike. Sure we had the same base rules, but some used all the supplements, some used none, some used Arduin Grimoire (really strange stuff in those), and everyone added stuff they just made up. In the end, players went along with the GM's choices, unless the GM was a jerk, in which case they formed a different group. I don't see where DDN can be any more fragmented than OD&D and that game did pretty well, all things considered.

3. The game is far, far from being finished. Don't sweat anything at this point.

 

[PinkRose]

I had the exact same idea as the OP.
But I'm starting to feel more ok as I talk to people.

 

[Number48]

You know, the funny thing is that when they started on designing 3E, they took a look and noticed that the rules were so fuzzy, incomplete or just plain contradictory that every table was a different game that made it very hard to have consistency. So, they tried to develop consistency so that everybody was playing more or less the same game. Now they seem to have thrown their hands up in defeat at that design goal.

 

[Oni]

You know, the funny thing is that when they started on designing 3E, they took a look and noticed that the rules were so fuzzy, incomplete or just plain contradictory that every table was a different game that made it very hard to have consistency. So, they tried to develop consistency so that everybody was playing more or less the same game. Now they seem to have thrown their hands up in defeat at that design goal.

I would say more like recognition that one of the most beautiful things about the game is how everyone makes it their own. Table to table consistency is vastly overrated, IMHO.

 

[deadwor1d]

I would say more like recognition that one of the most beautiful things about the game is how everyone makes it their own. Table to table consistency is vastly overrated, IMHO.

Yep. 'Fragmentation' has always been a part of this fun little community, going back to day one. House-rules as simple as one tweak to full-blown new rulebooks written by some players. And yet, most of them felt like D&D.

Nothing to worry about on that front, I think. This is business as usual.

 

[Agamon]

As Monte said in his recent blog post, changing from one game to a different variant is similar to, yet easier than, changing to a completely different game, which people do all the time.

And entering a new group that plays somewhat differently than one is used to is not always a bad thing. If they are having fun, odds are, you will, too, and maybe grow as a player while you're at it.

 

[Serendipity]

I don't think it will be all that different from the 3.x era...or the 2e era, or the dawn of gaming really. Such fragmentation will, hopefully, be more a feature than a bug.