D&D 5E Further Future D&D Product Speculation

[overgeeked]

Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Ravenloft were well received, though, so I don't really see this as significant.

By some fans, yes. By others, not so much.

 

[Parmandur]

I have a setting that fits this description!

Too light, sorry.

 

[Parmandur]

By some fans, yes. By others, not so much.

Given the history of 5E publishing, I don't see there being a serious issue. Speaking as part of the target audience for weird old things!

 

[overgeeked]

Given the history of 5E publishing, I don't see there being a serious issue. Speaking as part of the target audience for weird old things!

I'm not sure what you could mean other than "it doesn't matter what the old fans think."

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure what you could mean other than "it doesn't matter what the old fans think."

I mean that old fans are not a monolith, WotC has been monitoring reception of returns to older Settings, and we can see the results. Speaking as an "older fan" from the 3E era.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean that old fans are not a monolith, WotC has been monitoring reception of returns to older Settings, and we can see the results. Speaking as an "older fan" from the 3E era.

Exactly. We have one data point in 5E as to the market reception of a fairly high-level reboot, which is Ravenloft. Since we aren't privy to sales numbers or any other form of metric as to how well Ravenloft did, we'll have to see how far WotC goes in their next reboot.

And judging by our early impressions of Spelljammer, they seem happy enough to do pretty high-level changes to the overall concept and details of a setting.

 

[Parmandur]

Exactly. We have one data point in 5E as to the market reception of a fairly high-level reboot, which is Ravenloft. Since we aren't privy to sales numbers or any other form of metric as to how well Ravenloft did, we'll have to see how far WotC goes in their next reboot.

And judging by our early impressions of Spelljammer, they seem happy enough to do pretty high-level changes to the overall concept and details of a setting.

I recall an interview with Mearls in the strange before times, when he was talking about how Ghosts of Saltmarsh was an experiment in how people would receive older Settings being updated, and thst it was a success already st thst time. So that's another data point.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean that old fans are not a monolith

Of course not.

WotC has been monitoring reception of returns to older Settings, and we can see the results.

Sure, but I doubt they have sales info as detailed as how many fans from X era who started in Y year bought product Z. That's not a thing they'd have access to, really. They can do surveys. Which are self-selecting and therefore biased. But 5E is wildly popular and brought in more fans than D&D's ever had before in with it. So it muddies the waters. There's no real way to tell what older fans think other than asking them...which again, is self-selecting and biased. The cranky grogs are louder than the happy ones, etc.

Speaking as an "older fan" from the 3E era.

Whipper snapper.

 

[Parmandur]

Of course not.

Sure, but I doubt they have sales info as detailed as how many fans from X era who started in Y year bought product Z. That's not a thing they'd have access to, really. They can do surveys. Which are self-selecting and therefore biased. But 5E is wildly popular and brought in more fans than D&D's ever had before in with it. So it muddies the waters. There's no real way to tell what older fans think other than asking them...which again, is self-selecting and biased. The cranky grogs are louder than the happy ones, etc.

Whipper snapper.

Someone who started with 3E in 2000 at age 18 would be 40 now.

I see no particular reason to believe reception has been poor. I mostly see and hear good things about those products.

 

[Mercurius]

The best arguments I've heard include:

1. Encountering slavery is hurtful and traumatizing to people, including already marginalized people.

This implies that it isn't about the kids specifically, but people (of any age) who may be traumatized by "encountering" slavery (whatever that means - it basically boils down to the idea of slavery, not the reality of it). If we take this premise, then we're going to eventually excise a ton of stuff from D&D.

Now obviously WotC--or any publisher--has a line as to what they will and will not publish, which roughly equates with the movie rating of PG-13. I have no issue with that - nor am I particularly interested in "R-rated" D&D stuff; I'm not an excessive gore person, nor have I ever understood the interest in incorporating, say, eroticism into the RPG experience. But I'm concerned by the idea that this continually narrows--it isn't only about the "movie rating," but what concepts one "encounters," what is deemed acceptable. Furthermore, shouldn't that be dealt with on a per-group basis?

2. You're not going to get an authentic examination of the human misery and suffering caused by slavery in D&D, and publishing a "sanitized" slavery regime is a bad look.

This highlights another idea new to RPGs, that I don't think is a positive development: the idea that an RPG must give "an authentic examination" of something. It is a fantasy game. Why must it accurately map real world experience? Isn't the point to play make-believe?

I mean, take the very nature of combat: how authentically does it represent actual physical violence? And why would it need to?

p.s. I'm not directly responding to you, Greg, just the ideas presented in your two points.