So, working backwards through the justifications Rob provides, we have...
Rob Heinsoo said:
a serious misunderstanding of the value of traditional alignment language
So, Rob is kind of copping here to the 4e designers in this case not knowing what value they were throwing out. They didn't appreciate the fact that the old alignment language had important meaning for a lot of players and possibly in the culture as a whole (even a few degrees removed from a D&D table, "Chaotic Good" has some meaning).
I'm betting that alignment wasn't the only situation where this misunderstanding occurred.
If 5e has the Nine Alignments back in its core rules/assumptions (as it seems to be doing), even if it provides a lot of flexibility to individual tables about changing that, part of what we'll be seeing is a better understanding of that value, a recognition that there is something important in having those alignments, even if it comes with some problems.
I'd be curious to see where else the 5e team might be learning that lesson.
Rob Heinsoo said:
This one makes me a bit sad for 4e in general, honestly.
It's evident to me that a lot of 4e was designed with this intent: to be able to tell NEW stories with this 30+ year old (at the time) game. To reinvigorate and refresh. And that sounds like an awesome thing that anyone who likes this game should be able to get behind and identify with. We all would like to be able to tell new stories and have new tales in D&D.
I wonder how it dovetails with the above, though. If you want to do something new, then you're subject to confirmation bias about the old thing -- you're less likely to recognize and respect the value that it has. Just get rid of it, it's not the new hotness I'm into, it's only holding me back.
But that ignores context of the new idea. The logic is that to tell new stories, we need a new alignment system. But that's not true. New things are not sprung fully-formed out of the aether of nothingness and inspiration with complete freedom on all sides. All great new stories come from stories that have been told before, re-invigorated. The entire fantasy genre is nothing more than a re-tread of myth and legend from bygone days, fanfiction about fairies. The only hope any story has of standing tall is by standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before. Everything is a remix. The Nine Alignment system itself is evidence of that: a new story told on the shoulders of OD&D and Elric.
In order to foster new stories, we need the freedom to stand on those shoulders, but we don't need to cut down the giants. You can tell new stories in D&D without disregarding the value of the old ones. A modular game system like 5e would seem to be embracing that idea, enabling new stories without necessarily disregarding the old ones. The old stories are good, and that's especially true in a game based on stories whose trappings largely haven't changed for thousands of years.
Rob Heinsoo said:
This is the one that makes me the most unhappy.
I'm suspicious whenever marketing is giving R&D (which is what the designers are) their marching orders. It seems like there's something remarkably backwards about the business model when that happens. Rather than making a valuable product and preparing it well for the most receptive market, they're concerned with finding a receptive market and making a product that (might?) meet that market's needs. Re-branding influencing game design speaks to some severely mis-aligned priorities in management, I think.
It also speaks to that element of "cutting down the giants" I mentioned before, of dumping the old message the game was sending, disregarding the value it has, and imagining that naked innovation stands on its own.
WotC is a very brand-focused company, and there's some strengths that come with that, but this is one of the real risks that you face when you worship at the altar of branding: surrendering that which makes you unique, distinct, and successful in favor of focus groups and a myopic sales team. That's rarely a trade-off without some significant negative externalities.
What makes me feel bad about this is that it's not a misaligned aspiration or an ignorance of history. Those things are fairly easy to correct with context and education, and people are usually happy to see this at a different angle. What hurts with this is that when it is part of the corporate culture, when it is part of the ideology of the people making the decisions and writing the checks, it hits a lot more resistance and it's a lot more difficult to change.
That makes me worry that it is
still an influence on 5e. That, unlike the previous two reasons, this is not something that they've learned from and grown from. That branding initiatives are still leading design.
That's concerning, from One Cosmology To Rule Them All on down.
That might just be my cynical side speaking, though. If WotC is a smart company with smart leaders who aren't yoked to an ideological business model, it's something they can overcome and even benefit from. Re-branding isn't always inappropriate, it's just not usually very good design criteria.
It's the part I have the most concerns about 5e not overcoming, though. And it's the part where 5e is the most vulnerable to its competition. One thing is for dang sure: if WotC leaves the D&D brand on the table and seeks a new identity, someone else is going to pick up that old brand and make a mint on it. Every time WotC "re-brands" a D&D term, Paizo makes $100. (That's an inaccurate but memorable soundbite, for those interested in such things.
).
Anyhoo, interesting find, [MENTION=6683099]dd.stevenson[/MENTION] , thanks for sharing!
