D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Dannyalcatraz]

In other words, you want D&D to not be D&D.

That is what that sounded like to me as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In other words, you want D&D to not be D&D.

One could as well argue that D&D, at its foundation, broke new ground - it was the first RPG! It created an entirely new genre of games. Why should this game not reinvent itself with every edition, and bring us something new and innovative, something that exemplifies why it deserves to be a market leader? Do we really want it to stick to a tiny niche of mechanics and gameplay, just because it did it once? Why bother even with new editions - from a gamer perspective - if you don't want to bring something new to the game, to show new solutions to old problems and introduce new concepts to the game? I mean, of course, WotC wants to bring out new editions because new editions sell better than supplements to existing editions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even if it was, we have to get past the fact that, while not objectively bad, Vancian Spellcasting has always been counter-intuitive for me...

IT is something foundational & virtually unique to D&D- some feel that it is one of its defining features.

...3.x multiclassing IS an objective cluster- of Yog-Sothothian proportions,...

In your humble opinion, of course, and the milage of others may vary.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why should this game not reinvent itself with every edition, and bring us something new and innovative, something that exemplifies why it deserves to be a market leader?

Because D&D is not the Ship of Theseus- at some point, you change enough and it will cease to be D&D, and will be just another FRPG.*

Why bother even with new editions

Why does Porsche have a design department? I mean, they have a couple of cars that AREN'T in the 911 bodystyle...but those aren't the big sellers over the company's lifetime. Sure, there have been tweaks, but...

Fender guitars makes more than just Telecasters and Stratocasters, but those designs have been 2 of the worlds biggest sellers for 50+ years...and with good reason. Sure, there have been tweaks, but...

Change within the boundaries of what creates your identity can be very good. Change outside of that can also be good, but it changes your identity.

It is entirely possible to release editions that let the game do what it does without changing its essential character.











* and you know that for some, that boundary has been passed with 4Ed.**

** or 3Ed.***

*** or anything past OD&D for diaglo.

 

[Tony Vargas]

at some point, you change enough and it will cease to be D&D, and will be just another FRPG.*

0D&D was the first FRPG. Every version of D&D after 0D&D has been just another FRPG. If you don't change D&D enough, it's just another retroclone.

Change within the boundaries of what creates your identity can be very good. Change outside of that can also be good, but it changes your identity.

Changing your identity can also be good, and your identity isn't just a function of what you are, but how you're perceived - it can change, even if you don't. The identity of D&D went from radically-new miniatures wargame to first RPG to old stodgy RPG to tired product being flogged for revenue by an executive who despised her own customers - all without changing that much, itself. And that was just the TSR years.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

0D&D was the first FRPG. Every version of D&D after 0D&D has been just another FRPG.

I cant disagree more.

I've a part of a campaign that started off in 1Ed in 1985, and has been updated to 2Ed & 3.5Ed over the years. There were changes along the way, but the PCs always had the same feel.

(The only other game I could personallymake a similar claim about is HERO.)

There is something about the iterations of D&D that have distinguished them from T&T, Harn, Talisantha, etc., that makes them D&D, and quite clearly different from FRPGs from other companies, and it's not the brand label on the books.

If you don't change D&D enough, it's just another retroclone.


Changing your identity can also be good, and your identity isn't just a function of what you are, but how you're perceived - it can change, even if you don't. The identity of D&D went from radically-new miniatures wargame to first RPG to old stodgy RPG to tired product being flogged for revenue by an executive who despised her own customers - all without changing that much, itself. And that was just the TSR years.

I agree. I hinted as much in my last post. If I didn't believe that some changes to the game had merit, they'd have lost me as a customer at the dawn of 2Ed. Instead, 3.5Ed is my D&D of preference.

The key is in striking the right balance between innovation and maintaining touchstones to the game's history. Fail to do the former, the game stagnates. Fail to do the latter, you lose identity...and customers. In my MBA program, that was called "the New Coke Lesson."

 

[Steely_Dan]

Fender guitars makes more than just Telecasters and Stratocasters, but those designs have been 2 of the worlds biggest sellers for 50+ years...and with good reason. Sure, there have been tweaks, but...

Good analogy, like amps, yeah, solid-state amps are more reliable, no maintenance (buying tubes), consistent tone, but nothing sounds like a Fender Twin Reverb.

 

[Warbringer]

Removed for snark, sorry

 

[Badapple]

Warning, long, somewhat hyperbolic, tongue in cheek rant ahead:

In other words, you want D&D to not be D&D.

Throw away comments like “This isn’t D&D” have a place in a Chick Fil-A boardroom perhaps, but not on a D&D message board. It’s insulting to read this when gamers go to a premium message board like EN World, especially on a thread that the original poster specifically asks to keep away from edition wars and simply state what they want to see out of the new edition. Following the intent of the thread, I posted my opinion of what *I* would like to see. You are free to post your own opinion of what kind of game you want or you are free to civilly point out disagreements you have in a rational manner, but you are not free to post stand-alone ignorant statements like “this isn’t D&D” to another poster’s opinion. Comments like that increase the signal to noise ratio of a thread, heavily in favor of the “noise” portion. It’s also specifically the kind of thing the moderators have repeatedly warned users not to engage in.

For the record, EN World moderators have made it crystal clear that OD&D, 3E, and 4E are all resoundingly D&D and that on this message board any comments to the contrary are unproductive, edition warring, and disallowed.

As a side note, did I seriously equate a comment like “this isn’t D&D” to a Chick Fil-A executive? Yes. Yes, I did. For the exact same reason that ignorant comments like “that’s not marriage” are hurled about in editorials when two homosexuals marry legally in Massachusetts, comments like “that’s not D&D” are hurled about on message boards when one poster expresses an opinion about the game that another poster disagrees with. In both cases, they are cheap, insulting, made by an emotional portion of the population in the place of a rational argument and are flat out wrong. Like it or not “save vs. petrification”, “thaco”, “BAB”, “Healing Surges”, and “Drizz’t” are D&D, whether they exist in a given edition or not. Whether you dig them or not is up to you. Whatever TSR and Wizards of the Coast put between two hardcovers is then, now, and in the future, D&D. When gamers get together to be social, have some snacks, and roll weird dice while they save imaginary kingdoms from dragons… it is D&D. Everything else is subjective.

Last night, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, a truly majestic event, was somewhat tarnished by Ryan Seacrest’s pretaped interviews where he asks uncomfortable female US athletes “what they think of Justin Bieber”. What does that have to do with the Olympics? Nothing. What does a comment like “that’s not D&D” have to do with one poster’s idea of what they would like to see in an upcoming Dungeons and Dragons game? Nothing. Therefore comments like “that’s not D&D” are the Ryan Seacrest / Justin Bieber equivalents of an internet discussion. Can we keep them out? If you are a traditionalist and want to keep the old school feel going and disagree with my post that D&D should put in some new features and change things up, then fine, put a post out there giving your opinion why that is a good thing (such as Danny Alcatraz's post about how Fender shouldn't alter its guitar, but merely tweak it). That's an example of a reasonable argument.

There’s a message board meme that as soon as one poster mentions “Hitler” or “Nazis” that the discussion is immediately over and the other side has won. Can we get a similar meme going here at EN World?

Proposed EN World meme: As soon as one person says “that’s not D&D” in response to someone else’s post, we pelt him with 20 sided dice until he apologizes and buys a pizza and a case of Mountain Dew?

Mod Note: Please see my note a couple of posts down. ~Umbran

 

[billd91]

Warning, long, somewhat hyperbolic, tongue in cheek rant ahead:

That probably won't save you from being modded for bringing in politics. That said, if this is your position:

Most of all I want something new. I don't want to go backwards and feel like I'm playing first edition again. I don’t want a game that is built on the foundation of a previous edition, any edition for that matter. I want a brand new game that is a new edition that completely stands on its own merits. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.

Then why change D&D into that vision rather than seeking another game in the first place that does fit the profile? That's what I don't understand. If you want that much of a change, why not go out and find it rather than change what's already there? Is it the D&D name that you feel attached to if you're not attached to the specifics of the game?

And if you want a game that is willing to anger part of the fan base, why should that angered fan base not be you rather than me or people who don't want radical changes in D&D?