D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Baron Opal II]

See, this is where I get lost. It's the same sort of argument that I see about adding in social combat mechanics too. Why? Why can't we have a module for this? You would be absolutely free to ignore these kinds of mechanics, the same way that people can ignore, say, feat mechanics, and, for you, the game works fine, but, I also get what I want too.

I just don't understand this zero sum attitude. Adding in player facing authorization mechanics in no way affects your game if you choose not to use it. Taking the BIFTs mechanics and expanding them, or adding in a social combat module does not change your game. And, given that you don't even LIKE 5e, why do you care? You've repeatedly stated that you don't like how 5e is going and that you are better served by something like Level Up. Fantastic. You got exactly what you like. Why can't I have what I want?

You can...?

Why must you insist that my preferences inhibit you in some way? I'm willing to entertain new ideas or methods, but there's been rather little of that; all I've heard is a basic rules concept and references to other games. My statements or dissatisfactions don't prevent you from doing anything. I don't mind other people playing the way pemerton and you seem to like. Good on you. I just don't care for the solution the two of you pose.

 

[Hussar]

You can...?

Why must you insist that my preferences inhibit you in some way? I'm willing to entertain new ideas or methods, but there's been rather little of that; all I've heard is a basic rules concept and references to other games. My statements or dissatisfactions don't prevent you from doing anything. I don't mind other people playing the way pemerton and you seem to like. Good on you. I just don't care for the solution the two of you pose.

Which is fine. But, there are many who take that a fair step further. That the game is "abandoning fans" if it goes in a new direction. That it is "forgetting what made the game popular" if any development is made that isn't directly servicing the preferences of older fans. That any new innovation or new concept is automatically bad and must never appear in the books unless it directly caters to established interests.

It's such a limiting, narrow view of the hobby. It's incredibly close minded. I'm asking for a freaking optional module and getting push back. One only has to look at things like damage on a miss, hit point discussions, healing, and pretty much anything even remotely approaching something like codified social mechanics and you see this every time. We can only have a new thing if it is 100% reflective of what's already there. A new psionic system must absolutely not use established magic mechanics. It MUST use completely new, non-compatible mechanics because that's the way it was done before, and dammit, that's the way it must be done.

It's so frustrating to see people be so entrenched in defending the game from any sort of changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is fine. But, there are many who take that a fair step further. That the game is "abandoning fans" if it goes in a new direction. That it is "forgetting what made the game popular" if any development is made that isn't directly servicing the preferences of older fans. That any new innovation or new concept is automatically bad and must never appear in the books unless it directly caters to established interests.

It's such a limiting, narrow view of the hobby. It's incredibly close minded. I'm asking for a freaking optional module and getting push back. One only has to look at things like damage on a miss, hit point discussions, healing, and pretty much anything even remotely approaching something like codified social mechanics and you see this every time. We can only have a new thing if it is 100% reflective of what's already there. A new psionic system must absolutely not use established magic mechanics. It MUST use completely new, non-compatible mechanics because that's the way it was done before, and dammit, that's the way it must be done.

It's so frustrating to see people be so entrenched in defending the game from any sort of changes.

As I've explained many times before, my main issue is rewriting history in established settings, as opposed to creating new material that conforms to their current design philosophy. I have a personal problem with anyone who does that. I hate remakes.

Obviously I don't like most of what WotC has put out lately, particularly the lore. But I really hope, Hussar, that you get the social module you want. I'd prefer a separate system for psionics (and am getting one from Level Up), but any strong presence of psionics would be tolerable. Many people care about officialdom more than I do, and I hope those people get what they want too.

 

[pemerton]

A new psionic system must absolutely not use established magic mechanics. It MUST use completely new, non-compatible mechanics because that's the way it was done before, and dammit, that's the way it must be done.

This opens up a different line of discussion from the current one: why is so much of D&D's "feel" invested in baroque mechanical detail, rather than fiction? Obviously this was a big deal with 4e, but you're describing it here in relation to psionics.

I don't think that was an original design decision - mechanics seem to have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. And I don't even really remember if being an AD&D thing. It seems to date from the 3E era.

 

[Fifth Element]

As I've explained many times before, my main issue is rewriting history in established settings, as opposed to creating new material that conforms to their current design philosophy. I have a personal problem with anyone who does that. I hate remakes.

That's a shame. Judging something based on the fact that it's another iteration of an earlier work rather than on its own merits will make you miss out on lots of good stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a shame. Judging something based on the fact that it's another iteration of an earlier work rather than on its own merits will make you miss out on lots of good stuff.

Good ideas are just as good if they use their own people and place names, and bad ideas don't get any better if they zombie an old IP. Which was better: the original Total Recall film or the remake?

 

[Thomas Shey]

This opens up a different line of discussion from the current one: why is so much of D&D's "feel" invested in baroque mechanical detail, rather than fiction? Obviously this was a big deal with 4e, but you're describing it here in relation to psionics.

Well, one thing is that setting only settled in relatively late, and then hit or miss. For all the fondness for the Realms, the earliest parts only showed some half attention to Greyhawk, and by the time the Realms became the most popular setting, everything setting-related had become--diluted.

I don't think that was an original design decision - mechanics seem to have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. And I don't even really remember if being an AD&D thing. It seems to date from the 3E era.

Oh, no. That goes all the way back to Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D. It stuck out like a sore thumb as being bolted on.

 

[Hussar]

Good ideas are just as good if they use their own people and place names, and bad ideas don't get any better if they zombie an old IP. Which was better: the original Total Recall film or the remake?

Well, they were really both pretty garbage action movies. I probably liked the first one better, but, that doesn't make it a better movie.

And considering how many absolutely fantastic remakes there are out there of various properties, claiming that all remakes are bad isn't particularly defensible. It's not like Doctor Who is bad. Latest Ghostbusters is pretty well receive. in D&D terms, the Curse of Strahd is probably the best version of Ravenloft ever. New Battlestar Galactica. On and on.

"I don't like remakes" is a perfectly fine POV. "All remakes are bad" is indefensible and simply shows your own preferences.

Do I always like the newer stuff? Nope. Not at all. I'm still waiting for a Warlord. But, the difference is, I have no problems, really, with simply choosing the stuff I like and completely ignoring the stuff I don't. I've never based my identity as a gamer on whether or not my personal preferences lined up with D&D's official releases.

Heck, even back in 3e, I owned far more 3rd party stuff than official. And, I completely ignored published settings in AD&D. So, yeah, the current crop of books aren't to my taste? Not a problem. I've got a thousand other options out there. What I'm not doing is pissing and moaning at every opportunity about how WotC is "abandoning" anyone.

 

[pemerton]

That goes all the way back to Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D. It stuck out like a sore thumb as being bolted on.

But it wasn't super-crucial to the feel of psionics that it used some other mechanical subsystem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, they were really both pretty garbage action movies. I probably liked the first one better, but, that doesn't make it a better movie.

And considering how many absolutely fantastic remakes there are out there of various properties, claiming that all remakes are bad isn't particularly defensible. It's not like Doctor Who is bad. Latest Ghostbusters is pretty well receive. in D&D terms, the Curse of Strahd is probably the best version of Ravenloft ever. New Battlestar Galactica. On and on.

"I don't like remakes" is a perfectly fine POV. "All remakes are bad" is indefensible and simply shows your own preferences.

Do I always like the newer stuff? Nope. Not at all. I'm still waiting for a Warlord. But, the difference is, I have no problems, really, with simply choosing the stuff I like and completely ignoring the stuff I don't. I've never based my identity as a gamer on whether or not my personal preferences lined up with D&D's official releases.

Heck, even back in 3e, I owned far more 3rd party stuff than official. And, I completely ignored published settings in AD&D. So, yeah, the current crop of books aren't to my taste? Not a problem. I've got a thousand other options out there. What I'm not doing is pissing and moaning at every opportunity about how WotC is "abandoning" anyone.

Some remakes are better than others, true. Generally I don't like remakes, but there are exceptions, so I'll step back from painting with such a broad brush.

(Incidentally, the new Ghostbusters is not a remake, it's a distant sequel. No rewriting of the past).

Everything i said is my opinion. I thought that was clear.

I'm glad you don't care what WotC does. Plenty of people do. The majority of talk on this site is about what WotC has done, is doing, and might do in the future. Should we just discuss things we're happy about?