I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[Barastrondo]

That's not what I meant at all by experiences. Editions divide people, different modules and gaming worlds don't.

I'll bet you two Drizzts and three Elminsters they do.

A shared experience with rules allows people to jump into games more easily with fewer barriers and start sharing experiences. So past experience playing D&D allows players to jump into a game without barriers. Barriers prevent people from sharing the experience of gaming together.

This is true, but the difficulty is that preference is a barrier, too. For instance, one of the reasons that the 3.x/4 split is so contentions is the question of casters versus non-casters. One of the advantages of having two systems, one that clearly favors one approach and one that favors another, is that you can say straight-up which one you prefer by announcing which edition you run.

If everyone were beholden to the same set of rules, and people had to heavily houserule the game down to its fundamentals to fully bring martial classes up to par with casters in 3.x, on and off the battlefield (or, for that matter, to give casters far more options than the other guys in 4e), I suspect you would see similar, just more deceptive barriers between groups. The guy who wants to play a wizard and joins the houseruled game where wizards have been toned back isn't going to be happy. The guy who wants to play a fighter and is trying to find a similarly houseruled game when most people are by the book is also unlikely to be happy.

At the end of the day you still have people who don't want to play with one another, because play styles vary. That is the most persistent barrier to it not ever mattering who you play with, and I honestly cringe at the thought of a gaming community that does not encourage people to play a variety of games in different styles. Variable play styles and preferences are the reason that different editions have markets in the first place.

That's why you'll see such resistance to this idea. Being able to play freely with 5 times as many gamers as you ordinarily would is not actually an advantage if those extra 5x gamers want to play in a way you don't enjoy.

Gaming is a lot like dating, honestly. A date with a compatible person is great; with an incompatible person it's disappointing to outright horrid. And to extend the metaphor, different editions are like different styles of movies: if the only date movies were romantic comedies, it would be easier for people to agree on what movie to see, but I don't think the people who like to go to horror movies on dates would be any happier. Nor, for that matter, would it be easier for them to find one another.

 

[BryonD]

At a guess, I'd say that he's saying that 4e is so different that it isn't recognizable as D&D.

Wrong. "D&D" isn't anything other than a specific brand name applied to a specific collection of Role Playing Games.

However, 4E is so different that it is distinctly recognizable from any of the other games that share that brand identity. This is also true of 3E.

Funnily enough, if you took NFL football from, say, 1970 and put it side by side with 2011 NFL football, virtually every single element would see some change. Rules changes, formation changes, formation rules changes, materials changes - a 1970 football and a 2011 football are NOT the same ball, nor are the stadiums the same, prevalence of dome play, number of teams and make-up of those teams, on and on and on.

Not sure I'd go nearly so far as to agree with the extent of change you are claiming. But, for sake of argument I can easily go with this s a given.

Which version, 1970 or 2011, would you claim an average fan would not recognize as "football"? What sport do you think they would claim it was?

(As a side note, despite my strong disagreement with your claim, I do find it amusing that you are trying to dispute my position that 4E is readily distinct by pointing out that, in your opinion, changes to football make it unrecognizable as the same. Isn't that exactly the opposite of the point you are making about 4E?)

But, back on point, I could play Trailblazer, or Pathfinder, or Arcana Unearthed, or True20, or Spycraft. Several of those are so completely different than D&D 3E that the changes to football since 1970 pale in comparison. And yet no reasonable person would confuse any of those games for 4E and any person who paid a minimally adequate attention would recognize any one of them as a variant of 3E.

Wild variations of football remain instantly recognizable as football and are not confused for any other sport. Wild variations of 3E remain instantly recognizable as versions of 3E.

The whole "not D&D" line is a lame red herring that I have spoken against to you specifically on more than one occasion. So you know I don't think that. As I've said, "D&D" is just a brand name, nothing more nothing less. 3E is radically different than the versions prior to it and, imo, thank god for that. There is nothing sacred about "being D&D". There are versions of D&D that are awesome and versions that.... are not.

4E is so different it is clearly a whole new version of D&D.
I was HOPING for exactly that when 4E was announced. BUT, I was also hoping for a whole new version of D&D that I thought was awesome.
I'd rather 5E (whenever it comes) be a whole new version that I think sucks that just be a simple recycle. Obviously, I'd really rather it be whole new and awesome. But, please, be new.

But, really, replacing my point about 4E and other editions being CLEARLY different with a pathetic claim that I'm saying it "isn't D&D" despite you knowing full well I reject that point is just lame.

 

[Desdichado]

Sure we can all buy the old editions. The problem is that everyone has to agree on which edition to invest in and learn all the nuanced details of.

That's actually not a problem; it's a feature of the market place.

Everyone will always prefer the edition that most caters to their particular tastes and that of their group over some monolithic rules that everyone else is playing. And why wouldn't they? What's the benefit in having a "definitive" version of D&D other than that we can then replace all the discussion in places like this with the online version of singing Kumbaya all together?

The last time D&D tried to make a "definitive" edition--AD&D, I'd argue, it drove me out of D&D altogether and into the arms of games like Star Frontiers, Top Secret S.I., Call of Cthulhu and others.

I think the biggest problem with this proposal is that it completely mistakes edition changes--which is the symptom--with player tastes, which are the real drivers for change in D&D and the RPG market overall. And there's not a "solution" for how to bring all players tastes together into one consistent whole, mostly because it's not a problem. It's just a thing, and it's not going to change. You naively believe that with one set of rules, the game will be evergreen and everyone will play with everyone else, and we'll all sing Kumbaya at every session before shouting huzzah and attacking the orcs or whatever. In reality, all that you've done is to create YET ANOTHER version of D&D and divided the base even more.

 

[an_idol_mind]

That's interesting, but that's not a total revamp eight years after another revamp that divides the community. I can't imagine football or Monopoly or any other game has seen so many controversial and audience-dividing changes as D&D. Show me a football or Monopoly retroclone and maybe I'll think otherwise

Football gets rules changes every single year, many of them changing the way the game is played. Lots of these changes have altered the way the game is played, especially in favor of emphasizing the passing game to the detriment of defensive play and running attacks.

Many of the rules on the books now weren't there a generation ago - ask somebody who hasn't watched football since the early 1990s about a two-point conversion and they'd probably bawl you out for yammering on about college football instead of the NFL.

As to rules changes that divide the community, there have been football fans decrying the death of the game as they know it for years. Just last year the NFL passed new rules restricting hits on wide receivers, and the gamut of reactions ran from those who thought it was necessary for the safety of the players to those who claim that the players are getting soft and the new rules are ruining the physicality of the game.

There are football fans who have sworn off watching the sport as long as the current commissioner is in charge of the NFL, those who do nothing but pop in tapes of old games back when the sport was pure and perfect, and those who pick fights with anyone who criticizes the sport as it is right now.

On a local scale, fans will get into arguments when their teams change coaches, quarterbacks, or uniforms. And if you ever want to commit suicide by mob, go into Cleveland wearing a Baltimore Ravens (i.e., Cleveland Browns 2nd edition) shirt.

The only reason people around here might see something like football as less divisive than the edition wars about D&D is a lack of exposure to the former. Anything that enough people are passionate about is going to inspire a lot of heated argument, be it sports or boardgames or tabletop RPGs.

 

[havard]

D&D is Monopoly and thank god for that.

I think WotC should make new editions that even though they may be different would allow them to produce supplements, adventures etc that could be useful for those who decide to stick with older editions.

I keep buying OOP 2e and 3E material because it is much more useful across editions than any of the 4E supplements are. There are some exceptions, but for the most part 4E supplements seem to be designed so that they will be useless unless you play 4E. This means a large segment of the market will look to WotC's competitors, since with every edition there are those who will decide not to "upgrade".

-Havard

 

[technoextreme]

I keep buying OOP 2e and 3E material because it is much more useful across editions than any of the 4E supplements are. There are some exceptions, but for the most part 4E supplements seem to be designed so that they will be useless unless you play 4E. This means a large segment of the market will look to WotC's competitors, since with every edition there are those who will decide not to "upgrade".

-Havard

Nah. I would say that outside of player's stuff most of the supplements are composed of half fluff. Hell even the Dungeon Master Guide is surprisingly system agnostic.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Gee, when I wrote "Do you understand that? Do you have a clue why blowing off every non-D&D RPG as indie games might just tweak someone off a little?" I didn't know what I was writing. But go ahead, don't listen to what I was saying.

Chill out, there's no reason to get upset

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Everyone will always prefer the edition that most caters to their particular tastes and that of their group over some monolithic rules that everyone else is playing.

True, except many gamers distinctly prefer the game they're most familiar with or have resources for. You're dramatically underestimating this group in favor of the connoisseurs that have strong edition preferences. Of course the connoisseurs exist and they'll always want new stuff, but some of us would like to know there's a version of D&D that's not built on planned obsolescence.

The last time D&D tried to make a "definitive" edition--AD&D, I'd argue, it drove me out of D&D altogether and into the arms of games like Star Frontiers, Top Secret S.I., Call of Cthulhu and others.

That was when D&D was most lucrative, no? I don't hear many other gamers of that generation claiming the same thing.

In reality, all that you've done is to create YET ANOTHER version of D&D and divided the base even more.

No, they just need to reprint one D&D edition and stick with it for the players that don't want the edition treadmill.

I've played five editions of D&D (2, 3, 4, PF, C&C) and can write extensively about the pros and cons of each. I definitely have preferences. But the pros and cons of each are largely overshadowed by the problems of incompatibility between editions, having to teach players new rules, and having to do with limited resources (because people only have so much money for books). That has always been the biggest problem in my games

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, yeah, Monopoly is pretty lame. It's the game you can play with your grandma. I don't care much for football either. I'm talking about the ability of these games to bring people together, not their quality.

I'm interested in playing with borderline gamers, new players, and people that don't have much time for D&D but may have played 2E in highschool. I want a deep roleplaying game I can play with them, and it's hard to get them into it when their has been two edition changes since they last played and no one at the table has played a common rule system.

Then you're really not looking to play a game with people who want to play that game.

1. Borderline gamers aren't going to want to play a "deep roleplaying game" with you because they're casual.

2. New players don't know ANY system, so edition is irrelevent.

3. If people don't have much time but played 2E in High School and don't want to learn a new system then PLAY 2E.

There's no definitive role-playing game, just a common use default name in D&D (kind of like Kleenex and Band-Aids). Different strokes for different folks. One size does not fit all.

 

[Vael]

Here's my problem, I haven't seen an edition of DnD that I'd want to make it "the definitive version". I love 4e, but already am thinking of changes I'd want to make for 5e. I don't see the problem of rereleasing older editions online so that they can be used, but to be honest, my opinion is that every edition of DnD has been an improvement on the past, and I'd rather not stop the innovation and improvement. I expect 5e to improve on 4e, it'd have to get my money.