Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9645166" data-attributes="member: 23484"><p>I think "gaslit" is wrong: all evidence shows the designers were open to major changes, but those didn't occur. There are a number of reasons. One, as you note, is backwards compatibility. The people who wanted/demanded it were very loud, and I think appeared over represented on the boards. It became a sacred cow, which meant that more uniform subclasses etc. just didn't have a chance.</p><p></p><p>Second was the feedback policy. They wanted to be liked, which is always a problem. The 70% threshold, however it was calculated (and certainly none of us know), was always vague and without granularity. That meant that the feedback could not easily distinguish between "I don't like this" and "There might be something here, but it needs refinement." Would or should all the experiments have made it? No. But I am certain it would be a more exciting release had it not been for the deep conservatism of many players. </p><p></p><p>Third, conservatism. There's a whole thread on this. I think if there is blame, it really likes at the recalcitrance of players who are especially vocal. But I don't think anyone was gaslighting anyone. </p><p></p><p>The list could go on.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you that Backwards Compatibility was a poor motivation. In my mind, it shoudl never have been a concern. It was given a disproportionate weight, and that in the end, limited the innovation in what we received. </p><p></p><p>I'm one of the players who is downplaying 2014 materials. It's not that I don't want them in my game, but I am choosing not to use them because I've (for the most part) made those characters. (The exception is MotM, which I'll continue to play with until a post-2024 savage-species-equivalent comes out. Once it does? I'll remove it from what I draw on for myself.)</p><p></p><p>Some of the things not carried forward, though, I am pleased to see gone. I'm tired of Green Flame Blade as a cantrip, and all of the just-overpowered-enough-that-other-choices-are-too-weak options. Are they all gone? No. Will others be reintroduced? Of course. But I want to see greater variation in character builds, not more of the same. </p><p></p><p>But that's me, and there are a lot of players out there that feel different. I want them to feel excited to play as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 9645166, member: 23484"] I think "gaslit" is wrong: all evidence shows the designers were open to major changes, but those didn't occur. There are a number of reasons. One, as you note, is backwards compatibility. The people who wanted/demanded it were very loud, and I think appeared over represented on the boards. It became a sacred cow, which meant that more uniform subclasses etc. just didn't have a chance. Second was the feedback policy. They wanted to be liked, which is always a problem. The 70% threshold, however it was calculated (and certainly none of us know), was always vague and without granularity. That meant that the feedback could not easily distinguish between "I don't like this" and "There might be something here, but it needs refinement." Would or should all the experiments have made it? No. But I am certain it would be a more exciting release had it not been for the deep conservatism of many players. Third, conservatism. There's a whole thread on this. I think if there is blame, it really likes at the recalcitrance of players who are especially vocal. But I don't think anyone was gaslighting anyone. The list could go on. I agree with you that Backwards Compatibility was a poor motivation. In my mind, it shoudl never have been a concern. It was given a disproportionate weight, and that in the end, limited the innovation in what we received. I'm one of the players who is downplaying 2014 materials. It's not that I don't want them in my game, but I am choosing not to use them because I've (for the most part) made those characters. (The exception is MotM, which I'll continue to play with until a post-2024 savage-species-equivalent comes out. Once it does? I'll remove it from what I draw on for myself.) Some of the things not carried forward, though, I am pleased to see gone. I'm tired of Green Flame Blade as a cantrip, and all of the just-overpowered-enough-that-other-choices-are-too-weak options. Are they all gone? No. Will others be reintroduced? Of course. But I want to see greater variation in character builds, not more of the same. But that's me, and there are a lot of players out there that feel different. I want them to feel excited to play as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""
Top