Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

[DragonLancer]

But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.

Would they have alienated less existing players and drawn more new players if they'd tried something more like a fix of 3E and the AD&Ds (as say 3e was to 2e, but with faster combats and prep as goals for instance) rather than rolling the dice on a new game wearing the D&D logo? In retrospect, I think that is highly likely.

I think so. If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X rather than completely overhaul the entire system (yet again in the history of D&D) then I think players of D&D would be both happier and be more unified than under two completely different systems.

 

[rounser]

If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X

Not "ever so slightly", IMO, that would be 3.5. No, some degree of change of the order of 2e -> 3e. 4e is more of a brand new fantasy heartbreaker which borrows from D&D IP to me, and several bridges too far.

 

[JeffB]

It is telling a great heroic story from start to finish with plenty of room for side quests and player determined material.

Which is exactly what I hate about AP products. Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?

If not, you might as well just play Baldur's Gate- you've got plenty of little side quests and you can make things ever so slightly peronsalized by your actions, but from start to finish, it's already been written.

I'm not singling out any one person here, you just happened to say it DL.

 

[Remathilis]

I think so. If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X rather than completely overhaul the entire system (yet again in the history of D&D) then I think players of D&D would be both happier and be more unified than under two completely different systems.

I'm going to agree with you, and my rationale is Pathfinder.

PF is really nothing more than spit-and-polish on the 3.X kernel and its selling damn well thankyouverymuch. I'm sure a D&D 4e that went a bit further (fixing the weird math wonkiness, esp in good/poor saves, simplifying elements, etc) would have created a D&D that would be a mix of 3e, PF, and Essentials elements all rolled into one. It probably would have done a lot better than the 4e we got for the first two years, to boot.

Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.

 

[Shemeska]

Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.

I'm not sure it's entirely a rules thing either. Ruleset matters less to me, but when you slaughter sacred cows willy nilly and redefine many of the game's concepts, including using classic names for very different creatures, that's where the fundamental disconnect is. I wouldn't discount the flavor and fluff changes as part of the reception, alongside the rules.

 

[catsclaw227]

Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a railroad. Perhaps one with lots of branches and tracks, but still a finite number. Adventure paths only exacerbate the issue by forcing assumptions as to the resolution of previous adventures.

I guess this discussion is dependent upon the wildly different ideas of what a railroad is! It's almost as hard as defining what a sandbox is and ultimately what D&D is.

These arguements hurt my head... So I will say, in my campaign a pre-published AP is not a railroad unless the DM runs it like one.

 

[DragonLancer]

Which is exactly what I hate about AP products. Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?

They can do, but I think that a lot of roleplayers like having a story to tell. You can make it up as you go along or have a sandbox and that's cool but I think thats a minority group within roleplayers.

If not, you might as well just play Baldur's Gate- you've got plenty of little side quests and you can make things ever so slightly peronsalized by your actions, but from start to finish, it's already been written.

I'm not singling out any one person here, you just happened to say it DL.

Not singled out at all. It's all good discussion.

The difference here is that playing an adventure path the group can still make decisions that move it from prewritten scenario. They can do side quests or talk to NPC's, come up with their own way of doing thins. You can't do that with a computer RPG such as Baldurs Gate. There you have a single path but it is a real railroaded one. An adventure path isn't.

I'm going to agree with you, and my rationale is Pathfinder.

PF is really nothing more than spit-and-polish on the 3.X kernel and its selling damn well thankyouverymuch. I'm sure a D&D 4e that went a bit further (fixing the weird math wonkiness, esp in good/poor saves, simplifying elements, etc) would have created a D&D that would be a mix of 3e, PF, and Essentials elements all rolled into one. It probably would have done a lot better than the 4e we got for the first two years, to boot.

Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.

I can't disagree with any of that.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?

No.

I've found that "should" and "shouldn't" are inapplicable as concerns game play, especially when it comes to the versatility of RPG's and the diversity of gamers. Some desire or even need that plot. Others don't want or need that plot. If AP's were universally unwanted, they wouldn't exist. Yet they do. And more than just exist, they seem to be rather popular. If they aren't your cup of tea, then Cool.

But "Shouldn't" doesn't apply.

 

[Shazman]

But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.

A thousand times this! It seems that they realize this somewhat since Essentials seems to be an abrupt backpedaling to try and win back many that passed on 4E. Unfortunately, it seems to be too little, too late. They now have Pathfinder and retroclones to compete with. It seems they were doomed once they decided to make a complete break with many traditions of the game. D&D has strong name recognition but not strong enough to sell a game that bears little resemblance to the D&D that many fans cut their RPG teeth on.

 

[darjr]

Don't forget the GSL and the way 3rd party companies were 'introduced' to 4e. I think that now the defacto standard is Pathfinder for 3rd party developers. Or 3.5 with an eye towards Pathfinder compatibility.