Is the D&D fanbase too divided?

[Mort]

This is a bunch of overly optimistic malarkey.

Gamers are at each others throats and arguing more than they ever have. Most GMs that run good games use the 3E mechanics but stil rely on other editions or other systems for flavor. Essentially the 3E products, other than the core and a few releases, are flavorless.

Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

~~~

There is much more access to other gamers then there ever was (such as this message board) this leads to the perception of more conflict than ever when in reality it's just more people can talk to each other and they like to argue.

The flavor argument is, I think, empirically wrong. Look at Eberron, it oozes flavor (whether you like it is a different question). Look at the last 3 adventure paths - flavor galore. These are out expressely for 3.5 and there are plenty more out there.

 

[Morrus]

Too divided for what?

My gaming group certainly doesn't feel divided.

Too divided to buy product? WotC still seems to be selling them OK.

 

[LordofIllusions]

For some, it clearly has. For others, clearly not. For others still, who knows.

I'll give you that. Not everyone agrees on everything.

Interestingly (I think ), I posted a thread + poll here on ENWorld, a while back, asking people [sincerely] whether they thought CRPGs and the like have had a positive or negative effect on tabletop RPGs, or alternatively, little or no effect. IIRC, the majority of respondents actually believed they have had. . . a positive effect! Yeah, that surprised me too. But there you go.

I say that the obssession with video game like rules is one of the small reasons D&D is crumbling. It is in a bad state socially. You then use a poll you created, asking a good deal of D&D Players, do they think video games are positive. If I said D&D is crumbling and stated video games as a perpetrator, though not exclusive by any means, shouldn't the majority of players be those that are playing video games?

Thus the majority of people are going to say they are positive. In hindsight, I never really said they are negative when used correctly, just proving a point.

WotC is not an entity, and therefore. . . No, I'll stop that right there.

Saying WotC is much easier than naming the entire corporate staff.

As far as I know, Wizards of the Coast's D&D section is staffed primarily with committed gamers, who are in fact individually and collectively quite keen to see D&D prosper in a healthy environment, and to enable or oversee significant parts of that process.

And hey, I'm hardly the biggest buyer of WotC product, nor a 'fanboi' in any way. But I still think you might have been a bit harsh and/or off the mark there.

I should, however, get some sleep at this very wrong end of the morning.

Peace, out.

I admit I am being harsh but the current social air of D&D is harsh.

~~~

 

[GreatLemur]

Gamers are at each others throats and arguing more than they ever have.

That's a pretty difficult assertion for me to buy. The current state of affairs seems pretty much normal, to me. Gamers and geeks of all stripes have debated bitterly over the Internet since before the very Web itself was used by the public. The one thing that's change about such discussions since the dawn of Usenet and BBS is that the participants have become much more numerous and--on average--somewhat younger.

Most GMs that run good games use the 3E mechanics but stil rely on other editions or other systems for flavor. Essentially the 3E products, other than the core and a few releases, are flavorless.

This strikes me as a somewhat odd criticism. I've always felt that the best GMs come up with their own flavor, so flavorless mechanics are exactly what I want from a company like WotC. Personally, I'd say that they generally admit more flavor that I'd like into their products.

But maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from your use of the term "flavor", if you're excepting the core 3E materials from your criticism. The way I define it, the core books have much less flavor than the vast majority of suppliments.

 

[LordofIllusions]

At each other's throats? People argue more now because of the net. Even the 1e boards have people arguing on them because they now have access to each other. This has nothing to do with the D&D game. Heck, other games that are more role playing friendly have nasty arguments on the net. The only common factor is the net, so let us place blame were it needs to be placed.

I run a good 3e game but it is not based on older flavor. It is based entirely on Eberron flavor. Trust me that is not old school way of gaming or anything. I think you're claim of most DM's is entirely made up.

Really? So it is the internet? So explain why arguments usually occur first in gaming groups and then get so nasty that people start posting their sides of the argument online. The problem comes from the social air of the game not the internet. The internet is simply another medium for those arguments to be expressed on. Moreover, I have attended numerous conventions and none are so divided than those of the 3E era.

~~~

 

[Mouseferatu]

Mistake/fallacy #1: You are assuming that your own experience with DMs--specifically, that "most" draw flavor from older editions--is entirely anecdotal, and is not backed up by the experiences of many other people posting. It certainly is not my experience, as either a DM or player.

Mistake/fallacy #2: You are assuming that the atmosphere of social interaction online equates to the atmosphere of social interaction in person when it comes to the average gaming group. Again, not my own experience, as either DM or player.

Mistake/fallacy #3: You are assuming that any book WotC puts out could possibly fix this problem. Rules lawyers will always be rules lawyers; powergames will always be powergamers; narrativists will always be narrativists.

Mistake/fallacy #4: You are assuming that the current (online) atmosphere is worse than it was in the past. Clearly, you were either not present on these boards, or have forgotten what things were like, when the details of 3E emerged. Or when 3.5 was announced. Or when Eberron was first previewed. Or when the specifics of the D20 license differed from the "gentleman's agreement." Or when WotC had their first round of layoffs, years ago.

That you have problems with the current state of D&D is perfectly valid. That you have seen problems in your own gaming group(s) is equally valid. Assuming that such problems are automatically universal, or even widespread, is not.

 

[LordofIllusions]

This strikes me as a somewhat odd criticism. I've always felt that the best GMs come up with their own flavor, so flavorless mechanics are exactly what I want from a company like WotC. Personally, I'd say that they generally admit more flavor that I'd like into their products.

Flavor does not stifle creativity it empowers it. For instance 2E Ravenloft has considerably more flavor than the 3E books. Since it is based more on storytelling as opposed to books full of mechanics one can easily actualize and create a character that goes along with the world. Great GMs come up with great storylines, what WotC is handing you is guidelines. The majority of those guidelines are mechanical with no roleplay element involved, yet this is supposed to be a roleplaying game.

But maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from your use of the term "flavor", if you're excepting the core 3E materials from your criticism. The way I define it, the core books have much less flavor than the vast majority of suppliments.

I think you are, that does not make your standpoint any less valid though.

~~~

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The social air of the game needs to be improved. Dropping splatbook after splatbook full of classes and feats will not improve the game from its current MMORPG-mimicking standpoint; nor will publishing edition after edition.

WotC needs to focus on the social air of the game and when I speak of focusing on improving the social air I mean do some books that inspire player creativity. A book the reminds the players continously that arguing at a game and sitting off in their little corners while everyone is trying to have a good time only gets them eventually thrown out of the game, if they don't leave first.

How are splatbooks ruining the social fabric of the game, by giving people choices? If it is social issues you have a problem with, it needs to be dealt with in a social manner. Publishing a book about how to conduct oneself during a game will probably not do any good, because the people who need it most won't probably be the ones to buy it. If you were to buy it for somebody else in your group, I would contend that you would be the one to need some work on social skills. Talk to the player, rather than give them something to read.

Focus more on the fantasy storyline as opposed to fantasy mechanics. Without focusing more on DM empowerment, storytelling, and creativity(not tons of drop and play feats and classes) D&D remains the lifeless machine that it is.

~~~

I think the DMG II did a very good job of this, perhaps you haven't read it? How many more books like that do you think people would buy? I'm happy with the one, and would be unlikely to spend more on another.

 

[LordofIllusions]

Mistake/fallacy #1: You are assuming that your own experience with DMs--specifically, that "most" draw flavor from older editions--is entirely anecdotal, and is not backed up by the experiences of many other people posting. It certainly is not my experience, as either a DM or player.

Mistake/fallacy #2: You are assuming that the atmosphere of social interaction online equates to the atmosphere of social interaction in person when it comes to the average gaming group. Again, not my own experience, as either DM or player.

Mistake/fallacy #3: You are assuming that any book WotC puts out could possibly fix this problem. Rules lawyers will always be rules lawyers; powergames will always be powergamers; narrativists will always be narrativists.

Mistake/fallacy #4: You are assuming that the current (online) atmosphere is worse than it was in the past. Clearly, you were either not present on these boards, or have forgotten what things were like, when the details of 3E emerged. Or when 3.5 was announced. Or when Eberron was first previewed. Or when the specifics of the D20 license differed from the "gentleman's agreement." Or when WotC had their first round of layoffs, years ago.

That you have problems with the current state of D&D is perfectly valid. That you have seen problems in your own gaming group(s) is equally valid. Assuming that such problems are automatically universal, or even widespread, is not.

I say they are universal and when D&D tanks you will too.

~~~

 

[Crothian]

Really? So it is the internet? So explain why arguments usually occur first in gaming groups and then get so nasty that people start posting their sides of the argument online. The problem comes from the social air of the game not the internet. The internet is simply another medium for those arguments to be expressed on. Moreover, I have attended numerous conventions and none are so divided than those of the 3E era.

Actually, most arguments first happen on line between posters. Sure we get a few threads a month of people posting about arguments they had around the gaming table but that is nothing compared to the dozens of the other kind we get. I've been on line and involved heavily with 3e since it began. I've gaming for three decades. The biggest chance is that people look back with rose colored glasses. Conventions are not more divided now then they were 20 years ago.