is Unity an impossiblity?

[foolish_mortals]

I think it is interesting, maybe important, to try to increase the unity of D and D. It is certainly important to WOTC/hasbro! It is probably important to the health of the hobby.

But none of us have anything to lose here. If we dont like what we see with D&D next we can continue to play the games we are playing.

I am certainly interested to see how WOTC do this. As umbran says it is not clear how this can be implemented as a design goal. But it is good to see this as a starting point for an wide ranging and inclusive discussion about D&D.

I'm skeptical that we need a big dnd base to make the industry healthy. There are really great games out there that can attract non-gamers more readily. If dnd disappeared tomorrow we'd still have those games out there. Probably they'd have larger communities as gamers looked for something to entertain themselves with. I moved on to Pendragon, Deathwatch and a couple of others coming down the pipeline after I realised I didn't want to buy the 4th stuff. I have so many dollars to spend on games and it doesn't have to be dnd.

foolish_mortals

 

[nedjer]

It seems entirely possible to unite using overarching strands or schemas to shape and optional extras to fine-tune or attenuate. From there something like making combat scalable is a function of the design (unity) rather than the design itself (disunity).

 

[Raith5]

I'm interested to see if they call the core stuff "basic D and D" and the more complex options "advanced"

 

[Wormwood]

I'm interested to see if they call the core stuff "basic D and D" and the more complex options "advanced"

On one hand, it would be a nod to history and thus welcome by many.

On the other, the semantic implication that one is somehow 'inferior' to the other is unavoidable.

I prefer they try something else.

 

[was]

it's going to be tough, but I think it's possible