D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

This is what I call "selective memory." The community was divided. Many people hated 4E, and it wasn't simply because of the virtual tabletop. Again, I am not saying that 4E fizzled because it was a bad game or inferior to any other edition--I'm not making a judgement either way--but that for a variety of reasons it was rejected by a large enough segment of the D&D fan base for WotC to believe that a new edition was required sooner than later.

That's one theory, but /all/ it's based on is that 1) there was a vocal and vitriolic edition war on-line, and 2) the game rolled rev 'early.'

Now, we know from an insider leak that D&D was pitched to Hasbro as a potential 50-100 million/year (something like 2 to 5 times the guestimated revenue of the whole RPG industry) 'core brand,' and that 4e, with substantial development investment and DDI & VTT, was supoised to be that bid. The early rev-roll certainly meant that D&D had failed to fit that goal, and, it's last two incarnations (Essentials & Next/5e) point to a much lower investment in it, but, also, happily, much more reasonable expectations. So point 2 is prettymuch moot.

The edition war was nasty and arguably damaged the perception of D&D for any uninitiated who happened to be exposed to it. But, it was mostly on-line, where a few vocal posters can make a lot of noise, often each one on several different forums, maybe with several different alts. Edition warriors like to project their extreme opinions on imagined majorities or 'large segments' but no one has any numbers that back up such claims.

At the table, the edition war hardly showed up. If some 3.5/Pathfinder players groused at eachother about how aweful 4e was around the 3.5 table, it was just echoing in the chamber. Same for 4e tables - the odd, "wow, this is so much better than 3.5" doesn't make much difference. Unless some troll intentionally sat down to play a game he hated, edition warriors were self-segregating IRL. So, while (1) might have contributed a little to the relative success of Pathfinder by cementing a sub-culture that rallied around it, it was unlikely it had much effect beyond that.

What I am saying is that tabletop RPGs are, in general, a more refined/sophisticated/imaginative experience than MMOs.

I just said in the last post that I don't think the younger generation is lacking in imagination, but that there are more distracting entertainments that don't call upon the imagination as much (like MMOs).

So you're not saying they lack imagination, just that they choose to avoid being entertained by it. Bottom line is still that you're blaming the preferences of 'kids these days' for not climbing that "high wall" around the hobby, rather than taking a look at the wall and seeing how it might be given the Berlin treatment.

And I've never been an edition warrior

You're doing a fair imitation. Tell you what. See how many posts you can go without attacking 4e or 'the last six years...'

As a bonus, we'll see how many times I can quote you without defending it.

Is it a "high horse" to say that there are different depths and qualities of imaginative experience?

Is it a "high horse" to say that tabletop roleplaying games stimulate the imagination more fully than computer games?

Yes & yes.

Doesn't mean either statement is false, of course.

 

[Umbran]

I agree, just as I don't think snarky comments serve this conversation!

It isn't snarky - I'm demonstrating a point with a commonly seen humor piece. It is funny because we know it is true, you see. "Refinement" is not, in fact, a necessary thing for gaming.

I chose humor because the issue I'm addressing is that one major barrier to entry being displayed here is our collective snootiness.

Is it a "high horse" to say that there are different depths and qualities of imaginative experience?

Different qualities, are okay. The imagination needed to make the Dead Alewives sketch is different from the imaginative process of an actual play session, And both of those are different from the imaginative process of putting the thing to video, but all are still creative processes. Calling out one quality of imaginative experience as objectively superior to another, though, would be pretty high-horse.

Is it a "high horse" to say that tabletop roleplaying games stimulate the imagination more fully than computer games?

Yep. "depth" and "less/more" aren't about quality of experience, but are instead quantitative statements. It is clear ranking - X is more than Y. If you're putting yourself on top, how is that not being high-horse?

And, when we even have the term "beer & pretzel" gaming, and have folks playing, "if there are any girls there, I want to *do* them" claims of "refinement" and greater imagination fall kind of flat.

 

[Mercurius]

That's one theory, but...

Sorry Tony, but my interpretation of what went down is different. I've met plenty of folks who actively disliked 4E. I work at a private high school (ironically for the last six years! ) and there has been a prevalent meme of dislike for 4E - among high school kids. In fact, the tradition has been 3.5 and then a bit of Pathfinder, with 4E completely bypassed. I was even surprised when some of them told me they didn't like 4E because it was too "video gamey" (or something like that).

To be honest, I've always been a bit surprised about the hatred of 4E I've come across. I can understand not liking a specific game or edition, but hatred?

So you're not saying they lack imagination, just that they choose to avoid being entertained by it. Bottom line is still that you're blaming the preferences of 'kids these days' for not climbing that "high wall" around the hobby, rather than taking a look at the wall and seeing how it might be given the Berlin treatment.

The bottom line is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not blaming kids for preferring junk food when it is offered to them - who wouldn't prefer a bag of chips over a plate of kale? But the thing is, kale is more nutritious and if you develop the palate for it, it actually tastes better, at least as a regular food (at least in my humble opinion, in my subjective world experience, according to my personal bias, etc).

You're doing a fair imitation. Tell you what. See how many posts you can go without attacking 4e or 'the last six years...'

Sorry, I call BS. I am not edition warring, unless you call an edition warrior someone who makes any comments about an edition that aren't raving accolades. Remarking that 4E fizzled is not edition warring. It is pointing out the obvious for anyone who is willing to, ahem, look beyond their personal biases.

Also please note: I am not attacking 4E. Feel free to search or quotes in this thread or the Golden Era thread where I actually said something negative about 4E as a game. You might find something but nothing worthy of an "attack."

It isn't snarky - I'm demonstrating a point with a commonly seen humor piece. It is funny because we know it is true, you see. "Refinement" is not, in fact, a necessary thing for gaming.

I chose humor because the issue I'm addressing is that one major barrier to entry being displayed here is our collective snootiness.

OK, fair enough.

Different qualities, sure. The imagination needed to make the Dead Alewives sketch is different from the imaginative process of an actual play session, And both of those are different from the imaginative process of putting the thing to video, but all are still creative processes. Calling out one quality of imaginative experience as objectively superior to another, though, would be pretty high-horse.

I'm not saying "objectively" superior. Objectively refers to objects. It is hard to speak of imagination, or qualities of consciousness, in that way.

Subjectively superior? Sure. Intersubjectively? Yeah, that too. In the same way that not all art is just "different." Now I don't think the universe cares for one piece of art or another - they are, objectively speaking, just different. But when we come to subjects, to human beings, that's a different thing.

And it isn't merely a popularity contest either, otherwise Justin Bieber would be a far greater "artist" than Arvo Part (an example I used in some other conversation here, I believe). Aesthetics is a very complex, subtle thing, but I'm not willing to reduce it all to mere subjectivity and personal bias.

Yep. "depth" and "less/more" aren't about quality of experience, but are instead quantitative statements. It is clear ranking - X is more than Y. If you're putting yourself on top, how is that not being high-horse?

What's wrong with ranking? I get that it can and has been misused, but hierarchies exist in the world, both natural and human. In other words, hierarchies (ranking) aren't inherently pathological or domineering.

And, when we even have the term "beer & pretzel" gaming, and have folks playing, "if there are any girls there, I want to *do* them" claims of "refinement" and greater imagination fall kind of flat.

Yeah, I hear that - and to be honest, very few gaming sessions I've run have been "refined" in any meaningful way. But let me clarify what I was talking about: I'm not talking about your average game session. I'm talking about the internal, imaginative experience, and saying that tabletop RPGs have the potential to be far richer, deeper, more profound than video games - if only by virtue of the fact that TTRPGs actually utilize imagination while video games don't (except in their conception and design).

Or compare, for instance, Peter Jackson's balrog with the words Tolkien used. Jackson just gives it to you, and quite effectively - there it is, the demon of fire. Cool and scary. But the thing is, I'm not doing anything, I'm just seeing the image he created, how he interpreted it from Tolkien (and various artists, particularly John Howe and Alan Lee, I believe). When I read Tolkien, he offers me words--and only few of them, really--which I take and create my own images (or rather, co-create with him). That is a far richer, deeper imaginative experience because I'm actively engaging with it.

Don't get me wrong, I love movies (although not video games so much). Just as I love certain junk foods. But I'm pointing out that there is a spectrum of depth, imagination, and "nutrition" and that in order to differentiate levels/depths/ranks, some kind of palate needs to be developed.

At the risk of going on too long, here's another example. I make homemade, organic gelato - including a mint chocolate chip with mint that I wild-craft (there's a high horse idea for you). My 9-year old daughter loves it, but likes the mint chocolate chip we get at the local ice cream stand better. Why? For one reason and one only: they use green food coloring. Mine has a slight but very subtle green hue, but she likes the bright green.

But from my perspective, mine is far superior - I use all organic, higher quality ingredients - and it is fresher. We could say that this is just personal bias, but I think it also has to do with palate, which takes time to develop.

 

[Keldryn]

True. But I was disputing the notion that people can't be bothered to get together face-to-face to play games anymore because of the convenience of digital gaming. My local boardgaming convention has grown in size from 200 to over 500 attendees in the space of eight years. Chat with the attendees and you find out most of them are in regular, face-to-face gaming groups. Local meet-ups are hugely popular. WotC wants a piece of that action.

I wasn't arguing that people can't be bothered to get together face-to-face to play games anymore. Board games and party games are doing quite well, and many people still participate in recreational sports leagues. We are social animals and we have a need for face-to-face interaction.

My point was simply that coordinating schedules among 4-6 people and having everyone meet in one location, on a regular and consistent basis, is significantly more work than just loading up a game on your PC or game console. It's more work than just playing an MMO with some of your guild members, if that floats your boat.

I can invite some friends over for a board game night once every couple of months, and it doesn't have to be the same people every time. It's pretty difficult to have a satisfying game of D&D with that same approach.

RAW isn't the game. Particularly when it comes to AD&D. The way it was played out in the wild by most people was very simple. In fact, a lot of people played B/X and AD&D interchangeably (typically by using AD&D classes, spells, and monsters, and ignoring the rest of AD&D) in a very stripped-down playstyle. Many, many old-school players have testified to this.

Absolutely. My most active gaming years were between the ages of 12 and 20 (1986-1994). Most people that I gamed with started with Basic/Expert D&D and then moved on to AD&D. Prior to 2e, not one single person that I gamed with ever played AD&D as written. We already knew how to play D&D, so we didn't need to read "the rules." We all more or less assumed that AD&D 1e worked the same way as B/X.

None of us were old enough to have played during the late 70s (or even early 80s), so we either discovered the game on our own and learned through the Basic/Expert Sets, or we were taught to play by an existing player -- who had also originally learned through the Basic/Expert Sets. Thus, even those who started with AD&D 1e were taught to play by those who had internalized the B/X D&D rules.

So yeah, the way that we played AD&D was pretty simple. Most of us had internalized the B/X rules, so we just used the books to look up classes, spells, monsters, and magic items. The Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion is very close to how we actually played, and demonstrates how simple that game actually was.

Yeah, the smartphone adds a whole new dimension - entertainment in one's pocket. This impacts everyone - young and old(ish) alike. This is really another whole discussion, although related to this one, but I don't think we'll fully understand the negative elements of the cultural impact of smartphones for a few years yet. I'm not a luddite, but also find the "technological utopia" ideology laughably naive; for every step forward a new range of problems arise.

I'm totally with you on this. I've been into video games and computers since the 80s. I've built a career as a programmer, and I spent a couple of years as a game designer on a AAA console title. I'm very comfortable with technology. And yet I cringe whenever I hear someone talking about being "always connected" as an entirely positive thing. I've already been distancing myself from much involvement in social media for a while. It's starting to feel very invasive.

But yeah, as to the rest, you're preaching to the choir, bub. One other issue you didn't mention is when you play with a group of players and you're the only one who really wants to DM; if your group plays or not is entirely dependent on whether one person has the time and energy to prepare a game. So much of D&D at least is reliant upon one person, the DM.

Yes, that too. That person is usually me; the last time I was a player in someone else's game was 2007.

And when you're the one putting that time and effort into the game, nothing kills your motivation faster than players who don't want to put any effort into the game. But sometimes you need those players to have a large enough group to play. Short rant coming: I prepared the adventure, I hosted the game, I let you use my books and miniatures, I printed off character sheets for you to use, and I picked you up from the bus stop so you wouldn't have to walk for 15 minutes in the rain; the least you can do is 1) read the short rules summary that I printed out for you and 2) bring enough snacks to share. The crap I put up with just to get enough people together to play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry Tony, but my interpretation of what went down is different. I've met plenty of folks who actively disliked 4E. I work at a private high school (ironically for the last six years! ) and there has been a prevalent meme of dislike for 4E - among high school kids. In fact, the tradition has been 3.5 and then a bit of Pathfinder, with 4E completely bypassed. I was even surprised when some of them told me they didn't like 4E because it was too "video gamey" (or something like that).

That's not an interpretation, it's an anecdote. I too had an anecdote of younger (than us) new players adopting the same version of D&D in the context of Encounters with a level of retention I'd never seen from D&D before. You rejected it and claimed, without support of anykind, that everywhere else in the world it was different.

And, well, "too videogamey" is straight from the edition war playbook, so I guess someone was exposed to it on-line.

That was 0 posts without attacking 4e, BTW. Anytime you want to make good on your 'not an edition warrior' claim, you can stop.

I am not edition warring, unless you call an edition warrior someone who makes any comments about an edition that aren't raving accolades. Remarking that 4E fizzled is not edition warring.

4e sold quite well at release, just like 3.0 did (better than 3.5 did) and just as 5e is doing. It quickly tapered off, just as all editions do. What numbers are available (not much) paint that picture. The same as we've seen with every post-fad edition.

It just didn't hit an unprecedented revenue goal, in large part because the products WotC was banking on to deliver that revenue failed in development, but, really, because the goal was totally unrealistic to begin with.

I repeat my invitation. If you can make any point at all about 5e and the future of the game without attacking 4e, please, do so.

 

[prosfilaes]

And, well, "too videogamey" is straight from the edition war playbook, so I guess someone was exposed to it on-line.

It had to be generated by a meatspace human at some point. It could simply be a way that some people felt about the edition.

 

[Haffrung]

It had to be generated by a meatspace human at some point. It could simply be a way that some people felt about the edition.

Indeed. Just because something is cited by people engaged in edition warring doesn't mean it's source - or its purpose - is edition warring. I've just wrapped up a seven-month campaign of 4E Essentials with a group of long-time D&D players who never read forums, have never heard of 'edition wars', and in some cases don't even know who Wizards of the Coast are. If I solicited opinions about their experience, I'd hear a variety of things, most of them positive. But if some of those comments mirrored remarks made about 4E by edition warriors, would that invalidate them?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Indeed. Just because something is cited by people engaged in edition warring doesn't mean it's source - or its purpose - is edition warring. I've just wrapped up a seven-month campaign of 4E Essentials with a group of long-time D&D players who never read forums, have never heard of 'edition wars', and in some cases don't even know who Wizards of the Coast are. If I solicited opinions about their experience, I'd hear a variety of things, most of them positive. But if some of those comments mirrored remarks made about 4E by edition warriors, would that invalidate them?

It depends on the context.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm totally with you on this. I've been into video games and computers since the 80s. I've built a career as a programmer, and I spent a couple of years as a game designer on a AAA console title. I'm very comfortable with technology. And yet I cringe whenever I hear someone talking about being "always connected" as an entirely positive thing. I've already been distancing myself from much involvement in social media for a while. It's starting to feel very invasive.

Yup. I complain to my wife about the amount of time she spends on her iPhone, while she's been complaining to me about how much time I spend on my laptop (ahem).

Yes, that too. That person is usually me; the last time I was a player in someone else's game was 2007.

And when you're the one putting that time and effort into the game, nothing kills your motivation faster than players who don't want to put any effort into the game. But sometimes you need those players to have a large enough group to play. Short rant coming: I prepared the adventure, I hosted the game, I let you use my books and miniatures, I printed off character sheets for you to use, and I picked you up from the bus stop so you wouldn't have to walk for 15 minutes in the rain; the least you can do is 1) read the short rules summary that I printed out for you and 2) bring enough snacks to share. The crap I put up with just to get enough people together to play.

Ha ha, I totally feel you. My situation in recent years has been similar, albeit a bit milder. But in my case I was trying to convince others to take up DMing, which was largely unsuccessful. The only one who did was, well, "OK" at it.

...

Tony, this is tiresome. I am NOT attacking 4E! You are so defensive about 4E that you can't seem to differentiate observations and viewpoints other than your own from attacks. Again (and for the last time): Talking about how 4E wasn't a success, or fizzled, is not attacking it. It really isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry, Tony, but the war is in you. And please stop accusing me of edition warring - I'm an edition pacifist!

Give it up, my friend. Let it go...

 

[Haffrung]

It depends on the context.

Uh, I just gave the context.