D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Kobold Stew]

We saw the conservatism of the current fanbase particularly in the 2024 playtest (as I noted at the time, e.g here).

 

[Scribe]

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's some ambivalence here for me.

Adaptation, evolution, and growth are inevitable and generally positive things. On board in principle.

But, these are frequently employed as excuses to do things that aren't so much better as they are just different. D&D attracts creative people who want to put their own stamp on things, and change doesn't necessarily mean improvement. It can just mean someone wanted to shake things up or had some personal pet idea they liked and decided that the rest of us needed to indulge them.

And then there's the complicating factor of the diversity in D&D's player base, where a change that favors one subsection of the community might work against another subsection of the community and end up narrowing the appeal of the game in one way or another. We've lived through enough edition wars to know that different audiences want different things from this game.

There's also the complicating factor of what WotC does with the official version of the game vs. what creative folks can do with offshoot versions of the game. Some of the things that people are quick to jettison from D&D are kind of brand markers and hobby tropes that help solidify a community feeling among users, even if they don't serve some perfect hypothetical idea of what the true game should be.

And, D&D changes more often than most games! Connect Four is about as old as D&D, and has not had to change very much to still be a fun game! Games get to be old and set in their ways. Having D&D around today doesn't mean Kriegspiel has to change. Both things can exist.

When official D&D wants to change in a big way, it does need to sell me on that change. And "because a designer though it would be a good idea," or "because D&D works better (for me) this way!" or "this is just an OBVIOUS (to me) improvement!" or "because it HAS to change with the times!" aren't really compelling for me on their own.

But at the same time, change is going to happen, and that's generally OK, and can be quite good. Expanding to new audiences is grand. But we can't just assume change yields improvement.

 

[Azzy]

I think for sure there's a weird consumerism thing in this hobby where people feel they must reflexively switch to the new edition when it comes out. No, if you like the old edition, keep playing it!

Exactly. When 4e came out, I was salty because it wasn't an iteration of 3e. So, I continued to DM/play 3.5e and didn't go on message boards complaining about 4e (though I did complain about the GSL—that was a trash fire that I think ultimately hurt 4e). Though, looking back, I wish I had given 4e a chance.

 

[Scribe]

Note: I DO NOT MEAN POLITICAL CONSERVATISM. This is not a thread about politics.

I mean "conservatism" as in resistance to change. You see it all the time -- people complaining about the new art or aesthetics, literally saying things like "if they used the old art I would be in." It is so mind boggling to me.

D&D is a living game. OF COURSE the new books etc are going to adapt to the new market. If you literally won't play a newer version because tieflings or whatever, then it isn't for you. Don't demand it regress to the era you discovered D&D because that is what makes you feel good; play the version you discovered.

I don't liek every artistic or design choice either, but it isn't up to me to demand D&D coddle my unchanging preferences. If I want to re-experience BECMI (the edition I grew up with) I can just play that. And so can you.

/rant

A preferred art style isn't a regression, and change is not progress.

 

[mamba]

The word "new" has no positive or negative value. It just means, "did not exist in this exact form until recently".

‘and improved’ is certainly associated with ‘new’, it’s not like anyone intends to make an inferior version of something

 

[Scribe]

‘and improved’ is certainly associated with ‘new’, it’s not like anyone intends to make an inferior version of something

And yet...

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

Not to split hairs, but breaking compatibility with a game's previous edition is a business decision based on making more money.
Many companies have published incremental changes of a game as new editions, changes that did not break compatibility.
But, that is not what the original topic of the thread is.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I am all for new, but in regards to D&D 5e, and specifically digital on DDB, it's still have years of stuff and groups to play with, when the only changes are art, lore and changes that really don't do much but move problems to a different part of the game all while screwing up the tools to the point very few players in our groups want to use them and the convenience that got me to buy digital copys of the physical books I already owned, it is not resistance to change that has my off put by the new stuff, it is because it is not worth the effort to both pay for and learn it. Especially when you consider it doesn't even work well on the site, and by the time we get to using the new stuff, Wizbro has shown they really don't care how well the old stuff works when they decide to come out with new stuff.

It has lead us to view the new stuff as not new, just rehashing old stuff and using it to screw up our games to sell half baked unfinished products with new art and just as many issues as the old stuff just in new places.

Maybe if Wizbro would actually come out with some new content that works well we'll buy it?

 

[Puddles]

With specific regards to the art, they have my sympathies, as I find the art direction for 5.24 particularly bad.

I don’t think there’s a lot of conservatism however, with the explosion of OSR, it seems players who like the old-school vibe are putting their money where their mouth is.