Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alphastream" data-source="post: 7680922" data-attributes="member: 11365">In a game of "where things came from" we will end up back at D&D (or war games). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> Any good designer is constantly looking at other games, both new and old. This isn't exclusive to 5E, nor was WotC's 5E influence exclusive to OSR or narrowly focused on OSR. The design team had been playing a very diverse set of games over that design cycle (usually playing each fairly briefly) and their team has design experience with a number of systems and approaches.   WotC hasn't always been focused on other games or even on their own, and that brief period was to their detriment. There appeared to be a time during the mid 3E era to early 4E era where it seemed as if the WotC staff did not know their product or the industry very well. Interviews with designers showed them to not understand their game very well mechanically, how it actually played at the table, or how the gameplay was percieved by fans. This was also around the time that WotC had stepped back from organized play... which meant they lost the opportunity to see how the game was being played by thousands of players. It really hurt their ability to connect with fans. I credit Greg Bilsland, Mike Mearls, and Trevor Kidd for the change, though others could also have been responsible (Chris Tulach surely supported this). WotC made a really huge transition to where they are today: obviously playing a ton of different RPGs, playing their own RPG constantly, and seeing it played in a number of ways by a diverse number of players. I think that change to better understand the fan base and what the industry offers was a huge part of the success of 5E. It isn't about seeing that a particular game has a mechanic to steal, but rather observing the gameplay fun games create and wanting to have that same gameplay benefit. And, seeing accurately how your game plays so that you can make good adjustements. The playtest process was a good example of this. They had some early approaches that felt a lot more like 1E, but they didn't play well in various ways, which led to good changes. That look inward was just as critical to the process. And the overall goal of achieving the gameplay they wanted was far greater than any external influence. The article really does that a disservice, to the point of just being an incorrect assessment.</blockquote>

Verification