Screw Nostalgia

[Glade Riven]

There. I said it. There is one thing that will kill 5e for me, and that is if all it does is commit Wizards of the Coast to the abyssal plane of Remakes.

I'm fully aware that isn't WotC's intention, but some of the feedback they receive could push them in this direction. It's the difference between Transformers: Armada/Energon and Bayformers 3. Okay, yes, they're both terrible, but Armada/Energon ticked off the fanbase while trying to appeal to them (aka they emulated the wrong part of the G1 franchise) - Bayformers 3 cobbled together several memorable G1 plots and brought back Leonard Nemoy (the second best voice actor ever to voice a TF, defeated only by the planet eating Orson Wells) and pulled off a bit of awsome along side the annoying Sam Witwicky (humans are suppose to be annoying in Transformers compared to the giant alien robots of doom).

Or the J.J.Abrams Star Trek reboot, in which TOS and casual fans loved it, but hardcore TNG+ Trekkers hated what it did to a sizable chunk of history. I wholey support what J.J.Abrams did, but then again Trekkers I've met have personified the very stereotypes they are trying to avoid (Trekkies, though, seem to be awsome fun-loving people).

Now this is where someone points out "but - they're still appealing to nostalgia!" And I'm sure someone will reply without reading the rest of the post because their brain is hung up on this one apparent contradition. And yes, I am feeling a little beligerate with the sizable amount of simmering nerd rage floating around that our gracious moderators have been doing a good job keeping a lid on.

The difference is in the execution.

Just putting something in only for the sake of nostalgia will fail every time. Rather, the rule of cool should be applied first, followed by does it work with what we want to do (both are needed, not one over the other). Through the upcoming process I expect that there will be vocal objectives to some of what is created. Monte or not (and some people are overreacting with the drama he wished to avoid), the current design team certainly appears to understand that. Do the customers? Probably most of us. But those in the minority are often the most passionate and the most vocal.

I just hope WotC knows when to say "No" so we don't end up with another snafu like Skill Challenges (for those who don't remember, Skill Challenges started as a last minute ad hoc to 4e because people demanded rigidly defined out-of-combat rollplaying rules).

 

[Sunseeker]

So you're saying you want Baydragons!?

Actually if there's one thing Bay should be in charge of in D&D it's dragons. Can't have fire-breathing death-monsters without BAYSPLOSIONS!

 

[Lanefan]

Or the J.J.Abrams Star Trek reboot, in which TOS and casual fans loved it, but hardcore TNG+ Trekkers hated what it did to a sizable chunk of history. I wholey support what J.J.Abrams did, but then again Trekkers I've met have personified the very stereotypes they are trying to avoid (Trekkies, though, seem to be awsome fun-loving people).

The difference is in the execution.

Just putting something in only for the sake of nostalgia will fail every time. Rather, the rule of cool should be applied first, followed by does it work with what we want to do (both are needed, not one over the other).

::shrug::

I thought the Star Trek reboot fully satisfied both criteria: it passed the rule-of-cool test and it achieved what it wanted to.

If 5e works out anywhere near as well in meeting both criteria it'll do just fine.

Skill challenges, to follow up on your example, largely failed the rule-of-cool test. And not necessarily because it's a bad design, but because the 4e adventure writers took the position (probably without realizing it) of "well, we've got this funky new skill challenge mechanic and so we're going to shoehorn it in at every possible opportunity whether it's needed in that scenario or not"; and so it went from being cool to being annoying. The skill challenge mechanic in and of itself is not a Bad Thing - but it should only ever come up as an extremely rare last resort when most if not all other resolution options have failed.

Lan-"I have not taken leave of my senses, despite appearances"-efan

 

[dkyle]

My feeling on 5E is pretty much that it either needs to let me play an improved evolution of 4E, or it needs to provide a game that is as revolutionary compared to what came before as 4E was. I certainly don't expect that in core, but if there's a set of modules that can deliver either of those things, I might play it.

So, yeah, I'm about as anti-nostalgic as it gets. But it is definitely hard to figure out what's pure nostalgic, and what is essential to the kinds of games that people who like various editions of DnD like.

I would think that THAC0 and descending AC is pretty much pure nostalgia, since BAB and ascending AC can produce mechanically identical results. But others might find it essential to the old-school D&D "feel". And I may find loose, flavorful prose descriptions of the rules primarily nostalgic, and prefer 4E's clean, clear approach, but others find it essential to D&D.

I might think that Second Wind and other non-magical healing is great, and fully justified under "rule of cool", but obviously, not everyone agrees.

 

[Boarstorm]

Nostalgia has its place.

It's the bait on the hook that gets all of us to bite.

It's a tool. But never confuse the tool with the goal you're trying to achieve.

 

[Stormonu]

I get the feeling this will go down in flames, quickly.

I do appreciate that WotC seems to be looking back to a lot of the history of D&D, keeping the lore, but sifting through the mechanics for what looks best. Its like getting the familiar shell of your favorite car, but everything under the hood is all spiffy and new (kinda like Bumblebee from Bayformers).

A lot of the changes in 4E just turned me off personally, and in a lot of cases it was lore changes that bothered me as much, if not more, than mechanics (as did the design space focus). However, it would be foolish for them to drop everything 4E; if its something that folks from multiple editions might enjoy, they ought to consider keeping it.

If WotC can step back and look at D&D over its whole history rather than just what is flavor-of-the-moment, they have the potential to do right. That means incorporating things that will appeal to all or most gamers, regardless of edition it came from. If they just pick up on what a 1Eer or a 4Eer wants, there will be trouble - someone will be excluded and they've got to decide what part of the audience they'll lose going with something that only appeals to past players of one edition.

 

[GX.Sigma]

4e was the one where they screwed nostalgia and tried to innovate, and look what happened there.

I'm not bashing 4e, I'm just saying it caused the D&D community to be more fractured than ever, with people switching over to the competitor's product because to them, it feels more like D&D. That's the last thing WotC wants.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Just putting something in only for the sake of nostalgia will fail every time. Rather, the rule of cool should be applied first, followed by does it work with what we want to do (both are needed, not one over the other).

Which elements of D&DNext have, in your view, been included only for the sake of nostalgia?

 

[Glade Riven]

I thought the Star Trek reboot fully satisfied both criteria: it passed the rule-of-cool test and it achieved what it wanted to.

Sorry I was unclear on that, but I was trying to use Star Trek as a positive example.

[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]: And I don't hate 4e. It may not be my current game of choice, and I would have preferred that 4e was more like SW Saga (probably would have gone over better, too). Nostalgia wasn't the problem. Ideas like Dragonlancing the Forgotten Realms instead of building a new setting (or, um, using Dragonlance) was.

 

[Glade Riven]

EDIT: Sorry, Doublepost...