Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 6267619" data-attributes="member: 91777">I know, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />This is of course the classic dilemma for game designers.Wait! You just said the designers have to 'build on' what came before. So they're ADDING something new? Who decides what gets added? Isn't the 'something new' going to have to be the designer's vision?I disagree with you quite a bit, Jester. And I think your example disproves your own point. Studios have started 'rebooting' major franchises by handing them to filmmakers with very strong points of view who change them up quite a bit. We've had three Daniel Craig Bond movies now, so maybe we've forgotten how controversial he was to start with. "A blond Bond?!? Perish the thought!" Craig took Bond in a whole new direction, without entirely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or look at J.J. Abrams Trek reboot. Or the Dark Knight trilogy. The fact is, when you want to reinvigorate something stale, you don't slavishly hew to tradition. You strike out in a new direction! It doesn't always work, but when it does people really love it.Let me ask YOU a question. If the designers need to 'stick to the script' on D&D, as it were, without contributing their own personal vision, why bother making a new edition at all? If we aren't going to allow them to innovate or take risks, new editions become pointless. I suppose WotC could instead release endless incremental updates. 3.75 and 4.5. I'm sure that would make some people very happy!When was the last time a committee managed to make everyone happy? Committees specialize in the sort of grumbling compromise that is barely acceptable to most people. That hardly counts as 'happy'. I don't think this word 'bland' means what you think it means. Food I dislike is not 'bland'. It's icky!Yeah, if you read further down in my OP you'll find I completely agree with you. There's no doubt that 4e built on 3.x and addressed many of its issues, but it also added a lot of things that weren't really related to 3.x. Class roles come to mind. Skill challenges. The tactical combat system, generally.I agree. I think D&D, like anything old and popular, needs these kind of kicks in the pants to keep it fresh. 4e may not have been everyone's cup of tea but it introduced some badly needed new ideas into the D&D conversation. I'm guessing 3.x was the last D&D where wizards can run out of spells and fighters can only hit things with a stick. I think it leaves behind an important legacy for future designers and players. Hopefully 5e does that as well.</blockquote>

Verification