D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

TSR tried to crank out book after book to mostly DM's who were a smaller percentage of the customer base. And then they narrowed it down to only certain types of fantasy and play a smaller subgroup loved. So TSR was trying to make all their money off maybe 10% of the consumer base.

The books were not exclusively for the GM. The complete books for example, all had material players wanted to. Also while the game books were written with GMs in mind, players regularly bought them (believe me I had plenty of players who had all the Ravenloft stuff I was running, it was very common). Also people really underestimate the impact of aiming these books at the GM. In order to have a thriving game, someone has to be the GM. It is the hardest job in the group (when I don't feel like GMing, I choose to be a player because there is simply less responsibility and work). Books that give the GM guidance, ideas, inspiration, adventure material, etc. These are all gold for keeping D&D campaigns healthy because they help maintain GM interest. I liked 3E, but my experience with that as a GM was it felt enervating. It was enervating for a lot of reasons but one of the main ones is there wasn't a whole lot out there that was good, the way there was in the 80s and 90s, to give the GM a hand, to give the GM inspiration. And the stuff that was being put out, just created more of a headache for the GM because it was player splat material.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t think this was the problem. That is a common narrative but I really think bad book keeping, done bad product choices, a noticeable decline in quality, competition from WW, then WOTC and online multi player games all had a bigger impact that Gm friendly supplements or setting material

It's not the sole reason. However TSR being bad with their money and not being competitive wasn't help y them attempting to sell bad books to the same people over and over. It's why Game's Workshop has been trying to expand their base.

However due to D&D developing out of nerd culture , there was always this hesitance to appeal to others to grow the base if the suits aren't pushing it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, yes. That's certainly true. If I want to get around the gatekeepers of D&D who insist that D&D supports all play styles, so long as I only want to free form, I certainly can go to 3rd party publishers to get my fix.

But, I have a serious suspicion that come the release of the 5e (2024) DMG, you are going to be REALLY disappointed when we get a book that actually delivers on the 2014 promise of modularity. We've already got Bastion rules. And the promise of the meatiest DMG ever. Do you really think they aren't going to add in all sorts of optional modules? What do you think is going to be in that book?

Mostly the same stuff, re-organized so they can say they did something to make it worth it for people to throw more money at them.

 

[Hussar]

Mostly the same stuff, re-organized so they can say they did something to make it worth it for people to throw more money at them.

I’m nowhere near that cynical.

After all, some of the most creative stuff for DnD has been released in the past three years.

Even the new phb stuff is pretty extensive. There’s a lot of changes.

But there’s also the point that the DMG is least needed as far as compatibility goes. The 2014 DMG doesn’t really deal too much with the core mechanics. So the 2024 DMG doesn’t need to worry as much about the compatibility bugaboo.

 

[Hussar]

So, let's see if I have the right of this.

We cannot have new mechanics because that would make the free formers sad.
We cannot have new mechanics because of the slippery slope argument that it will lead to never ending requests.
We cannot have new mechanics because mechanics leads to roll play and that's bad.
We cannot have new mechanics because the current books sell well.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, let's see if I have the right of this.

We cannot have new mechanics because that would make the free formers sad.
We cannot have new mechanics because of the slippery slope argument that it will lead to never ending requests.
We cannot have new mechanics because mechanics leads to roll play and that's bad.
We cannot have new mechanics because the current books sell well.

Did I miss anything?

We can have new mechanics if WotC thinks enough of the players want them that is worth for them to bother to write them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, let's see if I have the right of this.

We cannot have new mechanics because that would make the free formers sad.
We cannot have new mechanics because of the slippery slope argument that it will lead to never ending requests.
We cannot have new mechanics because mechanics leads to roll play and that's bad.
We cannot have new mechanics because the current books sell well.

Did I miss anything?

You get the mechanics WOTC wants to put in there, presumably because they think those will be most popular. So I think this angle of 'we can't have because of other posters saying X' is wrong. Look, I am very disappointed in the changes they have made so far. I wasn't a huge 5E player but I liked it when I did play it, it was always an edition that I knew I could easily get players for in my gaming groups if I chose to run it (the newer style players liked it, the OSR players liked it, etc). No one in my groups had any strong objections to it. But the new changes look like stuff I am not particularly interested in. I don't view that as the fault of the people who want those changes. I think WOTC is just makings its decision based on what it thinks people want and what will succeed (personally I suspect 6E won't be as successful as 5E but I could be wrong). That is the way this works. We say what we want and why on the forum. These kinds of threads on gaming forums are probably only peripherally even paid any attention to by anyone at WOTC, if at all. We can change one another's minds more than we can change WOTC's minds.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm like 15 years out of date with this criticism, because 5e clearly responded with "make it up" and people seemed to like that, but I would argue the alternative before skill challenges came onto the scene was "one action at a time, using the relevant rules for each action." The 3.X situation SCs were responding to is very different than the 5e model we have now. A crazy PC plan from before likely involved deploying specific spells and/or referring to existing skill rules, and was more likely to be foiled not by a bad roll, but by an unknown that hadn't been accounted for.

But that's not the sort of plan I'm talking about for skill challenges. I'm talking about "off the wall PC plans" or "shenanigans" that a skill roll or two would clearly underrate. And that are terrifying for new DMs in part because the "We dress up and pretend to be a theatrical troupe/reporters for the Balrog Times/emissaries of blipblopool" type nonsense is very fun and not covered directly by the rules. Or multi-part infiltrations with a PC outside providing a distraction for the stealth people.

Again optional cinematic rules would be fine. But the default game is meant to capture a broad audience. A game focused on bringing cinematic play isn't going to get the broadest D&D fanbase I don't think, since a good chunk of players aren't looking for cinematic play. What D&D does generally do well, varying by edition of course, is provide a kind of mean. I can't do Feng Shui level cinematic with D&D, but you can throw in some cinematic elements and cinematic logic.

And that is, to me, the big secret of 5e. It does everything a little - and nothing particularly well. It allows but doesn't support things. Which is why more than any other edition I can recall except maybe 3.X (which had very different issues for DMs) you get "Forever DM" issues.

 

[Oofta]

Well, yes. That's certainly true. If I want to get around the gatekeepers of D&D who insist that D&D supports all play styles, so long as I only want to free form, I certainly can go to 3rd party publishers to get my fix.

If you really hate freeform roleplay and the DM isn't into it [the optional rules] then there being optional rules in the book wouldn't change a thing. The DM wouldn't use the official optional rules either. If it's a deal breaker for you, find a different DM.

But, I have a serious suspicion that come the release of the 5e (2024) DMG, you are going to be REALLY disappointed when we get a book that actually delivers on the 2014 promise of modularity. We've already got Bastion rules. And the promise of the meatiest DMG ever. Do you really think they aren't going to add in all sorts of optional modules? What do you think is going to be in that book?

I'll evaluate any hypothetical rule changes when they are published. Maybe our group will use them after we discuss them, maybe we won't. If they change the core rules enough that it's not a game I want to play I'll stick with the 2014 edition rules or ignore them.

 

[Oofta]

See, @Bedrockgames, THIS is what I am talking about. At no point in this thread have I even HINTED at wanting to change the core game. Not once. Yet, here we are, hundreds of posts in, and I'm STILL having to correct people's mistaken interpretations and assumptions. I have REPEATEDLY stated that all I want is an optional module. Not one single time in this whole thread have I suggested any changes to the core game.

And you wonder why I'm a bit tetchy?

Huh? Nobody is saying anyone is saying that the proposed rules for social encounters would be core like skill challenges in 4E. We know you're talking about optional rules. You remind us in every other post.

So for the umpteenth time ... yes we know you're talking about optional rules. Has anyone anywhere on this thread contradicted this? You're making up imaginary accusations so, what, you can get upset about something that no one has said?