D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Thomas Shey]

Going back about six pages...

I think most of the long term groups I've been in have tried different games: Gamma World back in the early 80s, Star Frontiers and V&V in the mid 80s, Twilight 2000 in the late 80s, VtM and Star Wars in the 90s, Call of Cthuhlu, Shadowrun, Brave New World, Fate, and 13th Age in this millenia. I'm trying to think back, and I think there was one group in the early 80s that only played D&D (but that DM ran lots of other games for different groups), one in the 90s where we only played D&D (two unrelated long campaigns), and one recently that only played D&D (a shortish campaign and a follow-up).

I can understand a long-time single campaign groups not changing systems. And I can understand groups that don't stay together more than one game or have mass turn-over of members and that need lots of recruitment not changing. But for the long time groups that play together (maybe with partial turn-over as the years go on), is it uncommon to try multiple things?

Its hard to tell how "common" it is, since it appears likely that at least some groups that do that have limited turnover and thus tend to be kind of encapsulated. I do get the impression from things I've seen over the years that long time groups that are D&D and only D&D are hardly unknown though.

(Yes, it seems odd to me too; the groups I've played with have rarely stuck with the same genre, let alone system for two games running over the years. Even games we reused a lot were in alternation with other things).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you're seriously either underestimating or understating how much hostility 3e caught in some places when it first came out including USENET. There's a reason the OSR got really going at that point.

The OGL/SRD were just about useable for that purpose, sure. Hackmaster seemed to get going very quickly, IIRC, then there was OSRIC. I wonder what the full stories behind those were? Maybe something for future serious historical RPG scholarship to chew on?

It was just that 3e also got a combination of returnee/new players that made the rear guard element mostly irrelevant in practical impact on the sales and overall success of the edition, which is not how it worked out with 3e.

The edition war was not a function of sales, its not even clear it impacted sales a great deal, at first... but it was outright damaging the brand, not just the edition, D&D, itself.
WotC saw no need to pretend 3.5 or 4e were trying to 'heal the community,' but that was made central to announcing Next (which, ultimately, they couldn't manage to pretend wasn't a 5th edition...)

If you were looking for some info about D&D c2000, you could find something that wasn't comment bombed by people hating on it.

There is simply no comparison.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The OGL/SRD were just about useable for that purpose, sure.

The edition war was not a function of sales, its not even clear it impacted sales a great deal, at first... but it was outright damaging the brand. WotC saw no need to pretend 3.5 or 4e were trying to 'heal the community'

If you were looking for some info about D&D c2000, you could find something that wasn't comment bombed by people hating on it. Like, you could find Eric Noah's news site, and hear people gushing about the new system, rather than people warning you away, and saying go play Hackmaster, it's the real D&D.

There is simply no comparison.

And how much positivity would you find about it on Giant in the Playground? The fact people were already tending to isolate themselves among the like minded does not tell me the resistance was small; it just tells me it wasn't as large (or at least as aggressive).

 

[Minigiant]

We all have to do it. It is what it is.

Explain how this invalidates skill proficiencies as an out of combat class feature.

Because in many cases, only one person rolls some checks.

There are some checks multiple people get to roll. Or group check where everyone rolls.

But some of the checks there are only one roll: To inflict penalty, loss, or bars upon failure.

One person gets to navigate.
One person gets to pickpocket the guard.
One person gets to convince the official.

Others can help. But working together does not use proficiency unless it requires it which pretty much is only for picking locks and disabling traps in core.

So only one person between the Fighter Rogue Wizard and Cleric gets to track. On failure you lose the tracks. So the fighter and cleric both having Survival is redundant. Because you only need one person with Survival.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn't it.

5e wasn't released to excite new fans. It was released, and we know this, as an apology edition, to play the hits, because D&D, as it was released, is good.

That doesn't refute my point that it is heavily focused on traditional tropes.

If anything it proves 5e was hostile to new tropes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And how much positivity would you find about it on Giant in the Playground? The fact people were already tending to isolate themselves among the like minded does not tell me the resistance was small; it just tells me it wasn't as large (or at least as aggressive).

GitP started with 3.5, IIRC, and 3.5 did catch some flack for being a blatant cash grab and changing the game just enough to make you buy the new books.

The backlash against 3.0 relative to 2e or 3.5 relative to 3.0 was not nearly as determined, pervasive and toxic/destructive as the edition war.

You can see that in WotC's reactions. Was 3.5 catering to grognards who hated 3.0 for being grid dependent? Was 4e caving to 3e fans who didn't want another cash grab by waiting a respecful 10 years before rolling rev again?

 

[Thomas Shey]

GitP started with 3.5, IIRC, and 3.5 did catch some flack for being a blatant cash grab and changing the game just enough to make you buy the new books.

The backlash against 3.0 relative to 2e or 3.5 relative to 3.0 was not nearly as determined, pervasive and toxic/destructive as the edition war.

You can see that in WotC's reactions. Was 3.5 catering to grognards who hated 3.0 for being grid dependent? Was 4e caving to 3e fans who didn't want another cash grab by waiting a respecful 10 years before rolling rev again?

As I said, 3e also brought in new players and returning old players in significant numbers, so to a large extent they could afford to ignore the grognards. And even the retreat to other options was not nearly as dramatic--I'm doubting even as a whole, the OSR was close to as big as Pathfinder 1e. That sort of thing makes a difference.

 

[Scribe]

That doesn't refute my point that it is heavily focused on traditional tropes.

If anything it proves 5e was hostile to new tropes.

It was not hostile to new tropes, adding them simply wasnt the point.

5e wasnt against them, it was simply made to be the 'default D&D' experience, not with an eye to the future, but with an eye of representing the 'ur-D&D' which would then go into stasis.

Like this is known, its been stated openly that there was every expectation after 4e, that the next version was going to be it, wrap it up, and done, dont forget to turn off the lights.

It was not meant to 'excite new players'.
It was not meant to innovate the genre.
It was not meant to deconstruct RPGs, or represent out of the box every play style, every trope, every concept.
It certainly was not meant to appeal to 4e players.

It was meant to take what the Western consciousness understands to be D&D, implement a basic, straight forward framework, minimize the number of systems in play, and just wrap it up in as much core, foundational aspects of D&D as possible.

And because that basic package, the release version of 5e, actually struck the right tone, and resonated enough because we understand that it fundamentally is D&D?

It was successful.

 

[Minigiant]

Redundancy is only an issue if the non-combat uses of skills are so limited that they're always resolved by a single check against a single skill be a single character.
Furthermore, defining/balancing a class or character by giving it exclusive access to a skill is just a particularly narrow form of niche protection.

IMX with range of systems, too many skills is worse for a game than not enough, and open-ended skills, or skills otherwise added mid-stream, create incompetence....

Aside from Tool Use, which is open-ended, the 5e list of skills is fine. Or, could have been fine, if there had been a bit more depth to their use in the non-combat 'pillars.'

But the non-combat uses of skills are many times resolved by a single check against a single skill be a single character...

Obstacle challenges are usually single checks with a noticeable penalty or loss for failure. Those "No Retry" or "Must wait X minutes/hours/days to retry" checks.

Stealth, Perception, Athletics, Acrobatics, and the pure lore skills of Arcana, History, Religion, Nature are often group checks or retry checks.

But skill checks that are in the moment or require manipulation are often single try no retry checks. So outside of the party being split, you only need one person to have proficiency in it.

5e doesn't need a whole lot more skills. Just a couple. At least 2 more physical skills. And maybe another social skill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the non-combat uses of skills are many times resolved by a single check against a single skill be a single character...

Yup, and that can be a problem, in itself.

Too many skills can also be a problem. Perception and Investigation (3e Search) for instance - you don't need both, all having both does is make a high PER character occassionally bad at finding things.

5e doesn't need a whole lot more skills. Just a couple. At least 2 more physical skills. And maybe another social skill.

Are you thinking to equalize stat usefulness or something? How would more physical skills not just make it harder to be generally competent at physical stuff?