The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[Dannyalcatraz]

The RAW thing comes from:

1) the aforementioned desire to ascertain how PC X got what he got- that whole thing about not letting in PCs from other games- which is entirely valid. Before Teh Interwebz, that was all face-to-face. Now its online, and we can subject ANYONE to that kind of scrutiny, even if there is zero chance of us playing with that person or his PCs.

2) human beings' amazing capacity for self-deception. We all like to believe we're doing things right...even if we "bend the rules" here and there.

3) the nature of the Beast. Precisely because HRs are so rampant in the hobby, the RAW is sometimes all we have in common to discuss, at least as a starting point.



What gets me is the way RAW is sometimes used as a weapon to denigrate other players' positions.

 

[Piratecat]

I swooped in to deal with people arguing, and you know what? I don't need to. You may not all agree, but you're discussing it and trying to help, and this is very cool to see. Thank you.

 

[carmachu]

There has always been fragmentation of the D&D community with every edition. It has just been the largest and most obvious with 4E because the internet helped make it more known that people were not switching to 4E, which is also aided by Pathfinder helping people know that if they stick with 3E it will still be a "live" system, not a dead one.

Thats not quite all the reasons you know. WOTC's handling of the 4e roll out had several bad choices on their part- their speaking down of 3.x that didnt go well, the absolute debacle with the OGL/GSL rollout, no game table at release, the backlash from the cancellation of the magazines.......there were more factors then just what you state.

WOTC would have lost people as they do with every edition, but I think they contributed to the numbers with their bad handling of things.

 

[thedungeondelver]

With this in mind, I have three questions:
1) Is it possible to create an edition of D&D that could largely satisfy 90% of the player base?
2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?
3) If it's not possible (now or then), what should Wizards, or whoever owns the D&D IP in the future, do about it?

No, no and nothing.

In fact, if Wizards wants to be more successful they need to adopt Games Workshop's model of driving older customers away on a cyclical basis.

Who do you think GW values more? The grotty old beardo with the cheese-cloth thin, faded TACTICON '99 shirt stretched across his ample frame, who complains about the defenestration of Squats, grumbling that his 2500 point Eldar army built to the WHITE DWARF magazine specifications that were released prior to WARHAMMER:40000 2nd edition should be allowed for tournament play? Or the hyper 12 year old with mom and dad's attention and money, a kid who'll quit when he turns fifteen and discovers girls, put his partially painted $400 army on eBay or better still in the closet and forget about it?

It's the latter. Far and away the latter.

For Wizards' continued financial success*, they need churn. They need bigtime churn. They need to completely drop the idea of appealing to the older players. Drop Vancian magic? Who cares? Make it power tiles that cost $7.99 a pack instead! Make faction books, split 'em up, charge $19.99 each. Make it so the person who spends more money has the better characters and games.

It's not 1978 any more, it never will be again, and if WotC wants Hasbro to allow them to continue to live they need to stop even thinking like it might be.

DDI, DUNGEON and DRAGON magazine online, all that is a waste of time and money. GW has: an online store, period, fullstop. They don't apologetically go to gamers and beg their forgiveness for stomping IP infringement into the ground publicly and bloodily. Screw around with them and they'll make an example of whomever.

People flock to GW like they're giving away blocks of ice in the Sahara.

This is what WotC must do to survive. Period.

*=D&D is essentially meaningless; it has some cachet but they could call it FLEAS AND FLOUR-SACKS and as long as they "do it right", people will gladly give up their money to be treated like dogcrap to be allowed to play it.

 

[rounser]

For Wizards' continued financial success*, they need churn. They need bigtime churn. They need to completely drop the idea of appealing to the older players. Drop Vancian magic? Who cares? Make it power tiles that cost $7.99 a pack instead! Make faction books, split 'em up, charge $19.99 each. Make it so the person who spends more money has the better characters and games.

The "burn bridges with the grognards" approach is fine in theory - but if you axe your player base then you need replacements. Given the content of essentials, and the red box cover, if I'm reading the tea leaves right they succeeded in the raspberry towards existing players' expectations bit (and resulting exodus), but the replacements perhaps weren't enough to make up for the loss...thus the belated nod to tradition that red box and essentials seem to be, perhaps.

Maybe, without retail stores and painted minis everywhere, there's a visibility barrier to entry that D&D has that Warhammer doesn't. As a review of the 4E PHB pointed out, the back of the book assumes prior knowledge of what you're holding. Then there's a wall of words that not even existing fans may be willing to climb to get through. In other words, it's all very well to reject suitors, but make sure you're popular enough to get away with being that cavalier with your audience first.

 

[thedungeondelver]

The "burn bridges with the grognards" approach is fine in theory - but if you axe your player base then you need replacements. Given the content of essentials, and the red box cover, if I'm reading the tea leaves right they succeeded in the raspberry towards existing players' expectations bit (and resulting exodus), but the replacements perhaps weren't enough to make up for the loss...thus the belated nod to tradition that red box and essentials seem to be, perhaps.

They're grasping at straws; it doesn't have to be this way (see below).

Maybe, without retail stores and painted minis everywhere, there's a visibility barrier to entry that D&D has that Warhammer doesn't. As a review of the 4E PHB pointed out, the back of the book assumes prior knowledge of what you're holding. Then there's a wall of words that not even existing fans may be willing to climb to get through. In other words, it's all very well to reject suitors, but make sure you're popular enough to get away with being that cavalier with your audience first.

Oh certainly but the solution lies in incrementally getting rid of old players. Those willing and able to pony up dough will, those not will get over it, play older games, or play different games altogether.

WotC is trying to do a good job: the optional cards and counters of today are the you-must-buy-to-plays of tomorrow...but they need to do it quicker. They need to abandon the vague hints at AD&D fast.

That wall of words? Needs to go. WARHAMMER:40000 and WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLES rule books are large - but the rules themselves are mere d6's, roll a 1-3 or a 4-6 on any given Sunday.

If WotC really want the brass ring they need to buck up, throw lip service to anyone playing 4e on back to people noodling around with CHAINMAIL and the "one figure equals one fighting man" optional rules and have done. Let 5e demolish that entry barrier. Because if they don't there will not be a 6e. Period.

Note: I realize the irony of me of all people saying this, but let's be real here. Barring WotC finding a money tree that blossoms year around, they're not going to do anything for me, or for original D&D enthusiasts, or second edition AD&D fans, or 3rd edition fans.

So for the sake of this discussion I'm putting aside any notions of game loyalty and focusing on what WotC should do to remain solvent, and what they should do is utterly cold blooded and mercenary.

(They're not going to do it.)

 

[pemerton]

I was asked to present the PC without reference to mechanics; I did so.

Darkethorne was versed in the ways of arcane magic, as well as The Old Faith. He also took time to patiently learn the woodcraft and combat techniques of the wilderness men of the surface, and applied them to environments other than the piney woods above his home city. Eventually, he left the Underdark to live full time among the surface dwelling humans, dwarves and yes, even elves.

Still, though, he did not linger in the cities of the world, preferring the wild to walls. And even that became too limiting for him, and he discovered how to wander the planes. With transformative magics- innate and external- from both of his mystical traditions, he found he could blend in anywhere. Likewise, both paths provided the power he needed to escape whatever trouble he found in his journeys. And even when stripped of all his mystic resources, he remained a formidable enough warrior to give anyone pause.

This PC has skill training in Arcnana and Nature (at least), has Arcane attacks (including lightning bolt or something similar), has shapechanging, probably some healing (as a 1st ed Druid), can use rituals (including planar travelling) and can fight in melee.

I'm looking at a druid (for shapechange) and perhaps swordmage (for the lightning and melee capacity). Maybe Wis and Int primary, and Con as a follow-up secondary for druid and swordmage. Done through either multi-class (feat heavy, but you'll get the ritual casting for free as a druid) or hybrid.

This isn't going to be the most broken PC of all time, but I'm sure with a bit of experimentation and tweaking you could try and get something viable. Not as viable as a 1st ed Druid/MU/Ranger, though - which, if you don't mind me saying, is one of the stronger combos on offer from an already pretty strong multi-class mechanic.

Then try the Human Ftr/Assassin/Illusionist from the same campaign.

I'm assuming that this character is mostly a stealth combatant using illusions to help with stealth?

I've had such PCs in Rolemaster games, and have looked at how I'd make them in 4e.

The best two classes in 4e for access to illusions are Wizards and Bards. Swordmages can also get personal invisibility, as do Warlocks. Stealth likes reasonable Dex, but with skill training and items it's not essential that it be a primary stat.

Any way, the upshot is that there are multiple ways to do this build. They won't preserve the AD&D stats (which presumably include STR, INT and DEXof 17+ for dual-classing to Assassin and Illusionist). One I think might be viable would be a melee-based, light skirmisher, bard/warlock hybrid. Add in thief or ranger multi-classing for extra fun - or even wizard multi-class for access to more illusions. You'll have majestic word 1x/enc - treat that as your 4e PC's analgoue of remove exhaustion in AD&D, and you're good to go.

Unlike the druid/swordmage, I think this could actually be a very fun and viable 4e PC who would at the same time capture a lot of the feel of the AD&D PC.

 

[pemerton]

Is it possible to create an edition of D&D that could largely satisfy 90% of the player base?

Part of the question is - who is the player base? I switched my GMing from Rolemaster to D&D precisely because 4e was a radical break from earlier editions, which I had no interest in GMing.

Follow the Essentials road for now. Re-introduce concepts from earlier editions into 4E, reducing the differential between editions as much as possible, and await the Awful Truth of RPGs, which is that the fanbase always burns out on any given game and moves on. Watch for this to happen to Pathfinder. When it does, it's time to introduce 5E, addressing at least some complaints of 3E/Pathfinder enthusiasts while keeping the 4E framework. No more healing surges; no more narrative-driven meta-mechanics; clear, strong differentiation between classes; flavorful and exciting game books.

This strategy might--just might--be able to capture a lot of those departing Pathfinder players and bring them back into the fold, while keeping most of the 4E fanbase intact. It might also bomb spectacularly. But it's the best hope I can see.

The problem for WotC with a strategy of releasing a 5E that drops "narrative-driven metagame mechanics" and heads back into the direction of 3E/PF is that it will cost them GMs like me. How representative am I - I have no idea, but I don't feel that unique!

I have never until recent times seen so many people playing various Medieval/Fantasy RPGs and calling them D&D when they weren't actually branded that way (then going on to explain why they did so, whether it was PF, Osric, C&C, etc, etc.). The fragmentation now borders dangerously on brand dilution. I wouldn't be surprised to see some big legal steps coming to curb that if it continues. It certainly hasn't been staunched in the traditional manner (by producing a game that all players acknowledge as actual D&D even if they don't play it or like it).

Isn't this an upshot of the OGL in combination with the SRD - if not forseeable at the time (presumably Ryan Dancey didn't foresee it) then not so surprising in retrospect.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This PC has skill training in Arcnana and Nature (at least), has Arcane attacks (including lightning bolt or something similar), has shapechanging, probably some healing (as a 1st ed Druid), can use rituals (including planar travelling) and can fight in melee.

I'm looking at a druid (for shapechange) and perhaps swordmage (for the lightning and melee capacity). Maybe Wis and Int primary, and Con as a follow-up secondary for druid and swordmage. Done through either multi-class (feat heavy, but you'll get the ritual casting for free as a druid) or hybrid.

Interesting suggestion...it loses some of the nature-boy aspects, though, which (you had no way of knowing) were a major part of his mechanics and roleplay.

Also, I'm not so sure Swordmage supports the PC's spell list that is heavily weighted towards Transmutations and Divinations. (You may have missed that point somewhere upthread that the bolt was almost his only direct attack.)

I'm assuming that this character is mostly a stealth combatant using illusions to help with stealth?

I've had such PCs in Rolemaster games, and have looked at how I'd make them in 4e.

The best two classes in 4e for access to illusions are Wizards and Bards. Swordmages can also get personal invisibility, as do Warlocks. Stealth likes reasonable Dex, but with skill training and items it's not essential that it be a primary stat.

Any way, the upshot is that there are multiple ways to do this build. They won't preserve the AD&D stats (which presumably include STR, INT and DEXof 17+ for dual-classing to Assassin and Illusionist). One I think might be viable would be a melee-based, light skirmisher, bard/warlock hybrid. Add in thief or ranger multi-classing for extra fun - or even wizard multi-class for access to more illusions. You'll have majestic word 1x/enc - treat that as your 4e PC's analgoue of remove exhaustion in AD&D, and you're good to go.

Unlike the druid/swordmage, I think this could actually be a very fun and viable 4e PC who would at the same time capture a lot of the feel of the AD&D PC.

Yep, a big part of his thing was using illusions to help him get close...

This was a very thuggy PC, a stocky killer with "Short Man Syndrome" who emphasized single combat with his target, so Bard doesn't really fit.

I'm assuming that when you say Warlock, you're thinking Feypact? That has potential...but maybe more as a Hexblade. OR as you point out, the Swordmage again.

The thing is, the Thief's Combat Advantage based powers are the closest thing I can think of to the Assassin's insta-kills.

Possible, possible...

 

[pemerton]

Danny, in my current campaign there is a Drow Chaos Sorcerer who is very heavily stealth-based: he uses racial Cloak of Darkness to get two rounds of CA, is a multi-class Cutthroat (from Dragon and the 2009(?) Dragon annual hardback) which gives him training in Stealth and lets him bluff for a stealth check (and hence CA) as a minor action, and has other stealth/CA-based elements to his build as well.

Even without the Thief powers he still very much has the feel of a PC who uses stealth to kill - the +2 to hit from CA is noticeable, and I think he might also be looking at a feat that gives him a bonus to damage with CA (Sorcerous Assassin, I think).

Until this PC I hadn't really thought of a sorcerer as a stealth-bot, but it has opened my eyes somewhat . . . (so to speak).

So I'd be surprised if there isn't some way to get your illusionist-assassin to work - assuming that you care to. (Like I said upthread, your druid/ranger/MU I think is always going to be harder - though your divinations will come with rituals, so they're not a problem, and maybe your transmutations also - and swordmages do have personal buffs and enlarge powers, if those are the sorts of transmutations that the PC used.)