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

[shadzar]

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?

1. No, the player base now involves too many different types of playstyles that were brought from other areas with the newer additions. (dating back to the 80's in regards to "newer editions")

2. No, see above.

3. Either you support your entire line in some fashion and agree that old and new editions can coexist and you can make products for all of them, or you just pick something and hope it turns out good for the game, or for WotC is most concerned, good for revenue.

Too much damage was done with Moldvay v Mentzer, D&D v AD&D, 1st v UA, 1st v 2nd, 2nd v Player's Options, AD&D v 3rd, 3rd v 3.5, 3.x v 4th v Pathfinder, 4th v Essentials (it seems to be starting as another half edition fracture).

With all that fracturing of the gamers...there is little that can be done to bring them back together without accepting a method that puts something for each of them in print and letting the players choose, or just deal as best you can with whatever it is you are putting out now.

D&D really is too many different things now that there will enver be a unified community again, nor will players ever meant he same thing when uttering the words "I play D&D." for communication to begin without clarification what you are saying when you say "D&D".

 

[Almacov]

1) The question is, what player base? As you mentioned earlier, there were people who didn't switch from 3e to 4e, or 2e to 3e, or 1e to 2e, and there were people who moved to different games entirely.
90% of all active Roleplaying Game players? I doubt it.
90% of all former D&D players? That seems unlikely too.
One also has to consider that even if a new edition has a certain appeal to a well established group, it still needs to provide enough incentive for them to bother making the switch. Some people, reasonably satisfied with the game they're playing, simply wouldn't see the need to upgrade.
To some people if the game doesn't change substantially there's no point in buying the new one.
If it changes substantially, there are bound to be some people who find some changes not to their taste, or too much of a hassle to get used to.
My answer is no. I've played and had a like/dislike relationship with every edition.

2)Nope. See above.

3)Just make games that are good enough and well marketed enough to grow popular and maintain traction.
They have competition. I hope that competition keeps the pressure on.

I also hope that everyone has their eyes on growing the market and getting new players, because that will be good for all of us.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

And then it officially fractured pretty early anyway, what with OD&D, D&D and AD&D not to mention the specific setting rules and the near endless supply of optional kits, player books and what not.

Excellent point. By 1989 you had . . .
1. OD&Ders who never looked forward.
2. AD&D 1e'ers who were fanatically loyal to EGG and refused to even consider 2e.
3. Moldvay/Cook B/X'ers who loved this now OOP edition.
4. BECM'ers who loved the boxed sets.
5. Those embracing the new shiny, AD&D 2e.

==
On the other hand, one could argue that the similarities between these five games are striking, and the compatability and familiarity between the five meant moving back and forth was relatively easy.

3.x was a radical redesign, basically taking Alternity and the 2e Options books and shaping them into a FAR more detailed rules set than ever before.

And 4e is a completely different game entirely. Not better or worse necessarily, but there are few lines of compatiblity or similarity between it and previous editions, which was also the case, by and large, with 3.x and previous editions.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

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?

Recognise that their customers have disparate views and sell to the players' desires rather than their designers' agendas. Which doesn't mean they have to stop designing editions. It just means they put all the various editions in print at the same time. Probably via print on demand technology so there's no financial risk or investment in print runs.

They can then sell licences to produce adventures and other support material for each edition to trusted companies.

 

[Mark CMG]

Classic D&D is kinda like The Beatles. Everybody liked The Beatles in 1965 because... what was the alternative? They were pretty much the only thing going in rock n' roll.

Aside from The Rolling Stones (a debate over who is better rages to this day) and Elvis, there were plenty of alternatives, not to mention that there was plenty of non-Rock competition throughout the years the Beatles were together. Might be better to compare Classic D&D to early network television.


Anyway, WotC seems more like one of those owners of a sports franchise that is mostly content with local turnout. Their corporate standing and Hasbro ownership requires certain business practices with an eye toward stockholder satisfaction. Although it is unlikely, I think they should sell the property to a smaller company.


There's always been fragmentation based on basic assumptions about what makes D&D D&D both within the company and without. Fact of the matter is that whoever owns the brand can slap it on whatever they like and it is officially D&D. It used to be that only people who didn't game would generically call Medieval/Fantasy RPGing D&D regardless of the brand. I played wargames before D&D came on the scene in 1974, then starting playing D&D along with my other gaming, and 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).


The only way I see to reach 90% of the fans would be to stop creating new editions and focus on *all* past and present editions (and even then 10% would not buy anything). It requires a different creativity than seems to be currently rewarded by the edition-cycle business model in that you don't just take the old flavor and put new mechanics underneath, you have to come up with new and expanded flavor to fit the mechanics that are already in place with four (six, eight?) variations of the game. Some of that creativity would work with all variations and some would only work with a limited number of the variants.

 

[kitsune9]

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?

1. Unlikely. RPGs are one of those things that provides a bajillion different experiences to a bajillion people. Our psychological makeup and even how we're biologically wired influences the outcome of the experience and our motivation to remain engaged in the hobby. On top of this, it's part of the rpg culture to continuously tinker and change the game for new experiences.
2. No. If I had to speculate, then only if there never is any edition change and we all were still playing OD&D, then maybe we might not be so fragmented. However, this is a stretch for me to say this, because I'm sure the rpg community would fragment on something else.
3. This I couldn't tell you other figure innovative ways to promote the game and hobby in general.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

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?

1. Yes to the spirit of the question. 90% is a terribly high percentage, so no to that, but if the spirit of the question is, "Is it possible to create an edition of D&D where the D&D community doesn't feel fractured, and that has the same sort of rpg market penetration and share that 1e-3e had?" then the answer is yes. The game just has to be good enough.

The fracturing of the community didn't coincide with the release of 4e by accident. The community fractured then because 4e... brace yourself, I'm going to say it... wasn't a good enough game. Not enough people enjoyed playing it.

It was then, and remains now, possible to create a D&D that would unify the D&D community to a reasonable extent. It sure wouldn't be easy to do, and it would be harder to do it now than in 2007, or 2000, or 1989. But yeah, it could be done.

Will it be done? Ah, that's a question that I prefer not to think about on a cheery Friday evening.

 

[Herschel]

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?

1) No. AD&D probably didn't have even a chance to keep 90% and a lot of lapsed players came back with 4E and new players started who didn't play 3E.

2) No. Again, AD&D didn't, 2E didn't, 3E didn't.....

3) Keep making games that a large number of people enjoy.

 

[Pour]

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?

1) I don't want to say never, but it seems really unlikely, and I'm against any sort of apologist design. It's one thing to draw from the past as inspiration, but I think going into a new edition thinking to reunite the fractured camps beyond the charm/iconic aspects of the brand would be a mistake. The only way to do that would be to backpedal into a previous edition mechanically and conceptually, but somehow Frankenstein elements that would make the other edition fans happy. Given the differences between 2e, 3e and 4e, it would take some real design geniuses and I'm just not certain that kind of talent exists.

2) No I don't think it was. Plenty of people disliked 3e and stuck with the older editions. And now plenty of people dislike 4e and stick with the older edition. I'm not even sure it's a sound strategy to try and carry fans over, true fans who like the edition they're in. To them that is the definitive game- and to them the designers have done their job well. I think new editions really speak to those who like the D&D brand, but not the system (it was for me, anyway).

3) Keep working in their current edition, explore it, experiment with it, make it the best it can be, and then, when they are fat and happy and can suckle no more, move to the next.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

1) At this particular moment? No. Modifying 4E enough to appeal to 3E/Pathfinder players again would change it so much that it would be a new edition, which instantly loses half the 4E base. It's a no-win situation right now.

2) Probably not 90%, but something close to that, yes. Start with 3E as the basic framework. Overhaul the mathematical underpinnings of that framework to put the classes on an even footing. Give the "core races" a 4E-style upgrade (but keep the race list the same; dragonborn and tieflings can wait for a splatbook). Get rid of the Christmas tree. Provide easy access to noncombat healing, perhaps based on the Heal skill, to reduce cleric-dependency and extend the adventuring workday. Dump iterative attacks. Rewrite grappling from scratch.

Cut the abusive wizard and cleric spells (no more CoDzilla; Batman loses much of his utility belt), and drastically limit save-or-lose magic. Casters get access to some basic abilities usable at will. Streamline the skill system and provide more options for noncasters, including damage-boosting abilities to make up for the loss of iterative attacks.

Adopt 4E-style monster design (stats determined top-down by monster level and type, instead of "building" the monster as if it were a PC; few or no spell-like abilities that make you go looking stuff up in other books) but keep 3E's descriptive Monster Manual entries and include non-combat abilities for appropriate monsters. For NPCs, offer some "villain classes" like Iron Heroes had, where you just pick a level and a few key abilities and you're done.

In case you haven't noticed, my goal here is to attack the problems 4E was trying to solve, but do it within the framework of 3E. Not everyone would be happy with everything listed above, but I think a lot more people would have come along.

3) 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.