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

[Dungeoneer]

A lot of people talk about a rift opening up in the tabletop community with the introduction of Fourth Edition. And it's safe to say that when 4e was introduced there was a split as some people jumped on board with the new edition and others preferred to stick with 3.x or upgrade to Pathfinder. How deep this rift was is not really important - we have no idea what percentage did one or the other. And of course there were players of the classic editions who skipped 3 and 4, or even who got back into the game with 4 after skipping 3 entirely.

The point being: there was a fragmentation of the community. Some people liked 3.x, some people liked 4e, a few liked neither.

Who is to blame? Is it the reactionaries who refused to switch to a more modern game system? Or the designers who came along and tried to cram a radically different system down everyone's throats?

Or was it just inevitable that the community would fragment no matter what? I think maybe it was. Here's my reasoning:

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.

In the new millennium, pretty much everything is fragmented. There couldn't be another The Beatles, because people have so many options. You could listen to The Next Big Thing on the radio. Or you could go out and download the new mp3 from your favorite bluegrass-funk-reggae band which you found on Pandora. Or you could get a laptop and a MIDI connector and record your own music.

It's the same story everywhere. People don't just like movies anymore. They like Japanese horror films. Or machima. Or creating Lego reenactments of movies and uploading them to YouTube. Fragmentation and diversification is the story of pretty much every other entertainment media in the last ten years.

Why exactly do we expect D&D to be different?

THAC0. Skills. Multiclassing. Tactical combat. Vancian magic. Random tables. D20s. Dungeon crawling. Which of these mean D&D to you? In 1985 you had a handful of options for tabletop roleplaying. Now you probably have more options even just counting games that could reasonably be called D&D. If you've got probably a dozen editions and sub-editions, depending on how you count. Throw in Pathfinder and retro-clones...

Ask ten different people to describe their perfect version of D&D, you'll get eleven different answers. There's so many different kinds of people that play, and in so many different ways. Some people want the game to be as digital as possible, so they can play over the internet. Some people want a disconnected game that uses pen and paper and is printed on books. People with kids and little free time want a simpler game. People with more of the above want a strict simulationist game with rules covering every situation.

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?

 

[Treebore]

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.

But I have personally met, as well as seen plenty of people on Dragonsfoot, who still play all the other editions of D&D.

Is there a way to reunite the fragmented community? Sure is, but I doubt WOTC will do it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Edit: deleted because the final version is the one below stereofm.

 

[Minicol]

You have a point, but it only goes so far.

Say, I believe Lady Gaga is the new Beatles, or the new Michael Jackson, so it is possible.

IMO, there would have been fragmentation no matter, but it needed not be that bad.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am going to start off with a little personal history. I started off with D&D in the eighties but as a player. In the late eighties I started playing and DMing Palladium and WHFRPG and stuck with them for 10 to 15 years or when I discovered D&D 3.0. Now in the latter end I was a bit burned out as a DM. Now I loved D&D 3.0 and move directly on to 3.5 when it came out. I resumed DM'ing with 3.5, though I was not that comfortable as a DM, so when 4e came out I was interested because it seemed a better game for DM's and the information coming out addressed stuff I saw as issues from the DM prespective.

Now if 4e had not come out I think I would have moved on from 3.5 anyway as a DM/GM. I am not sure to what but I would almost certainly have bought Warhammer 3 despite my current financial situation. I have not done now as it is a big investment and I am very happy with 4e.

So in answer to your questions:

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

No, not in my opinion. Hell, I am not sure it satifies me asll the time even

) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?

No, people who were dissatisfied would have drifted on to other things but it would be more of a slow bleed than the crashing rift that the release of 4e created. They also would not have moved on to the same things.

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?

Make the best game they can, and try to attract as much new blood into the hobby as they can.

The thing is that the hobby was never that monolitic even back in the day when there was only one version of the game. The game spread largely by word of mouth and DM's training in new players and new DM's and the odd group that figured it out from the printed manuals.
I suspect that the more generations of DMs your were from Gygax, Arneson et al. the more variation in the game you got.
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.

 

[Minicol]

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?

Damn, you ask questions, too ...

1 ) Not anymore I believe.
2 ) It would have been possible, if you mean the D&D player base (forget other RPGers)
3 ) Up to them to say

 

[dmccoy1693]

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

IMO, no. I believe they lost customers 3 years ago and are letting their current customers lapse with not releasing new (fluffy) material for them.

• 2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?

Maybe, but doubtful. If they waited a little longer, they would have had better odds. There were 2 major problems with the 4E release (3 if you count the way it felt like they were trying to push their customer base away, but we'll ignore that one for the moment). 1. They released 4E when their pocket books dictated when they should release a new edition, not when the player based had played enough of 3E and were ready for a new edition, and 2. 4E was to ambitious. It was to far of a radical shift. D&D 1E to 2E was a timid shift. 2E to 3E was an overhaul, but it still felt like the same game. 4E was a reinvention. It was largely a different game with the same IP on it. While it was smart for them to do that to cater to the next generation of gamers, they failed to do it in such a way that kept the old guard. So their decisions fractured the base.

Would it have happened regardless, possibly, but I believe their actions, their decisions made it worse than it needed to be.

• 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) Increase revenue streams. Start selling PDFs. License off settings that you're not going to do (dragonlance, greyhawk). Sell books that are totally fluff and minimal no crunch (they're faster to write, require less playtesting, and do not weigh down the system with excessive crunch).

2) Decrease overhead.

3) If you're going to go the MMO route, go the MMO route. Just make sure you do it well and not shoddy.

4) Expand into boardgame expansions beyond Gammaworld. THey've got a ravenloft game that sold quite well. Why not an expansion?

 

[fumetti]

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

Not anymore. If WOTC keeps going forward in rules changes, it will keep losing customers. If WOTC goes backwards, it will lose the newer customers. Sadly, WOTC needs both at the same time.

2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?

Dunno.

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?

Keep two DnD system going. One for the oldies, one for the newbies. (And I don't mean just a Basic/Advanced approach. 2E/4E is kinda what I'm thinking. Keep producing just enough of the popular old system to keep the old players around. Then start producing for the future generation, the new system that will draw them in from video games, etc.

DnD will not survive by just appealing to the oldies. And it will not survive if it does not attract a new generation of fans. Trying to appeal to both with the same system doesn't seem to work, not enough anyway. So give in and appeal to both.


The worst thing is to just dump an old system entirely. Not everyone moves over at the same time (just look at Windows). WOTC had no long term vision for converting older players. Both times it was "we're switching everything; take it or leave it, but the old stuff is gone!" Too rude for a product that people don't really need.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

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

Not imo. Nor do I think it's especially important that this be done. What's important is that "enough" of the older player base is satisfied, so they'll recruit new/returning players, and then to keep 90% of those new players satisfied.

2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?

Not imo. D&D players, new and old, just like to argue. A lot. And then some some more.

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?

Keep players of the existing edition happy. (Even if the "existing edition" of D&D product eventually becomes boardgames, ccgs, or whatever.) Really, from a business perspective, a company only needs to keep current customers satisfied. While it would be nice imo to see a little more give and take between that company and all the various edition camps, it's not really necessary for them, and probably would consume more resources than they're capable of putting up for very little roi.

From my own selfish perspective, I just want to know that I can put out a LFG ad 30 years from now and be reasonably assured of finding someone to play with. That, of course, is made more likely, if the D&D IP is well maintained and remains strong, recognizable and associated with fantasy gaming.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I think that WotC took a calculated risk when they released a drastically different version of D&D with 4th edition. My guess is that the designers and WotC looked at 4th edition as a chance to revolutionize D&D, incorporating elements that would balance the gameplay experience for all players while leaving behind its outdated, legacy rule mechanics. They worked to separate it from many of the staid, classic elements that did nothing to "grow the game" for the next generation by incorporating modern game design elements and making player race and class options flashier than in previous incarnations of the game.

If 4th edition is failing, and has caused a rift in the D&D fanbase, it's because many of D&D's fans don't see 4th edition as a logical evolution of the game. There are plenty of great RPGs out there, and roleplayers are likely to try them in order to check out new settings, game mechanics, and new ways of telling shared stories. At the same time I'd guarantee that the thing that brings many gamers back to D&D time-and-time again are its classic "D&Disms"... those staid, classic elements that do nothing to "grow the game" for the next generation but make D&D a comfortable, easily recognizable home for our shared stories.

To answer the OP's questions:
1) Is it possible to create an edition of D&D that could largely satisfy 90% of the player base?
Probably not. At the same time, the designers over at WotC should be able to make a version of D&D that scratches the itch of a good cross-section of D&D fans and prospective fans.

2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?
Sure. That's what playtesting and market research are for.

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?
Open betas, extensive market research and opening lines of communication to WotC customers would go a long way towards helping "fix" D&D. Sure geeks are a cranky, hard-to-please bunch... but I'm sure that you could sort through customer advice/complaints/preferences to get to the meat of what would make for a great version of D&D.