Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 5429540" data-attributes="member: 91777">A lot of people talk about a rift opening up in the tabletop community with the introduction of Fourth Edition.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; How deep this rift was is not really important - we have no idea what percentage did one or the other.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Some people liked 3.x, some people liked 4e, a few liked neither.&nbsp; Who is to blame?&nbsp; Is it the reactionaries who refused to switch to a more modern game system?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; I think maybe it was.&nbsp; Here's my reasoning:Classic D&amp;D is kinda like The Beatles.&nbsp; Everybody liked The Beatles in 1965 because... what was the alternative?&nbsp; They were pretty much the only thing going in rock n' roll.&nbsp; In the new millennium, pretty much everything is fragmented.&nbsp; There couldn't be another The Beatles, because people have so many options.&nbsp; You could listen to The Next Big Thing on the radio.&nbsp; Or you could go out and download the new mp3 from your favorite bluegrass-funk-reggae band which you found on Pandora.&nbsp; Or you could get a laptop and a MIDI connector and record your own music.It's the same story everywhere.&nbsp; People don't just like movies anymore.&nbsp; They like Japanese horror films.&nbsp; Or machima.&nbsp; Or creating Lego reenactments of movies and uploading them to YouTube.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fragmentation and diversification is the story of pretty much every other entertainment media in the last ten years.Why exactly do we expect D&amp;D to be different?THAC0.&nbsp; Skills.&nbsp; Multiclassing.&nbsp; Tactical combat.&nbsp; Vancian magic.&nbsp; Random tables.&nbsp; D20s.&nbsp; Dungeon crawling.&nbsp; Which of these mean D&amp;D to you?&nbsp; In 1985 you had a handful of options for tabletop roleplaying.&nbsp; Now you probably have more options even just counting games that could reasonably be called D&amp;D.&nbsp; If you've got probably a dozen editions and sub-editions, depending on how you count.&nbsp; Throw in Pathfinder and retro-clones...Ask ten different people to describe their perfect version of D&amp;D, you'll get eleven different answers.&nbsp; There's so many different kinds of people that play, and in so many different ways.&nbsp; Some people want the game to be as digital as possible, so they can play over the internet.&nbsp; Some people want a disconnected game that uses pen and paper and is printed on books.&nbsp; People with kids and little free time want a simpler game.&nbsp; 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&amp;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&amp;D IP in the future, do about it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeoneer, post: 5429540, member: 91777"] 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 [I]was [/I]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 [I]and [/I]4, or even who got back into the game with 4 after skipping 3 entirely. [B]The point being: [/B]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 [I]could [/I]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 [I]movies[/I] anymore. They like [I]Japanese horror films[/I]. 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[I] even just counting games that could reasonably be called D&D[/I]. 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: [B]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?[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification