The Great D&D Schism: The End of an age and the scattering of gamers

[Ratskinner]

Even now, how much easier would it be to recruit a group at your local FLGS to play a Pathfinder campaign versus say, GURPS or Runequest?
<snippage>
We had opportunities to explore the why of that rift, to explore the dimensions behind the theory and game designs of each system, and to better understand our own preferences in gaming. To me, this is a massive positive of the "Edition Wars," which makes me a little bit hesitant to label anything an "edition war," or to even discount someone else's opinion, even if it's couched somewhat in vitriol.

You see a schism, I see a healthy diversity.

Looked at through another prism, in the past people who wanted to play a fantasy RPG had one real choice. Now they have many. They can pick a game that caters best to their tables' preferred play style. They can try out Pathfinder or Dungeon World or Fate or GURPS or Savage World or 13th Age. I'm sure I've left some important ones off that list. Seems like lately there's more cool, professional games out that there than ever before. This can only be good for the hobby.

I suspect that the only people the 'schism' is really bad for is Wizards of the Coast.

Going forward there may not be One Game To Rule Them All. And that's fine. As long as you are open to new gaming experiences I doubt you'll have trouble finding a table to play at.

I think that diversity is/would be a great thing. However, I think there's a great deal of geographic divergences when it comes to the penetration/availability of alternatives to D&D. Some folks around here have commented that finding a Savage Worlds or Fate table to play at is as easy to find a D&D table. That very much doesn't match my experience, where Pathfinder/3.5 seems very dominant in my area.

Certainly WotC will be the primary "losers" in this diversity. However, I do think that there is a bit of a risk for the larger community. Namely, that D&D has always served as the gateway to the rpg world (even when it does a bad job of it.) If D&D ceases to serve that function...well, I don't know how that turns out. Does another game take its place? Does the community adapt to some new paradigm? Does is spell doom for TTRPGs?

I will say that, generally, I'd like to see the community get away from latching onto "my game" so much. Playing a variety of games can really help you reflect on how you like things to go, and often even make you better at having fun with the game you do consider you first choice. Also, I think its the only defense against the risk of drifting too far into an echo chamber of your favorite playstyle or mechanics..

 

[Desdichado]

I miss when we were all on the same page, more or less. I miss when I could talk D&D online or in meatspace and not have to ignore half the conversations because I genuinely dislike the edition they are talking about, or when I could walk into my FLGS and actually see books I wanted to buy. I haven't bought a D&D book in about 6 years, because they stopped making anything I'd want to buy.

The sad thing is, I've got no idea what could fix this gaming schism. D&D Next (I still want to call it 5e) was meant to bring the factions together, but it's not seeming like it will do that. Personally I'll probably buy the PHB for it, but I've got faint hope that it will do anything other than break D&D gaming apart further.

I suspect that the schism is partly an artifact of your perception--there never really was nearly as much "community" and unification as you percieved. (As a guy who used to hang out at RPG.net before coming to Eric Noah's Third Edition News site, or whatever it was actually called in about 2000, I can attest to the great diversity in the hobby that existed outside of D&D specifically. And as a guy who was at least aware of Dragonsfoot, even if I wasn't interested in anything that they were talking about, the incipient proto-OSR movement, as it were, I'm not convinced that D&D itself was ever so unified as you assume.)

But also--and this is wandering a bit into armchair psychoanalysis--why is this something that you care about? If you have a game that you like, and players to play it with, then why does it matter to you about the "greater community" and what everyone else is (supposedly) playing and all that? I'm a firm believer in the notion that I'd rather have options I don't need than to need options that I don't have. Diversity in the marketplace is generally held to be good for consumers as a truism. This is certainly true for me; if I were forced to swallow any edition of D&D, then I'd probably choke on it these days. Having the OGL, and tons of options to give me a very targeted niche product, is a much better situation for me than a one size fits all big-tent approach, in which I'm forced to accept all kinds of compromises.

The diversity has also greatly contributed to both the content of my conversations about gaming--because I now have all kinds of interesting things to talk about that I wouldn't have without that diversity--and the content of my games, because I can borrow all kinds of interesting and neat ideas from multiple systems. And because of the internet, these options are now laid out in front of me in a way that I'v enever had before. Instead of having to be an amateur game designer house-ruling the heck out of my system, I can pick and choose like at a buffet of options, without having to actually create much, if any, rules of my own from scratch.

This is the Golden Age of gaming. The prior ages were Stone Ages or Bronze Ages at best. The only reason I can think of why this would not be the case is the psychological desire to feel part of a big tent, or community, of completely like-minded individuals, who all do things the same way. That, frankly, sounds terrible to me.

 

[Desdichado]

Let's just clear something up real quick. 3.0 and 3.5 are not separate editions.

Basically you have 3rd edition with Pathfinder carrying the flag.

They were all three separate editions (or a separate game, in Pathfinder's case.) Albeit ones with a relatively high level of mutual compatability.

But saying that they're all the same edition is sorta like saying that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are the same language, just because they also share a high level of mutual compatability.

 

[Desdichado]

The golden age was definitely when AD&D hit its fad in the early 80s. Then everyone played...or everyone who was anyone...at least among the youth you could say. It was a fad much like any fad which hits the huge numbers that give major sales and everyone wants to jump aboard.

A Golden Age for TSR, no doubt. But for players? That's a more dubious claim.

 

[Desdichado]

There is no argument about it. At the beginning of the 3.5 PHB it clearly states it's not a new edition but a revision.

Oh, well there you go. It says it right in the 3.5 PHB, so there's no argument about it. Clearly.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is a fantastic post # 52 [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]. I agree across the board.

 

[Dungeoneer]

They were all three separate editions (or a separate game, in Pathfinder's case.) Albeit ones with a relatively high level of mutual compatability.

But saying that they're all the same edition is sorta like saying that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are the same language, just because they also share a high level of mutual compatability.

As linguists say, a 'language' is just a dialect with an army and a navy.

 

[steeldragons]

Interesting topic and thread. I completely disagree with the OP but that's just me/my point, as I'll get to later.

So, to help form a mutual understanding and timeline I threw together this. [as far as wikipedia can tell me, so if anything's inaccurate, feel free to let us know -and go correct it ]



From this, and note this is not takign into account anything like various campaign settings, adventure modules, novels, cartoons, toys, video games or any of the other D&D stuff that came out...shoot I even forgot to include Pathfinder's appearance on the scene....but you get the gist...I hope.

The claims of what was/is a Golden/Silver/Bronze or Stone age are, like just about all things in D&D RPG, a simple matter of personal preference and perspective- When you started playing D&D and when you [believe you] had the best time. Schism or Unification, Diversity (as a positive or negative) Inclusive, Exclusive...the game [or rpg's as a whole, which is really a separate discussion] is better/worse off because it is "expanding" or in its expansion actually just "diffusing"?...Is one option/series/edition/number of years "better" or "worse" than the others? Depends on what you want out of your "Dungeons & Dragons". And there's simply no objective answer for that that can be applied as "across all D&D."

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

They were all three separate editions (or a separate game, in Pathfinder's case.) Albeit ones with a relatively high level of mutual compatability.

But saying that they're all the same edition is sorta like saying that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are the same language, just because they also share a high level of mutual compatability.

Emmmmm no.

I would recommend reading the beginning of the 3.5 PHB. The answer is there in black and white.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, well there you go. It says it right in the 3.5 PHB, so there's no argument about it. Clearly.

You know, we removed the rolleyes smilie for a reason - sarcasm is generally a communication failure.

But really, the point is valid - the differences between 3e and 3.5e are not nearly so great as the differences between the languages you mention. The form of the analogy is sound enough, but the degree is hyperbole, which also often leads to failed communication.

You cannot sit down at a table for a discussion with an someone who is Italian, someone who is Portuguese, and a Spaniard, and not know instantly that they are not speaking the same language.

You *can* sit down to play with three players, who have made characters using 3e, 3.5e, and Pathfinder, and play for quite some time before someone goes, "Wait a minute, what rules did you make that character under?"