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

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It really doesn't matter which edition did what to the player base, or when, or why. I think the subdivision was inevitable. I think D&D had a longer run as the 800 lb gorilla than really should have been expected which I suspect derives largely from the fact that table RPG's is STILL such a niche hobby. The hobby has grown; its player base expanded. D&D has notable competition from other RPG's that have developed and primarily it faces the alternate versions of ITSELF, thanks to the radical changes found in different versions.

No version of D&D was ever going to remain the RPG whose players outnumbered all other versions and RPG's combined. Any thoughts that it would remain the gorilla, any thinking that it was possible for D&D to forever control and outweigh the rest of the market, certainly any thinking that it was actually better that we all be rounded back up under one constricting banner and turned back from our misguided wanderings to other RPG's and other versions, well I believe that's extremely short-sighted if not downright arrogant at this point. I don't predict where these things are going to go anymore. My crystal ball is as unreliable as the next guy. I think the OP is correct, however, in that we're at an interesting crossroads and we're going to be seeing people moving down ever more distinctly different paths.

 

[Iosue]

In general in printed materials, a new "edition" is anything that has been re-edited to accommodate new or different material, typically by a new editor. This was the sensible use of the word in the RPG world up until WotC decided to use it to mean "significantly different game". If the text remains the same except for a few revisions, while the author(s) and editor remain the same, that's a revision.

Despite the semantic silliness attempted by WotC, 3.5 is clearly a new edition. That's why it has the ".5", because it's distinct enough from the 3e books. It's not how the word "edition" is otherwise used, not even in the RPG world to that date. That doesn't make it an entirely distinct game from 3e, any more than 2e was an entirely distinct game from 1e, or Mentzer from Moldvay, or even Moldvay from Holmes and Gygax/Arneson.

3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder belong to the same family, just as do the TSR versions of the game. Let us not further WotC's semantic games by co-opting the word "edition" to mean "distinct game largely incompatible with the previous game."

 

[Remus Lupin]

Reading through the thread, two thoughts occur to me.

First, with regard to the 2000-era "golden age," I certainly experienced it that way as well. It was a really pleasure to be gaming at the time. People were enthusiastic, and there was a sense that we were all pulling in the same general direction, even as the OGL spun off variants like True-20 and Arcana Unearthed. I saw those variants as part of the charm and strength of the OGL.

I don't think there needs to be one and only one "golden age" of a product. I think there have been at least two in D&D -- the early 80s and the early oughts.

It was unfortunate to me that 4th edition was intentionally designed not to build on that foundation, though I certainly understood the internal dynamics within WOTC that made that desirable, particularly with regard to the desire to break away from/kill the OGL. But as a result, they made changes (elf vs. Eldarin, Dragonspawn, Tieflings), that made it "not-D&D" to me. As a result, I decided not to opt in, and Pathfinder meant that I didn't have to. I've always tried to maintain the attitude that there's nothing wrong with 4th edition, it's just my preferred style of play. Also, I will freely admit that WOTC's marketing for 4th edition was huge turnoff to me.

Second, with regard to the question of what constitutes a revision, from my own subjective perspective, the main issue has to do with how radical the changes are. To the degree that I really don't like the current nomenclature with regard to what counts as an "edition". To me a new edition amounts to a moderate revision of the existing product. So, I think of 3.0 vs. 3.5 as two different "editions" of the game, with Pathfinder being a different "edition" under a new publisher. I think you could argue much the same on backwards compatibility grounds between 1e and 2e (and to a lesser extent BECMI).

What I've seen with 4th edition and potentially 5th edition is less of a new "edition" and more a "reboot" -- a la, say a revisioning of a movie property like Spiderman or a series like Battlestar Galactica. It's basically the same concept, but radically changed to the degree that you can't really think of it in the same terms any more.

In that sense, what we've got are really three or four different "visions" of D&D, each of which has "editions" within it's sphere of influence. I'm not sure that this is necessarily a more helpful way of framing things than arguments about "revisions vs. editions" but it's a helpful way for me to think of it.

 

[tomBitonti]

Will it be a vehicle for storytelling

What I wonder about 5E (or D&D Next, as the Hasbro marketer's prefer), is whether there will be an engaging story to go along with the game.

Previous editions (excepting 4E -- in my opinion) provided a lot of good adventures and environments. Previous editions provided a lot of hooks for defining interesting characters.

With 4E, the focus on story telling elements seemed to wither. This seemed to start in 3E, with its more rigid rules creating a barrier to creative play options. 4E finished to job by completely automatizing the rules and by removing focus on adventures and environments.

As a comparison, Eberron and Forgotten Realms have a rich and detailed history. There was a large space for novels to be written and for players to create characters which could be enmeshed in the game world.

Where I think the game got off track is by defocusing these elements. What will make the difference, for 5E, is whether players are re-engaged, and a part of what will re-engage them are the story elements. Then, having or not having story elements will make a big difference towards helping (or failing to help) 5E succeed.

Put a different way: Rules are one way that players have a common ground for communication. Story and environment are another. There has been a lot of talk about rules changes and rules compatibility, but not a lot about story and environment. I think that is missing an important pillar of the game.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Desdichado]

I think even more to the point, according to some of the design editorials at the time, 2e was at least partly envisioned as a compilation and clean up of the 1e rules, which had picked up a variety of accretions from various follow-up books. The 2e books enabled groups to incorporate weapon specialization and non-weapon proficiencies with one set of core books rather than the PH, Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide. Plus, they got off the attack matrices, cleaned up initiative and surprise rules, and got specialty clerics. Not a bad deal, overall.

So I don't think of backward compatibility was as much an explicit goal as much as the main core of the rules weren't really up for transformation.

In other words... it was basically a revision of 1e?

 

[Desdichado]

It really doesn't matter which edition did what to the player base, or when, or why. I think the subdivision was inevitable. I think D&D had a longer run as the 800 lb gorilla than really should have been expected which I suspect derives largely from the fact that table RPG's is STILL such a niche hobby. The hobby has grown; its player base expanded. D&D has notable competition from other RPG's that have developed and primarily it faces the alternate versions of ITSELF, thanks to the radical changes found in different versions.

No version of D&D was ever going to remain the RPG whose players outnumbered all other versions and RPG's combined. Any thoughts that it would remain the gorilla, any thinking that it was possible for D&D to forever control and outweigh the rest of the market, certainly any thinking that it was actually better that we all be rounded back up under one constricting banner and turned back from our misguided wanderings to other RPG's and other versions, well I believe that's extremely short-sighted if not downright arrogant at this point. I don't predict where these things are going to go anymore. My crystal ball is as unreliable as the next guy. I think the OP is correct, however, in that we're at an interesting crossroads and we're going to be seeing people moving down ever more distinctly different paths.

I tend to agree with this. Whatever it was that held together D&D's dominance for so long was somewhat artificial; or at least, not based on anything inherent in the game itself. People theorize from time to time about the effect of levels, or archetypes, or whatever, but I don't buy it. I think it was inertia and the much bally-hooed "network externalities."

The "schism" such as it was, just accelerated a process that was happening anyway, and gave more credible options to people who like the concept of RPGs but not necessarily of D&D, and yet who wanted to have options that they could actually concievably recruit players to play.

I think White Wolf showed in the 90s that such a concept was possible. The OGL and schism between, particularly 4e and Pathfinder, was a rather predictable outcome based on the same concept.

Now that it's been done, and seen, and the public perception has caught up to reality about the suitability of alternatives to D&D, I think the RPG base will continue to find new homes with other games at a higher rate than in the past. This isn't necessarily great news for WotC or D&D specifically, but it is, generally, good news for gamers.

 

[jasper]

And in the evil icy summer of twenty twenty. The Great Cthulhu arrived in Vegas and rolled box cars 66 times on his two d1s ending the Great Schism.
For the 1Es were dead. For the great grand kids had switch out their meds for their d20s and 1es choked on them. Or the 1Es had broken their hips bending over to pick up their die bags.
For the 2Es were too worried on wether they could afford a retirement home in Florida or if their grand kids would put them in a substandard nursing home.
For the 3Es were too busy getting a second mortgage and could not get the old gang together to game.
For the 4E were seniors in college and had discovered the opposite sex.
And For the 5E were arguing over which D&D movie ( the one with Scarlett Johanson, or Justin Bieber).
And so Great ONE ate all the nerds. Got a upset stomach and left for another dimension.

 

[billd91]

In other words... it was basically a revision of 1e?

Was that ever in question? Where do you think you are going with this?

 

[Campbell]

I don't think it's particularly useful to use language like schism to describe what's happening in the RPG market place. Is there less commonality of choice? Sure. Are we breaking off into smaller tribes? Without a doubt. Here's the thing though - we have always had diverse preferences. They just weren't as exposed as they used to be. Is it harder for me to find gamers to fill a seat at a 13th Age game than it was to find a D&D player back in the day? Sure, but those I find who are interested are more likely to enjoy the sort of games I want to run and play in. I'm not just looking for warm bodies.

This isn't just happening in tabletop RPGs. When D&D was initially released there were about 4-6 television stations in most markets. We all watched the same shows, read the same books, watched the same movies. Now people use streaming services because they don't want to watch what's on offer from the hundreds of programming options on cable. In multiple markets the long tail model is paving the path to success - people want their individual wants and needs met.

 

[Argyle King]

One thing that always strikes me about these threads and conversations is that they too often focus on what D&D and the associated company (WoTC or TSR) did wrong.

In my opinion, they do not often enough make mention of what other games (whether it be 13th Age, Star Wars: Edge of The Empire, GURPS, Fate, or something else) are doing right. I think that does a serious disservice to the good hard work that many of the other companies producing games are doing. Sure, it may have been a stumble on the part of D&D that gave me the notion of looking at other games, but those other games kept my attention because they were good.