Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hatmatter" data-source="post: 7998874" data-attributes="member: 75077">I thought about this comment, Univoxs, for a week before responding. When I read this, I see a couple of ideas under the surface that are worth unpacking.The first idea is that I understand this to be an enthusiastic support for iterating in order to improve. This is a great cheer in support of creativity, which I think most of us can get behind. However, I see it being applied to a mode of "edition thinking" that presumes Dungeons & Dragons will or should have new editions that change the way the game is played. This is what I disagree with. I agree that "change is good and taking risks is a healthy part of any industry" if we are talking about the innovation of new games or changing games that have promise but are broken or could use some improvement.The second idea is that I think if the "change is good" ethos is applied to an expectation that D&D will always have new editions that change the rules, we will see much of what others here have observed: a fractioning of the fanbase and, as I pointed out in my post on <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-last-edition-of-d-d.670519/post-7992489" target="_blank">page two of this forum</a>, we lose years worth of campaign narratives and interesting supplements to D&D from the good folks at Wizards because the iteration of new rules sucks all of the oxygen out of the room for years as a new edition is play tested, promoted, sold, and then elements from older editions are now converted into the new edition. In effect, a new edition because "change is good" can keep Dungeons & Dragons from developing because creativity stagnates as it is forever applied to tweaking rules that, to be honest, work fine. A crass analogy might be that of the addict, who becomes emotionally stunted at his or her maturity level when he or she became an addict. An "addiction" to edition thinking can lock the development of D&D into constantly iterating how to adjudicate underwater combat or multiclassing or what-have-you and stunt what I believe to be the far more richer and creative contributions of the game: the development of narratives, settings, and new ways to tell stories. Let's see the D&D large battle rules that have been rumored. Let's see a guidebook on DMing campaigns with large numbers of players. Let's see adventures that traverse the multiverse in greater depth than ever before hinted at. Let's see familiar IPs tied in to the game in unexpected and revelatory ways. Let's see what happens when someone like Neil Gaiman or Stephen King or some other talent is hired to develop a D&D adventure, campaign, or setting. And so on...At this point in our history of the game, Dungeons & Dragons has proven successful because the 5th edition was able (brilliantly, I think) to use some of the chassis of 4th edition, which was developed in order to overcome some perceived balance issues in 3rd edition, while returning to key elements of the game that players missed and, without which, did not feel the game "was Dungeons & Dragons." How many times have people observed that 4th edition is a great tactical game but does not "feel" like D&D?Because we are dealing with a game with venerable history, tropes, and lore, this is part of what new iterations of D&D will run up against, just like 4th edition ran right into it. When I read that people would like a new edition of D&D that diverges from a class-based system, for example, I think that is likely a great idea for a new game, but, at this point in D&D's history, it would be unwise to take the game in that direction because many players who like to play D&D want the class-based system because it feels like D&D. It is ok to acknowledge that D&D was created in the 1970s and retains some hallmarks of that era's design philosophy. It lends a charm to the game that renders it, dare I say, iconic.</blockquote>

Verification