The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[jensun]

Not if you add in the PC-stated races from the 3.5 MM - all are PC-playable with the 3 core rules, as written, out of that book.

All of the races in the back of the 4e MM are playable which adds another dozen or so, including Gnomes.

 

[jensun]

but why sacrifice existing popular core races

Because they weren't popular.

I dont think I have ever seen a thread from anyone talking about how cool their gnome or half orc was until 4e came out. Its some sort of weird geek fallacy at work I am sure.

WotC took our gnomes, now we must rend our garments and beat our chests in impotent rage at the race no one cared about.

 

[jensun]

A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.

Your market research must be impressive to make such claims.

Or you could just be a tiny bit biased.

I wonder which it is.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".

I always find it interesting when people use "evolve" in a context like this. Evolution involves major and rapid changes of form when the initial form is inadequate to survive in a changed environment. When it is too weak, too slow, or deficient in some way; rapid evolution isn't the mark of a superior being. Some forms have barely evolved at all over tens of millions of years, while others are nearly unrecognizable from their ancestors that far back. Would you say a whale is "better" than a crocodile because it has evolved more rapidly? Or is the crocodile "better" because it hasn't needed to evolve as much? What about the horseshoe crab? Evolution is not improvement. If you think D&D needs to evolve, then you are saying that D&D was unable to survive in its prior form.

Most popular games have maintained a generally fixed form for many years, while others have developed popular new versions as additions rather than replacements (e.g. poker with Texas Hold 'Em, or chess with Speed Chess). RPGs and video games are characterized by routine replacement of earlier versions with newer systems -- planned obselescence. Parker Brothers doesn't make money by releasing "all new Monopoly with new rules, throw out your old box and buy this one." No, you get Star Wars Monopoly or Boston Monopoly or a hundred new "settings" with the same rules. Rawlings doesn't make money by releasing "Revised Softball equipment," with players having to buy new gear and learn new rules to play the revised game. (Softball is commonly "house-ruled" in rec leagues, but you can figure those out in two minutes.) Companies make money off of chess sets without revising the rules.

D&D's earlier business model, selling settings and adventures, would have allowed the hobby to grow while keeping a generally static ruleset. The later business model, focusing on rules-oriented supplements, inevitably leads to edition churn. I think the former approach is better for the hobby, and the latter approach is better for the business. WotC can make a great deal more money with planned obselescense, but you're going to have fragmentation of the fan base. Games depend on having people to play with who know the rules or can learn them quickly. A generally static ruleset, or one with only minor or gradual changes, is more conducive to this than one with regular massive overhauls.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".

Yeah... I'd like that. To me, D&D should change only to adapt to great new stuff in game design.

For example, after 1974 various new RPGs presented a mechanic (call it action points, willpower, hero points, whatever) to help players share with the GM the ability to move the story forward in critical situations. I believe it's really refreshing when a new edition of D&D brings something similar to the core. Other examples like this can be provided.

On the other hand, I believe all those changes related to the implied setting are not only terrible, but a major part of what makes it "not D&D to me". They were never demanded, and create such weird situations that whole campaign settings are being destroyed and rebuilt to adapt to them (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you).

The gamist core is a big deal to me as well, but seeing those weird tiefling and dragonborns all around, evil paladins, ritual-casting rogues and grey elves becoming eladrin was too much.

Some will say that as long as it's a game about adventurers killing mosters and taking their stuff it will be D&D, but I believe the identity of the game (even the vancian spell casting!) is more important, and they really missed the target by a mile with that.

Cheers,

 

[Darrin Drader]

By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".

I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism? The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered.

My design philosophy, where the core rules are concerned anyway, is conservative. I'm not saying things shouldn't move forward. If 4E would have fixed the high level issue, made polymorph easier, incorporated action points, made grappling and other combat actions easier, then I'd probably be thrilled with it. Once you address the problems with the current edition, then look at things like class abilities, spells, magic items, skills, and feats. Figure out which options aren't being used and either overhaul them so people want to use them or replace them with new things. Look for balance issues and fix them. Find other subsystems that are counter-intuitive or difficult to learn and streamline them, but don't go so far with the changes that it's barely recognizable as the same game. That would be my definition of evolution as it applies to an iconic RPG like D&D. It's how I would have done the edition change if I'd had any say in it. I think that if 4E would have been more along those lines, it would be a huge leap forward and it wouldn't be running into the same level of resistance among what was previously the core audience that it is now.

 

[Spatula]

Oh yeah, I totally agree with this. Roleplaying games are definitely games where the audience feels a sense of ownership in it. It isn't like other media, such as books, TV, or media, where you simply observe it.

Yeah, people don't get worked up about TV shows or (comic) books at all...

People pour their own creativity into RPGs over a span of years and decades. I feel that this underscores the need to be conservative when making changes. While I might be able to accept the fact that I can't directly play a module from two editions ago without doing a lot of converting, there's a pretty good chance that I'm going to want the next edition to feel like a continuation of what I'm used to than a reinvention. I think you're always going to do better making minor but needed changes if you're keeping the same name. Reinventions constitute new products, hence the need for a new name.

So 3e D&D isn't D&D, then? You can hardly label the 3e change conservative. It happens to jibe with your preferences (and many others), but aside from the ability scores, HP, and vancian casting, it's a completely different game from what came before. Which caused a lot of players to jump off the train - you just don't see them here because this (and many other current D&D sites) were created to cater to people interested in 3e.

(incidentally I think 3e had it much easier in terms of reception, in that the state of D&D was not very good when it came out - it's much harder to followup a success)

On the other hand, I believe all those changes related to the implied setting are not only terrible, but a major part of what makes it "not D&D to me". They were never demanded, and create such weird situations that whole campaign settings are being destroyed and rebuilt to adapt to them (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you).

Yes, I agree with this myself, but at the same time there's plenty of people who love the changes. Taste issues are hard to gauge, but I wonder if there would have been less resistance if WotC wasn't so pushy about completely changing the implied setting. Which frankly, the designers are a little bit too enamored with, and evangelical about. In any case, it creates an additional aspect for people to object to. It probably would have been better IMO to quietly retcon stuff than to trumpet loudly and often how the D&D world you've known is no longer in existance.

 

[Darrin Drader]

So 3e D&D isn't D&D, then? You can hardly label the 3e change conservative. It happens to jibe with your preferences (and many others), but aside from the ability scores, HP, and vancian casting, it's a completely different game from what came before. Which caused a lot of players to jump off the train - you just don't see them here because this (and many other current D&D sites) were created to cater to people interested in 3e.

I'm not sure I completely agree that the change to 3E was radical. Yes, there were obvious structural changes, like AC becoming a positive number, thief abilities becoming skills, making classes progress at the same rate, and transforming weapon and non-weapon proficiencies into skills and feats. However, I feel that the first few changes were fairly intuitive and made gameplay easier. The later ones incorporated elements that existed in other games that were fairly successful and made those systems work with D&D. One of the major things 3rd edition did that players really wanted was to make the character rules flexible enough to accomodate their character concepts, even if they don't stick strictly to existing fantasy archtypes. I think the balance between the new and the old was innovative while being conservative enough to hold on to its core identity. The fact that it became a huge success suggests that Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet knew what they were doing.

(incidentally I think 3e had it much easier in terms of reception, in that the state of D&D was not very good when it came out - it's much harder to followup a success)

No doubt about that. This is exactly what the Star Wars prequels and the new Indiana Jones movie ran into. Expectations were high based on Lucas's previous work but he went off in another direction. For what it's worth, I like two out of three of the prequel movies and I like the new Indiana Jones.

 

[Imaro]

I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism? The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered.

I think this is definitely a big factor in my dislike of 4e. I never played wargames and have never been interested in them. IMHO, 3e was at the cusp of as far as I wanted to go with the tactical boardgame aspects...but 4e for me, just went too far. Every combat is like pausing the "real" game to play a combat sub-game that lasts way too long and is so gamist as to take you even further away from immersion than the interruption to the "real" game does. I kinda knew this would happen (though technically the designers were truthful, they didn't create a 4e that requires minis) with the DDM popularity, but I don't have to like it. I also am not sure I like where I see D&D going with the DDI and subscription based models either...but that's just me and probably should be discussed in a separate thread.

 

[Scribble]

I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism?

If the end result works more smoothly/efficiently sure. In my opinion it does. Yours might differ.

The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered.

I dissagree. I don't think it gets away from what makes D&D.

I think the second part of this would be pretty hard to do. How do you define what makes D&D D&D? Who gets to make that call? I think part of what makes RPGs so great is that we can each tailor them to exactly what we think they should be. I mean what if someone had decided long ago that only humans can be paladins was part of what makes D&D D&D?

Is 4e OD&D? Obviously not. But what makes it still D&D (in my opinion) is the ability to follow the trail back to where it started.

My design philosophy, where the core rules are concerned anyway, is conservative. I'm not saying things shouldn't move forward. If 4E would have fixed the high level issue, made polymorph easier, incorporated action points, made grappling and other combat actions easier, then I'd probably be thrilled with it.

In my opinion they did. I think you just dislike the way they did it. (Which is your right.)

but don't go so far with the changes that it's barely recognizable as the same game.

I think this is a subjective thing again. It's completely recognizable to me. I think because I like the changes. I hink because you don't you don't see it as D&D... Just like people who didn't like the changes 3e made say the same. (It ain't D&D.)