D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[Bobbum Man]

And now, if you're not deliberately trolling, I'm completely confused as to why you registered to post on a bulletin board forum that is devoted to RPGs as a whole and D&D in particular. And why your registration month coincides with the announcement of a new edition. Your pseudo-superior snark and lame insistence that D&D is the spiritual equivalent of Battleship convinces me that you don't have any investment in what D&D is, should be, or can be. If that is the case, why do you care at all what D&D does? There are plenty of board games out there (including D&D branded games) that would seemingly fit your needs better than D&D. Heck, if all you're looking for is the boardgame aspect, then D&D Minis seems like it would be right up your alley. Maybe even a better fit than trying to remove the RP from RPG, like you've been advocating here.

Am I to understand then, that you want me to find another hobby because I choose not to take D&D as seriously as you do?

That's cheap and petty. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Am I to understand then, that you want me to find another hobby because I choose not to take D&D as seriously as you do?

That's cheap and petty. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That's not a filibuster, he's speaking passionately and somewhat hostile-ly.

If it were a filibuster, he'd read the phonebook or something.

 

[Mercutio01]

I suppose it was a bit hostile, but I also think it was pretty much correct. I had a longer response, but it's just not worth the time to engage in a discussion with a poster that honestly doesn't seem to see the difference between D&D (or any RPG, really) and backgammon.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I suppose it was a bit hostile, but I also think it was pretty much correct. I had a longer response, but it's just not worth the time to engage in a discussion with a poster that honestly doesn't seem to see the difference between D&D (or any RPG, really) and backgammon.

There IS no difference.

At least there is no more significant difference between D&D and Backgammon, than there is between Backgammon and Monopoly.

I think that the fallacy that D&D actually means something is what has led to the fandom becoming notoriously divisive and toxic over the years.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It is certainly true that D&D is just a game. It is a collection of rules, designed to provide a group of people with an entertaining evening. D&D is a game, just as Pathfinder is a game, Chess is a game, and World of Warcraft is a game. They're all just games. Whether or not they are roleplaying games hardly matters to that distinction.

Certainly, story is a bit more important to D&D that many other kinds of games. But that story is only important because it is, well, part of the game. Of course, D&D can also be played as a chain of boring mechanical play with almost no story involved. You could just as easily play a pure roleplaying/improv-acting event using D&D settings and story elements without touching the rules whatsoever.

The problem with saying that D&D is somehow unlike other games is that D&D directly competes with things like boardgames, videogames, and other tabletop games for people's attention. If people try to ignore the actual quality of D&D as a game in favor of fawning over its "specialness", then it will quickly lose out to the competition. In order to compete against good games like Chess or a night of improv acting with a bunch of friends, D&D needs to be evaluated as a game and improved upon as such.

After all, not only is D&D "just a game", I'd say it isn't even a terribly good one right now. It's only really good when you've got enough out-of-game variables (like a great group and creative DM) working in its favor to overwhelm its flaws. Even then, it has tough competition from just taking that same group of friends and playing a good multiplayer videogame instead...

 

[Mercutio01]

So the answer to being "just a game" is to advertise yourself as "just a game"? I don't buy that at all. Part of the selling point of everything is calling out what makes your (insert product) different from every other (insert product) being sold. Equating D&D with Chess does not increase the sales, reach, or popularity of D&D.

Saying D&D is just a game is like saying an iPad is just a computer. An iPad is a computer, but it's also more than that. D&D is a game (right there in its description: RPG), but it is also more than that.

I think moving even further into the gamist approach is a bad idea since that's part of what got them in trouble to begin with. And I think approaching it as "just a game" is very much the wrong path for sales, too.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Let's also not forget that the expectation is that you get out of a game what you put into it.

You don't want to convince potential players that D&D is only as fun as, say, Hi-O Cherry-O when you see the amount of work it requires. You want to let them know that, yes, it's a little difficult at first, but the potential fun is staggeringly huge.

 

[billd91]

There IS no difference.

At least there is no more significant difference between D&D and Backgammon, than there is between Backgammon and Monopoly.

I think that the fallacy that D&D actually means something is what has led to the fandom becoming notoriously divisive and toxic over the years.

It's not a question about D&D being any more meaningful a pastime. People provide their own meaning to what they do. I could give a rat's tuchis what meaning you ascribe or fail to ascribe to D&D. If it has none, you can trundle off to somewhere else and we won't miss you.

But saying there's no more significant difference between D&D and Backgammon than between Backgammon and Monopoly is false. All it would take is the realization that D&D is a refereed game to realize your statement won't hold water.

 

[Libramarian]

I gotta say, the pretentiousness of 4e players here is really starting to irk me. The game failed, OK. This is the reason we are even having these discussions. You would think that this would cause 4e players to show some humility and self-questioning, but nope. Same old arguments, same old condescension.

 

[Bobbum Man]

So the answer to being "just a game" is to advertise yourself as "just a game"? I don't buy that at all. Part of the selling point of everything is calling out what makes your (insert product) different from every other (insert product) being sold. Equating D&D with Chess does not increase the sales, reach, or popularity of D&D.

Saying D&D is just a game is like saying an iPad is just a computer. An iPad is a computer, but it's also more than that. D&D is a game (right there in its description: RPG), but it is also more than that.

I think moving even further into the gamist approach is a bad idea since that's part of what got them in trouble to begin with. And I think approaching it as "just a game" is very much the wrong path for sales, too.

I think that equating the game with a bunch of obsessive, narcissistic, socially maladjusted slugs who constantly preach onetruewayism and throw temper tantrums on the internet and in game shops is even worse for sales and for the hobby than slapping cartoony art on a simplified game and selling it in Toys R' US as a fun liesure time game.