D&D General Why Enworld should liberate D&D from Hasbro

[Micah Sweet]

But at a certain point, you have to decide which fans are the priority.

Let's take a purely hyperbolic example for the sake of simplicity. Let's say there is a certain demographic of D&D players who want D&D to keep the classic downwards AC/Thac0 system that existed in D&D since inception. These players simply will refuse to play any edition where AC goes upwards. Yet a large majority of players either don't care or prefer upwards AC. Which group do you cater to? And if you're a player who wants/prefers/demands downwards AC, have you now been abandoned to chase a different demographic? What is WotC going to do when 6e rolls around: revert to downwards AC to recapture those lost players, perhaps print AC rules in both directions, and give every enemy two ACs (AC: 13 (7))? Or will they assume the latter players are lost and opt to get more players via keeping the conceptually simpler upwards AC?

Now, replace "Upwards AC" with any element where there is division by edition or playstyle. Which does WotC support? Level limits or unlimited advancement? Class restrictions by race/alignment/ability score or free access? XP for Gold or milestones? Combat as sport or Combat as War? Post Greyhawk Wars or original Folio? Vancian magic vs ADEU? Unrestricted multiclassing or no multiclassing at all? Etc etc. You aren't going to please everyone with everything, and even if WotC opted to try to cater to those fans who prefer the style that was en vogue 40 years ago, how many of them are still playing, still interested, and haven't found an alternative?

Which is why I restate at a certain point you gotta accept either the game isn't your jam anymore and move on or you suck it up and accept it. Crying about how the world has moved on past you never stops the sun from turning.

Your larger point is indisputable (and I apologize for trying to dispute it), but you specifically gave an example where no reasonable options or middle ground is possible. There are IMO plenty of cases where there is. 5.0 used to provide options for different rule systems. 5.5 doesn't. Do you see that as a good thing?

 

[Maxperson]

So now we have two things we need to pin down before the takeover:

1. Do female Dwarves have beards

2. Is it possible to shave a Dwarf

"This suit of armor is reinforced with adamantine, one of the hardest substances in existence. A razor made from it can even shave a dwarf."

 

[Umbran]

This is what I'm trying to say. You don't have to abandon one demographic to go after another.

Sometimes you can.

But when one demographic cannot stand the mere existence of another being recognized in the space, there will be no pleasing them.

Also, there is opportunity cost to consider. For example, as of 2021, gamers aged 40+ were some 13% of the D&D playing population. So, they have to ask themselves - we have only so much in development resources - do we put them to serving that 13%, or do we put them to a broader audience? If the broader audience piece is going to bring in more $$, the business choice is pretty simple.

For a smaller company, who is unlikely to reach a very broad audience anyway, serving a niche might be a good business choice. So... OSR, there you go!

 

[Kannik]

I have played RPGs for nearly 40 years now. I do not feel that WotC, specifically, has decided to ignore me. Or wants me out of gaming. Or doesn't care about me because I'm old. Take that as you will.

And if we wish to discuss whether the current WotC under the current corporate ownership might be focusing on this or that more than catering to some ideal of the old guard, let's remember the question: what old guard? Because there was no single old guard. Games were played in all sorts of ways, whether we're talking 10, 20, 30, 40, or more years ago. My first DM talked about it. We saw it in Dragon Magazines (in The Forum segment -- talk about old school snail n' paper stuff!). I saw it in playing with different DMs, or playing in different groups. Even back then, if they felt the game didn't cater to exactly what they wanted, they understood (IME, I'm sure some did not) that D&D was a core framework and they could houserule, or would buy 3PP supplements, or incorporate something from Dragon to massage it to something they (and hopefully their group) preferred.

D&D has never stayed still. It has shifted and grown and adapted throughout its long and storied history. And we don't need to go far in its life, we can start with the shift from D&D to AD&D and the changes that wrought. And even then, when playstyles shift and something new is added, included, and maybe even emphasized, it doesn't mean our previous or preferred playstyle is automatically under siege. It can be easy (or at least addictive) to get used to being the 'centre of attention' and thus for some when attention shifts or is split or diminishes even 10% it feels like a 200% reversal and cause for great alarms and lashing out. Yet it could just be a broadening. A growing of the hobby. And maybe it turns out that what I thought was the norm (my playstyle) wasn't, and/or isn't anymore. How facinating!

I have both invited players to try things more akin to how I used to play, as well as invited myself to try things more akin to how others play. (And again this has been going on with me for 40 years.) I've written supplements for the game (and still selling them). And I'll happily whip out a "back in my day" story/parable/opinion if anyone wants to hear.

My favourite is saying, during a session, "We're going to have to 1E this!" to start us coming up with some clever/crafty/creative/sneaky solution to our current predicament.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sometimes you can.

But when one demographic cannot stand the mere existence of another being recognized in the space, there will be no pleasing them.

I know what 'cannot stand the mere existence of another in the space' means.
I don't know what 'cannot stand the mere existence of another being recognized in the space' means.

Can you elaborate on the difference?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

It is very clear WotC has tried D&D to be a family-friendly brand, although playing a little with the ambiguety, because teenage players like to believe they are doing grown-up games. If teenage players are playing alone someone could dare to say rude languange, or to add risque elements to the story.

D&D is Witchlight, but also Ravenloft. There is enough space for different styles. It is Tasslehoff Burrfoot but also lord Soth, It can be Disney's Aladin but also Song of Ice and Fire, Zelda and Link but also the Witcher, Conan the Barbarian and Dave the Barbarian.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

 

[Scribe]

5.0 used to provide options for different rule systems. 5.5 doesn't. Do you see that as a good thing?

Yeah, pushes people out of Wizards system, into the open arms of more intentionally focused, better (imo) games.

 

[jolt]

D&D has always been shifting in its presentation. There will always be people who view any such shift as a personal attack on their play style. D&D will continue on regardless.

 

[Remathilis]

Your larger point is indisputable (and I apologize for trying to dispute it), but you specifically gave an example where no reasonable options or middle ground is possible. There are IMO plenty of cases where there is. 5.0 used to provide options for different rule systems. 5.5 doesn't. Do you see that as a good thing?

Yes, I picked an intentional hyperbolic, no middle ground example so we wouldn't bog down the example with attempting to square the circle on it. I didn't want people to focus on solving the example and miss the point.