Why I really like D&D.

[Mallus]

4th Ed really has split the D&D player base like no other edition, such a shame, the previous 3 editions all had a similarity, but along comes 4th Ed, totally different game, which is fine, it's fun, but not really keeping in line (at all) with the legacy of the game of D&D.

Remember that it was the 3e-era that saw the rise of the OSR, so be careful lumping the d20 system in with the previous iterations of D&D. There's a prolific & vocal group of D&D players for whom 3e is too divergent from the D&D they prefer (heck, I'm finding that I'm one of them).

Me? I like 'em all. But as someone whose spent the last year running AD&D and is now playing out the end of one Pathfinder campaign while prepping to run another, let me state, unequivocally, the differences, particularly in actual play, between older D&D and a 3e-based system should not be understated.

(they're pretty big)

4th Ed to me is idyllic for an Anime/Wuxia D&D campaign, which is really cool.

I thought 4e would work well for a John Carter-esque, high power pulp/planetary romance campaign.

edit: as for splitting the player base... gamers like to argue. Gamers argued over the differences between AD&D and AD&D 2e, despite the fact they're interoperable and (virtually) the same game. On the other hand, gamers are also idiosyncratic. It was common when I began gaming for each individual campaign to be wildly different from one another, thanks to different homebrews, house rules, and simply different approaches to the game. We may have all used the same base rules --technically-- but we were playing different games.

 

[Mallus]

Nope. This has to be asserted. 4e has been divisive for the D&D community - fact.

3e/Pathfinder has been equally dismissive. Hence the interest in the OSR. Note there's no implicit value judgment in me saying this. It just is -- and it's not a bad thing.

I'm prepping to run Pathfinder right now. It's a good system, well, it's a series of interesting hacks and embellishments added to a good system. But it's not the D&D I grew up with. It can't deliver that experience (it's simply too complex mechanically).

However, I'm glad it exists. It's a lot of fun to play, if somewhat less fun to run. I'm glad to have more options, more games to play. However, this entails a certain degree of fracturing in the player base. So what? So long as enough gamers are willing to play more than a single system, we don't have a problem (the true blue partisans may be loud, but I firmly believe they're merely a vocal minority).

 

[Fifth Element]

No other company was allowed to print 2e stuff before or after 3e. There was no OGL for it. Of course, using the OGL, retroclones of earlier editions started coming out instead.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that, despite their problems, TSR were still making a growth and profit from the AD&D brand right up to their being bought out by Wizards, despite making a lot of business mistakes.

Neither of these addresses the point I raised in the post you responded to. I responded to the claim that 4E's release created the first situation where there was something close to 50/50 split in the D&D fanbase. Laying aside whether this is even true or not, if it is true it would be because of the OGL. When 3E was released, no one could just start selling a slightly-modified 2E game with impunity. So, the OGL created the split in the fanbase.

The second claim was that if 4E was never released, most people would still be playing 3.5. Possibly true, but irrelevant. If 3E was never released, most people would still be playing 2E or 1E. Claims that 4E created the divisiveness have to focus on unique aspects of 4E, not on things that apply to every new edition of the game.

Well, no you couldn't for the reasons I have stated above. 3e, when it was released (2000), brought the D&D community together unlike anything we had seen since it's heyday in the 1980s.

You mean when AD&D players would mock those who played the dumbed-down D&D? Good times.

Even then, though, this is a trickle compared to what eventuated with 4e and the emergence of Pathfinder (which has essentially taken half of D&Ds customer base).

Pathfinder is D&D. It's D&D published by another company, but it's D&D. They took the existing D&D game, tweaked it slightly and targeted the 3.5 D&D fan base? It's D&D.

On top of this, the various other factors that occurred at the time (the confusion over the OGL/GST; removing all the D&D archives from drive-thru, the lack of online utilities support that was mooted, etc) have all contributed to a fan base that is so far from being at ease with the situation that it beggars belief that anybody can claim it wasn't divisive.

I can't believe everyone doesn't see it my way?

No one's saying 4E isn't divisive in the way you mean it. It's just that every new edition has been divisive in the way you mean it. Trying to blame all the game's problems on 4E is misguided and tired.

There was massive discontent with 2e too with all the skills options, kits and rules bloat accumulated over the years. But 3e handled the situation a lot better, and brought D&D fans together at least for a time.

And that's why there are message boards full of self-proclaimed old-schoolers who still heap abuse on 3E? Seriously. There are many places you can go where you will be told that 3E is not D&D.

4e was contentious from the get-go, and self evidently has left the D&D community more divided than it has ever been in history. Up until now D&D has never been consistently outsold by a brand that is essentially D&D with the file numbers rubbed off.

Bolded = invalid. Claiming something is self-evidently true does nothing to help your argument against people who disagree with you. It's not an argument, it's an attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees.

At any rate, it may have been the first time, but it was never possible before 4E. The combination of the OGL and a new edition created the possibility.

1) Release all archives of every D&D edition as downloadable pdfs and ebooks (even POD). People can pick and choose whatever version they like then.

People can already choose whatever edition they want to play. It's hasn't helped the "community" be any more inclusive. If free choice keeps the community, then why didn't the existence of both Pathfinder and 4E do it?

Having both PF and 4E = extremely divisive

Being able to choose your favourite edition = inclusive

Which is it?

 

[Fifth Element]

tl;dr: If you don't like the edition wars then stop adding fuel to the flames.

Good advice. "Why don't you 4E fans stop playing your boardgames and be part of the D&D community" gets old fast.

Ah, I think we were talking about this, why do you find 4th delivers the best LotR/Middle-Earth campaigns?

The Fellowship never needing a cleric is a good place to start.

Remember that it was the 3e-era that saw the rise of the OSR, so be careful lumping the d20 system in with the previous iterations of D&D. There's a prolific & vocal group of D&D players for whom 3e is too divergent from the D&D they prefer.

Indeed, as I said above. It was the OGL that really spurred the OSR. The more I think about it, the more we should be blaming the OGL for the whole divisiveness thing, if anything needs to be blamed.

Me? I like 'em all. But as someone whose spent the last year running AD&D and is now playing out the end of one Pathfinder campaign while prepping to run another, let me state, unequivocally, the differences, particularly in play, between older D&D and a 3e-based system should not be understated.

Absolutely. The differences are easy to gloss over if you don't think about them, but the points made in the recent thread by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and others has led me to conclude that 2E -> 3E is the biggest change. The existence of the old-schoolers who deride and mock "WotC D&D", meaning 3E and 4E, are evidence of that.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The Fellowship never needing a cleric is a good place to start.

None of the D&D campaigns I have ever run have required a cleric.

 

[Fifth Element]

None of the D&D campaigns I have ever run have required a cleric.

I think you're using a particular meaning of "required" here. D&D has traditionally had cleric spells as the source of healing, and also the need to heal very often.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think you're using a particular meaning of "required" here. D&D has traditionally had cleric spells as the source of healing, and also the need to heal very often.

I know, I'm just saying as far back as I've been playing, I've seen many parties without a cleric (or any sort of "healer").

 

[TwoSix]

With regards to the last paragraph, what would you have the 5e team do: give up?

Yes.

I think the customer base is already irrevocably split. There simply aren't many people at this point who like D&D but haven't already found an edition that they like better than the others. They like D&D, but they're going elsewhere because WotC won't sell them the D&D they want.

WotC owns these games. They're already republishing the 1e core and the 3.5e core. Why don't they just publish new books? I'm not even that big of a fan of 3.5, but if WotC put out a "Class Compendium" with all of the base classes they published in the splats, cleaned up and organized, I'd be all over that even if it had a $50-$60 price tag.

The argument that always gets pulled out against WotC publishing multiple editions is the 2e "TSR folded because of all their campaign settings dividing the customer base". I totally agree that was the case for TSR. But campaign settings are not core crunchy rules. Rules sell. Splats of new character options sell. And more topically, that division of the customer base has already happened. The cat is out of the bag (and killing commoners and wizards).

Paizo seems to be OK selling to a divided customer base. You don't think WotC couldn't do as well selling 4 big books a year to their 4e base, 3.5 base, and older version base, as well as the occasional edition neutral campaign setting, with online extras for edition specific support? An updated version of DDI with an retro character builder and 3.5 character builder?

Even White Wolf/CCP realized the value in repackaging their old favorites. Why not WotC?

 

[Mallus]

I think the customer base is already irrevocably split.

I think that's a wee bit of an overstatement.

There simply aren't many people at this point who like D&D but haven't already found an edition that they like better than the others.

What if those people want something a little different next campaign? Every addition has its drawbacks/merits.

They like D&D, but they're going elsewhere because WotC won't sell them the D&D they want.

My hunch is that most players aren't on a grail quest for their ideal version of D&D. Am I alone in gaming w/people who'd happily play several editions of the game, and who maintain an interest in the game's current/continued development?

I mean, I'm really digging AD&D right now... but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's coming down the pike.

 

[rkwoodard]

Yep

Remember that it was the 3e-era that saw the rise of the OSR, so be careful lumping the d20 system in with the previous iterations of D&D. There's a prolific & vocal group of D&D players for whom 3e is too divergent from the D&D they prefer (heck, I'm finding that I'm one of them).

This. It was not 4th edition fans that coined the terms:

3tards
and
TETSNBN (The Edition That Shall Not Be Named).

4th may have split the Player Base more, by not being Open, but as far as causing hardcore edition wars, it is a late comer.

RK