Why I really like D&D.

[TrippyHippy]

Not to pick on you, Trippy Hippy, but we could substitute 3e for 4e in your post about dividing the fanbase. We could then insert 3.5e as well, because that argument was made more than once on these very boards back then. I do, however, agree with you nearly completely regarding ease of grouping with D&D and I too laud WotC in their stated goal of unifying the fanbase. I really hope they pull it off.

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. It also led to a number of new rpg companies being formed in the light of a new d20 market (Mongoose, Green Ronin, etc)

You could argue that 3.5e (2003) was getting divisive - as it annoyed some game companies whose own books were based on 3e. In turn, this lead to a lot of game companies ignoring the original idea of their books supporting the core D&D Player's Handbook - and instead started producing their own core books as alternatives. It's also where retroclones - like Castles and Crusades starting to make an appearance.

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). 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.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I believe firmly that the exact opposite is the case - that claiming that the division in the community is 4e's fault is an exercise in willful ignorance. The community was split well before that, but it only had a single game to rally around. There was plenty of discontent, but not much in the way of an outlet. There was a fairly large contingent of D&D players who were playing D&D 3.5 (or whatever) a particular way, and felt incredibly threatened by 4e's release because they perceived that the way they were used to playing D&D would not be supported. While inaccurate, that perception led to a truly vicious rebellion.

Blaming the divide on 4e's release is like blaming the U.S. Civil War on Lincoln's election.

Well, this is again going back to the flawed notion that 4e was released with the idea of only appealing to half it's own market. This is patently nonsense - they either released 4e with the intent of appealing to all potential D&D fans or it was the most idiotic marketing decision of all time - but it simply hasn't worked.

Beyond this, it is worth noting that all games with any fan base of note has discontent. There has been discontent throughout D&D's history - with fans complaining about this rule and that. You will find the same is true with any other rpg out there. The fact still remains, as you have pointed out, that the community was still rallying around a single game and brand - until 4e came out. You could blame the community if you like (but that goes both ways, incidentally), or you could simply look at the core issue, which is the game itself.

I prefer the latter, because we can change D&D to suit the fans, but not vice versa.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Blaming the divide on 4e's release is like blaming the U.S. Civil War on Lincoln's election.

This is a little bit of an extreme analogy, but it is still quite apt.

Well before 4E was released, the internal divide among 3E fans was pretty extensive. I mean, look at the extreme difference between people who played the game "core only" and the people that banned or ignored almost all of the PHB1 classes and played Warlocks, Duskblades, Binders, and Tome of Battle characters instead. The difference between the self-proclaimed "real roleplayers" who looked down on "rollplayers" and the people who respected the skill and knowledge of the regulars of the official Character Optimization boards. These were very significant and very real divisions that have been splitting the community apart for years before 4E came out.

Heck, it isn't like the term "edition war" came up only after 4E was released, either. People were getting banned for edition warring on ENWorld long before 4E was ever announced. The wide variety of third-party OGL creations and their extremely uneven adoption among 3E players probably contributed greatly as well. Of course, even the generation gap between older players who started with 1E and people like me who grew up playing videogames has a very large part to do with this as well.

Putting all of this on 4E is simply not the answer, when the problem really is that there isn't even such a thing as a true "D&D community". The combined total of all D&D players is, and always has been, hopelessly fractured into dozens or even hundreds of different sub-communities, each with their own preferences and experiences. The idea of a "shared D&D community" or a "shared D&D experience" has always been nothing more than an illusion with no factual basis.

 

[TrippyHippy]

This is a little bit of an extreme analogy, but it is still quite apt.

Well before 4E was released, the internal divide among 3E fans was pretty extensive. I mean, look at the extreme difference between people who played the game "core only" and the people that banned or ignored almost all of the PHB1 classes and played Warlocks, Duskblades, Binders, and Tome of Battle characters instead. The difference between the self-proclaimed "real roleplayers" who looked down on "rollplayers" and the people who respected the skill and knowledge of the regulars of the official Character Optimization boards. These were very significant and very real divisions that have been splitting the community apart for years before 4E came out.

Heck, it isn't like the term "edition war" came up only after 4E was released, either. People were getting banned for edition warring on ENWorld long before 4E was ever announced. The wide variety of third-party OGL creations and their extremely uneven adoption among 3E players probably contributed greatly as well. Of course, even the generation gap between older players who started with 1E and people like me who grew up playing videogames has a very large part to do with this as well.

Putting all of this on 4E is simply not the answer, when the problem really is that there isn't even such a thing as a true "D&D community". The combined total of all D&D players is, and always has been, hopelessly fractured into dozens or even hundreds of different sub-communities, each with their own preferences and experiences. The idea of a "shared D&D community" or a "shared D&D experience" has always been nothing more than an illusion with no factual basis.

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. 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.

With regards to the last paragraph, what would you have the 5e team do: give up? Practical things that could help unite the fan base:

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.

2) Release a quality 'basic' version of the game that is fully self contained (at least 10 classes up to a decently high level, and a variety of races; a basic bestiary to make it playable immediately), yet adaptable to different styles and editions. This could be a box or book (or both, as well as a pdf). Then release 'Advanced D&D' books denoting a certain style - Tactical (aka 4e style) and Storytelling Guides (freeform/narrative - alternative ways of playing without miniatures, etc), rather than a Dungeon Masters Guide. People could then pick one or the other or both to suit their style.

3) Produce a variety of online modules that flag the style of adventure being provided in a systematic way. What a game based on heavy combat? Rate it 5 Starts on a 'Combat rating'. Want it based on freeform investigation - make it clear on the cover.

4) Re-do Planescape. 'cos.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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. 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.

Well, there are a lot of ways I could respond to this. I mean, for one thing, the internet changed the way communities interacted and changed people's awareness of different options and alternative playstyles. New fans entered the game and a greater generatin gap began to pile up. Third party OGL supplements created brand loyalty for companies like Paizo who didn't have the D&D license. And so on.

Really, though, what I am going to say is that yes, the current division is indeed unlike anything before, and that the D&D market is indeed more divided than ever before. In fact, D&D may have completely lost its previously unshakeable position as the sole dominant name in tabletop RPGs, and will probably never reclaim it. Ever.

So what?

In fact, I'll say that it's about damn time. Hurray!

More competitors means more options for all of us. It means fewer houserules and more good games. It means more evolution of the genre and less stagnation. It even means cheaper prices. Most importantly, it means people like me don't have to compromise on rules in order to accommodate players with different play-styles.

If you are right, and this fracturing of the fanbase is 4E's fault, then I'd say that it did us all a favor. A little balkanization will do this hobby a lot of good in the long run, even if we have to put up with some rude edition warring in the meantime.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Be careful what you wish for. If D&D isn't a focal point for the rpg community as a whole, as an intro game at least, the balkanizing effect could have repercussions on finding any group to play anything at all.

It's not as if all of D&D's competitors are suddenly hitting mainstream sales in Walmart or whatever. A lot of game companies, and retailers out there are shutting down.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Be careful what you wish for. If D&D isn't a focal point for the rpg community as a whole, as an intro game at least, the balkanizing effect could have repercussions on finding any group to play anything at all.

It's not as if all of D&D's competitors are suddenly hitting mainstream sales in Walmart or whatever. A lot of game companies, and retailers out there are shutting down.

Well, if I can't find a D&D group I'd just play other games. I'm more of a videogame fan than a tabletop game fan anyways. It wouldn't really bother me if this industry goes through a rough path or two, though I doubt it will.

Honestly, if the tabletop RPG industry is so bad-off that it can only support a single healthy game with mainstream appeal, and that game is indeed too internally divided and/or toxic to allow even that one game succeed, then it probably deserves to collapse and die. If it does, either it will vanish into history like the model trains industry and prove itself to be an irrelevant fad, or it will be revived by newer companies with better products. And, of course, it's not like my pile of 3E and 4E books are going anywhere. I can play with those for years.

Still, as I said just above, I doubt that it will collapse, or that the industry really is totally dependent on the D&D brand. After all, this entire idea of divisiveness is being born from the fanbase's realization that they don't need to buy D&D-branded products in order to enjoy a fun fantasy RPG experience. If 5E flops then Hasbro will probably shelve the D&D brand and only pull it out to make some money off of movie deals (a genuine hell for brands, no doubt), but that's WotC's problem, not the fanbase's or industry's. I imagine Pathfinder will have its adherents for some time to come and that will stay profitable enough (Palladium is still kicking, after all, so anything can survive in this industry), and there are plenty of upcoming games that appeal to different tastes (13th Age looks kinda fun, if you ask me).

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

It was a response to somebody who had asserted that 4e was well designed towards the simulating of fantasy literature, specifically Lord of the Rings.

No. I argued that it was better than previous editions of D&D to this end. Which I stand by. I am not arguing that it is better than e.g. The One Ring for simulating Lord of the Rings. I am arguing that it is better than previous editions of D&D. Although it's closer to movie-LotR than it is to book-LotR.

Personally, I think this view is hilarious - for exactly the reasons I alluded to in my lampooning.

All your lampooning demonstrated is that you are enough of an out and out edition warrior to make up stuff that does not happen at 4e tables. And would not happen in any group roleplaying in good faith. Seriously. Running = Moving three squares, then asking for XP for it? And mocking 4e by claiming that fighters are nerfed in 4e?

If you claim to not want edition wars then perhaps you would care to avoid ludicrous lampoons that show nothing more than that you do not get how 4e works.

However, 4e is probably not a good choice, as it is too 'tightly' bound to the rules conventions it sets up for itself. That was the point I was trying to make.

And the point you actually made was (a) that you don't know what the rules conventions that are tied to the system are (hint: balance is tied to the module not the system - there is no obligation on the DM to run balanced encounters, merely the ability to do so) (b) are the sort of edition warrior that mendaciously mocks other games without understanding them.

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

 

[Steely_Dan]

No. I argued that it wasbetter than previous editions of D&D to this end. Which I stand by.

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