D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[payn]

But isn't most of the TSR Era D&D just name only?

Most of the mechanics, design goals, and fluff has shifted always from those of the TSR days. Score, races, classes, levels, AC , saving throws, etc in 5e all work differently and run on completely different design philosophy from the pre-2000 days.

Maybe this is a Morlock logic puzzle kind of thing like in that movie The Time Machine. "If TSR never invented their mechanics, WOTC never would have changed them!"

 

[overgeeked]

So is 5th edition hampered from being a better game because it keeps holding on to old mechanic because the developers want to still call it Dungeons & Dragons?

No. Not at all. In fact, apparently, quite the opposite. 3X was a divergence form TSR D&D in a few ways, but they mostly added stuff...and it was a success. 4E was more divergent from TSR D&D...and was nowhere near as much a success. 5E explicitly and intentionally went back to basics and pulled from TSR D&D even more, specifically 2E...and now 5E is the single most successful version of D&D ever released. So clearly not hampered. At least not in regards to sales.

Continuing the tradition from half a century ago is in conflict with the kind of game that the current target audience wants to play, resulting in a flawed product.

Except that whole 5E is so dominant that it controls the majority of the RPG market...so not so much. You may not like the game, I may not like the game, but it's clearly doing something right for the vast majority of those interested in RPGs. 5E is king. And it's king because it explicitly harkens back to TSR D&D...and removes or curtails many of the "innovations" that WotC imposed on the game in 3X and 4E.

 

[Mort]

So is 5th edition hampered from being a better game because it keeps holding on to old mechanic because the developers want to still call it Dungeons & Dragons?

Yes. Yes, it is. Continuing the tradition from half a century ago is in conflict with the kind of game that the current target audience wants to play, resulting in a flawed product.

Seeing as D&D is hitting its biggest audience ever with those mechanics and traditions - that's a bold claim.

 

[Hex08]

Keep in mind TSR had D&D for 23 years (1974-1997) While WoTC has held D&D for 25 years and counting (1997-present).

It's amazing how fast time goes!

You just depressed the hell out of me.....

 

[Mort]

I think imperfect product is the real answer. Some folks around here said it best in that 5E is an inoffensive game that they dont hate, but don't love either. It cleaves right down the center of old school and nu skool and lands right in okaysville.

"Perfect" is an impossible standard. One person's perfect is another person's "do not touch."

 

[payn]

"Perfect" is an impossible standard. One person's perfect is another person's "do not touch."

Sure, and while many people don't seem to love 5E, they are just fine touching it.

 

[Yora]

Seeing as D&D is hitting its biggest audience ever with those mechanics and traditions - that's a bold claim.

My claim is it could be so much better. What we're seeing now is a game with one hand tied behind it's back.
Though having a game that can use both the D&D name for brand recognition and tries to appeal to a storytelling audience might have an advantage regarding sales.
It's having the cake and eating it too, except that the cake isn't that special.

 

[Oofta]

So is 5th edition hampered from being a better game because it keeps holding on to old mechanic because the developers want to still call it Dungeons & Dragons?

Yes. Yes, it is. Continuing the tradition from half a century ago is in conflict with the kind of game that the current target audience wants to play, resulting in a flawed product.

Every product is flawed. At least I know the flaws in 5E.

 

[Mort]

My claim is it could be so much better. What we're seeing now is a game with one hand tied behind it's back.
Though having a game that can use both the D&D name for brand recognition and tries to appeal to a storytelling audience might have an advantage regarding sales.
It's having the cake and eating it too, except that the cake isn't that special.

You're stating some kind of amorphous ideal concept.

It's not so easy designing this "better game."

D&D doesn't just work because of brand recognition and longevity.

It also works because people actually like to play it.

One example: character levels. I've seen talk after talk about how they are antiquated, cumbersome, and make it difficult to model concepts - why not use a much more elegant point system?

The answer seems to be: players (in general, there are ALWAYS exceptions) LOVE levels and leveling their characters. It's a big draw and would harm the system if lost. Even if they replacement is"better" mechanically

 

[Minigiant]

No. Not at all. In fact, apparently, quite the opposite. 3X was a divergence form TSR D&D in a few ways, but they mostly added stuff...and it was a success. 4E was more divergent from TSR D&D...and was nowhere near as much a success. 5E explicitly and intentionally went back to basics and pulled from TSR D&D even more, specifically 2E...and now 5E is the single most successful version of D&D ever released. So clearly not hampered. At least not in regards to sales

5e feels more like the child of 3X who was babysat by 4e in secret as a tween. The TSR aspects is mostly in name and skeleton. It's much like a person having the same hair, shape, and size of their great grandparent but none of their mind and mentality. 5e keeps a LOT of the terms and structures of the TSR Era but almost none of it means the same thing nor works anything like before.

Levels, classes, and races are all meant to be equalized in power, progression, and availability within groups. AC and Saving throws go up instead of down and has many and more things that affect them. Etc.