Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

[El Mahdi]

To the OP: I don't think that maintaining the "feel" of D&D will hurt innovation. I think there's a lot of room for mechanical exploration and innovation within the framework of D&D, that won't change the experience to the point it's not D&D anymore.

I think it's a lot like music. There's so much room for exploration within a time signature, like say 4/4. Probably billions of songs in 4/4, yet it's still always identifiable as 4/4. There's an immense amount of room for innovation even within a definining structure.

Of course though, one might say that the feel of D&D is more analogous to a specific style of music that uses 4/4, rather than comparing D&D to the time signature itself. I believe that even within a style there's incredible room for variety and innovation. Though as with people's definitions of what a musical style is or isn't (which are significantly plentiful and varied), fans definitions of what is or is not D&D are quite varied also.

But, I doubt we're going to see a whole lot of innovation (as in completely new and interesting mechanics) in the core system. I think such innovation will most likely find expression in the add-on modules. I do believe however, we are going to see some interesting and innovative applications of old mechanics in the core system.

I am quite hyped to see what Monte and company come up with, even if it ends up not completely grabbing my attention.

If they design a game with the tenets they've set out, provide the full system on DDI from the start (at roll-out), allow for versatility and houserules (to what extent is possible) on DDI, limit the errata flood, provide a more open licensing system, and return downloadable versions of books, then I will be buying books and subscribing even if it ends up not being my preferred system.

I did the same thing with 4E until the PR debacles and the foolishness over pdf's. And I'll bail from 5E support just as quickly with even a hint of a return to these failed mindsets.

 

[howandwhy99]

Core D&D will be small, fairly focused, and highly recognizable in statistics, in form, in lexicon, and look as Dungeon and Dragons. If you want innovation here, what you really want is another game, not D&D.

Supplemental D&D will be everything from small, medium, to large, highly diverse in focus, and probably everything from totally recognizable to completely unrecognizable as anything that has been published under the banner of D&D. If you do not want innovation here, then don't use it, don't buy it, or just ask for more of what you do want.

We're all going to get a game highly similar to most every version of D&D. We're all going to get what we want one way or another.

Spoiler

except me, who'd really rather it were designed as a puzzle and not a story game

Going after every past and present market isn't bad business sense either. It's smart and requires less advertising across the board as, purchasing or not, those in the hobby will hear.

 

[Harlekin]

When considering 5e, WotC had to make a decision. Either:

1) Figure out ways to make D&D run smoother and to make it more accessible to new audiences

-or-

2) Figure out ways to unify the base of D&D players and get everybody who plays D&D or used to play D&D buying the new edition

In other words, are you looking forwards or backwards? It appears that WotC chose "backwards."

Now, I'm sure that the WotC team will also look for ways to make the new rules accessible. They'll look for better ways to market the material, etc.

But if the choice is between a new/better rule and an older/more familiar one, it seems that they will come down on the side of the "safe" choice.

The folks at WotC have explicitly said they're not going after the Pathfinder players, but let's be honest: They're going directly for the Pathfinder players. They pretty much have to. If they're not focusing on bringing in new players, the Pathfinder player base is the largest chunk of currently-untapped D&D players.

I think this is right, but i would phrase it even stronger. Wizards is only interested in making the game that draws back money from as many lapsed players as possible. The quality of the game is a secondary concern.

An to answer the op, of course basing everything on rules that were thrown together 30 years ago stifles progress, reduces the quality of the resulting game and will make it harder to compete for new players with computer games and other forms of entertainment. But it will hopefully garner enough goodwill with aging existing players to make up for that for a while.

I think I read from Ryan Dancy's recent post that D&D is under enough financial pressure from Hasbro that they need to make $$ now, otherwise there will be no D&D anymore.

 

[BobTheNob]

Ya know, funnily enough me question is "Does Innovation hurt the feel of D&D?". My summation of 4e was that yes it did.

Its not as absolute as all that, but the effect is observable in both directions. 4e was without the doubt the single most innovate and brilliant set of rules they ever came up with, but by the end of playing it what we had was a tactical mini-wargame with some concessions to RPG.

D&D used to be the other way around : An RPG with some concessions to combat.

I loved 4e, but to me it just was not D&D. The tropes were there, but the "Feel" was not. If I want a game as technically brilliant as that I will play one of the Dragon Age games on my PC, not gather my friends round a table. If Im going to gather friends, I want something far more open and interpretive, and Im hoping in so far as "innovation" is concerned, its directed toward to achieving that.

 

[Ratskinner]

When considering 5e, WotC had to make a decision. Either:

1) Figure out ways to make D&D run smoother and to make it more accessible to new audiences

-or-

2) Figure out ways to unify the base of D&D players and get everybody who plays D&D or used to play D&D buying the new edition

I don't see these two priorities as incompatible in any way.

 

[Mark CMG]

Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

Curtailing innovation, in some respects, is the tradeoff being made for attaching the brand to a new game and gleaning the addtional sales that brand engenders. Create a whole new game without attaching the brand name and risk folks not getting on board because they want (even only want, in some cases) D&D, or create a D&D that is radically different and risk people who have certain expectations from games branded as such to flee the customer pool. They will always walk the tightrope between taking full advantage of the brand while trying to innovate enough that folks abandon their old edition for the new game being presented.

 

[Li Shenron]

From WotC's own description... What is D&D?
"D&D is an imaginative, social experience that engages players in a rich fantasy world filled with larger-than-life heroes, deadly monsters, and diverse settings."

THIS is what D&D is.

Wait, NO! This is not what D&D is, this is what any RPG is.

 

[Guest 85555]

Wait, NO! This is not what D&D is, this is what any RPG is.

I agree. There are some specific things that seperate D&D from Runequest or MERP. There are also things it shares with these that people expect to see.

 

[jbear]

Skipped pages 2, 3 and 4 because I really don't care what peoples opinion are on this to be frank. Whether people like it or not, WotC has learnt plenty from 4e. They've learnt about how to make a game with very solid mechanics that can be expanded upon in many different ways.

Whatever stage they have it at now, really they are just looking to find that solid core that, as they themselves say, captures a certain feel. Once they have achieved that core after offering it to us to chew on, digest, spit out and feed back, then they will have a solid rock to build upon and get as innovative as they like.
And then they can come up with variation upon variation to cater to the nearly countless ways us gang of petulant gamers wants to play our game.

So I don't think there will be a loss of innovation. Sometimes simplifying can require just as much creativity as complicating something.

Once they have achieved the core that captures a certain desirable flavour that leads to freeflowing, enjoyable and distinctly D&D flavoured gaming, I'm sure that that will be just the beginning.

It's going to be very interesting, exciting even, to be part of that process, even if only in a small way. People should avoid high horses and hyperbolic statements like "I'm out! 'cos they using measurement in feet again" ... seriously? Divide by 5 ... sheesh! Or just as bad: "D&D my way or the highway!" I understand that the wait and the speculation is driving a few people a bit dotty but like ... gamers need to like seriously chill out, dude!

Let's all give them some credit. They have told us explicitly they want to build a game for everyone ... let's just see what happens.

 

[Iosue]

I agree. There are some specific things that seperate D&D from Runequest or MERP. There are also things it shares with these that people expect to see.

Honest question. What separates D&D from Runequest or MERP, aside from the basic mechanics of SDCIWC, hit points, AC and Saving Throws?