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

[hanez]

This is a good point. I know people who don't buy new books of anything on principle. When asked about it, they usually say something like the following:

"Those stupid new books! They're all just sitting there being all smug in their new-ness! Just the other day I saw this book in the store, and it was all cool and all, but then I realized it was a new book and I was all like 'oh look at you! You think you're so great just because you're a new book huh? Well guess what? I don't buy frickin' new books! Get your paginated ass to a used bookstore and we'll talk!' and I totally walked outta there! 'Cause someone's gotta take a stand against all these new books takin' over!"

Odd I havent seen that soo much. I buy lots of new books. Just the other day my pathfinder subscription came in the mail. I think the real concern is when the new books suck a lot more then the old books because a company is trying to redefine the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And the answer to this is that D&D becomes a fan-only supported hobby, like some other games. That isn't too satisfying to me.

Or a hobby supported by a smaller private company with more realistic and obtainable expectations.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or a hobby supported by a smaller private company with more realistic and obtainable expectations.

The RPG hobby *IS* supported by small, private companies with realistic and obtainable expectations. D&D just isn't.

 

[Mattachine]

The RPG hobby *IS* supported by small, private companies with realistic and obtainable expectations. D&D just isn't.

Excellent point. D&D is owned by a large corporation,and is it is a brand name within that company's IP.

I can't see that changing for a long time, especially since licensing the name and some other parts of the IP is lucrative to that corporation.

If you don't want to support Hasbro, that's fine. But if enough consumers don't buy whatever comes next, then D&D may just become a brand name slapped onto a line of toys and video games.

 

[Alan Shutko]

If you don't want to support Hasbro, that's fine. But if enough consumers don't buy whatever comes next, then D&D may just become a brand name slapped onto a line of toys and video games.

I agree that might happen if Wizards does not release a game that lots of people don't want to play.

I don't agree that I should buy the game whether I want to play it or not, just because Hasbro might stop releasing D&D as an RPG.

 

[El Mahdi]

Excellent point. D&D is owned by a large corporation,and is it is a brand name within that company's IP.

I can't see that changing for a long time, especially since licensing the name and some other parts of the IP is lucrative to that corporation.

If you don't want to support Hasbro, that's fine. But if enough consumers don't buy whatever comes next, then D&D may just become a brand name slapped onto a line of toys and video games.

I agree completely, except for the idea that the customers are the one's with the responsibility to keep D&D alive...

Wrong.

It's D&D's/WotC's responsibility to create products that enough customers will want to buy. If they don't, D&D as a brand will die. And it will be the fault of WotC, not the customers.

And it doesn't necessarily follow that D&D as a Hobby will also die.

 

[El Mahdi]

Odd I havent seen that soo much. I buy lots of new books. Just the other day my pathfinder subscription came in the mail. I think the real concern is when the new books suck a lot more than the old books because a company is trying to redefine the game.

It's amazing how many people on the Internet are able to peer into the future and determine whether something sucks or not even before it's printed...

I wish I'd been born with such a super-power. I don't even have a Super Sniffer like Burton Guster. All I can do is juggle marbles with my fingers.

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, let's just all agree that no D&D-lover should feel obliged to purchase a game they don't want or like. That's reasonable.

All we're saying is that the company requires sales of new product to stay in business. Therefore, it requires THEM to produce a product designed to sell, and sell well. Which means being responsive to their customer base. Creating the game that everyone wants to buy.

Thus the business model of trying to please everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The answer to this question is already clearly written in the game's past. AD&D was mechanically stagnant for 20 years, because TSR wouldn't innovate.

Trying to be the same results in you being the same, or failing. That's not exactly aspirational.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The smoothest-running and most accessible editions are most definitely not the newest ones.

Lol.

I think when we start with a game and get to know it inside-out, we forget just how much effort it took us to learn it. The D&D I started with seemed crystal-clear and intuitive - after I had been playing it avidly for 5 years.

But, I've also introduced new players to each edition, and it did get harder on them for a while, then easier. AD&D was a little crazy, but it had some easyish enterance points, as long as you didn't jump in the deep end, you could get to know it incrementally - that was, in part, due to some of it's deepest and most intractable flaws, like class imbalance, though. Same with 2e. 3e was a little harder started, with even fighters have complex and weighty choices from 1st level on, and combat being more complex - and 3.5 became a baroque optimization exercise that required PhD-like system mastery towards the end.

4e really did make the game clearer and more accessible to new players. And, yes, re-capturing that old feel will be going backwards, and make the game less accessible.

There's probably no way around it. 5e's aproach looks like it's going to be to make the game easy for a new player - with a very experienced and/or talented DM - and with a lot of lurning curve for a dedicated new player to get going through once hooked. I doubt that'll apeal to casual players, but perhaps casual players just don't contribute that much to the bottom line?