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

[Savage Wombat]

I have to completely disagree.

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."

I have to disagree with your disagreement.

WotC is describing what D&D is, but they're also describing any number of fantasy RPGs. Many of which have their own fans.

TSR and WotC both studied their customer base, and know that there are certain game mechanics that are necessary assumptions. Without these assumptions, the game isn't D&D any more in the eyes of their players.

Among these are the six classic stats, HP, AC, defined classes as opposed to free-form character design, and some basic assumptions about how spells operate. Players who really wanted to get away from these mechanics went and played different game lines.

Yes, this may limit them creatively. It may make their stated goal of unifying the player base impossible. But it's necessary for the brand identity.

In other words: Will trying to maintain legacy and the feel of D&D hurt innovation? Yes, probably. But will trying for extreme innovation hurt the legacy and feel of D&D? Almost definitely.

 

[Iosue]

Overwhelmingly, even from people positive about 5e, it seems the response to what Wizards is trying to do has been, "Impossible. It's going to be a train wreck," (at worst) to "It sounds like they've given themselves an incredibly tough job. I hope it works, but I'll have to see how it turns out" (at best).

Frankly, what they are trying to do sounds to me like the very model of innovation. If this was pre-3e buzz I'd say it was not very innovative. But now? With 1e/2e and the wildly different 3e and 4e? To try and design a game that appeals to fans of ALL of those? That takes some balls.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Thus the fine line that must be walked. The game must evolve, but remain true to itself. This is why the designers can't just do anything they want, but must balance the opposing forces to the best of their ability.

Perhaps we don't buy new books because they've refused to sell us the books we want.

 

[n00bdragon]

When cars were first invented a lot of people hated them because driving a car lacked all the subtle qualities of riding a horse such as sitting in a saddle and what not. These people did not want to start driving a car no matter what benefits it may have brought. They liked riding horses and so they continued to do so, because cars just didn't have "that horse feel".

WotC is trying to make a horse shaped car and that's just as silly as it sounds.

 

[Libramarian]

I think it will hurt innovation, and Shidaku makes a good point: why cater to folks that don't buy new books?

Because they'll stop dissing your game to anyone who will listen. This has a value.

Anyway as to the topic at hand, no. Not at all.

They surely can achieve some mechanical/procedural innovation while achieving their goal of a classic D&D feel.

Unless what you mean is that it will harm "feel" innovation. In which case, I would find the premise of this thread to be weird because I don't think "feel" evolves or becomes objectively obsolete.

I do think that going for a classic feel is more appealing to potential new players than many people realize. Newbies know D&D is old, and they can tell whether its something that respects its own history or whether it feels faddish or pandering.

AD&D had a strangely archaic feel when it was released in the late '70s, with the old-fashioned Gygaxian vocabulary, out of date fantasy literature influences, and "font of the 1930s" Futura.

That's partly why it was so peculiarly compelling then and why for many people it feels pretty fresh now.

 

[trancejeremy]

Why should it be innovative? By catering to those that simply just don't like D&D, they alienate those that actually do like D&D. And that's exactly what has happened.

If you don't like D&D, why not simply play another game? There are 100s, maybe 1000s of them. Let D&D be D&D.

Beyond that, if you want to bring people in, it's best with a simple and easy game that can be learned in a few minutes, not one that requires 100s of pages of rules, battle maps, miniatures, and an online subscription.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

That's kind of a loaded question, presupposing that unfettered innovation is good. I'd rather say that maintaining legacy will focus innovation. The way I'd like to see development goes is for developers to ask themselves "What makes D&D, D&D" and then look for ways to make those things more fun.

Innovation is great, but it's certainly not the only important thing in making a new edition. There are many things that some people would consider positive innovations that I wouldn't care for. As an extreme example, some games use scene resolution rather than task resolution. I don't much care for that method much, and if I did there are plenty of good games to play with it that aren't D&D.

If D&DN doesn't feel like D&D to me then it's just another RPG with no special reason for me to pick it up, whatever the name may be.

 

[Ettin]

Why should it be innovative? By catering to those that simply just don't like D&D, they alienate those that actually do like D&D. And that's exactly what has happened.

If you think liking D&D means not wanting it to innovate I've got some bad news for you.

 

[Raith5]

Overwhelmingly, even from people positive about 5e, it seems the response to what Wizards is trying to do has been, "Impossible. It's going to be a train wreck," (at worst) to "It sounds like they've given themselves an incredibly tough job. I hope it works, but I'll have to see how it turns out" (at best).

Frankly, what they are trying to do sounds to me like the very model of innovation. If this was pre-3e buzz I'd say it was not very innovative. But now? With 1e/2e and the wildly different 3e and 4e? To try and design a game that appeals to fans of ALL of those? That takes some balls.

Good point. Bringing all the existing play styles together will be innovation, if they they pull it off. I am just glad that I dont have the designer's job!

But the practical issue that the new edition has to be different from our favorite editions. If this new system is not significantly different and better than 4th ed (mine/my group's favored edition) then I am not going to buy it. I am not going to fork out money just to unify the D&D fanbase.

 

[steeldragons]

First, let me say, LOTS of good stuff in this thread thus far. I agree with a lot of what I've read.

That said...

"Innovation" is a convenient buzzword. It has been for a while now in various industries. And at the risk of dipping a toe into "RW" economics and politics, it is no doubt going to be thrown around way more than it currently is.

It is this perceived fallacy that making something "new" and/or doing things differently will somehow "improve" whatever it is you are "innovating."

But, all I really mean to say here is:

"New [and/or 'Different'] does not necessarily equal better."

Change, for the sake of change, is not innovation. It's not better. It's not even necessarily 'new' (in the case of borrowing mechanics or rules-sets from other types of games). It's just change.

The bright n' shiny is great for an "oo ah." Everyone likes what they get Christmas morning (or insert gift-getting holiday of choice) better than what they had the year before.

But that does not make it "better"...nor even "necessary".

Sometimes what you get on Christmas morning ISN'T better than you got the year before....but it's new. So there is this cultural perception that it must automatically be "better/nicer".

"Innovation", is just that. A buzzword that is supposed to make us think "new is better".

If we're not "innovating" than somehow we are "wrong"...our product is "bad" or old or less desirable...because it's not "innovative."

It's nothing more than, yet another, assumed artificial construct, applied to...well just about anything...to make us believe that New is 1) Necessary and B) "Better."

There have been hundreds (by now, thousands, no doubt) of posts about "well this system does this and that system does that and if we don't incorporate these kinds of things then D&D will suck"...because that system does this "better." The industry has 'grown' to include these other traits, then we must "innovate" to do the same? Because "new is better."

Who said it has to grow? This isn't nature. It's a RPG, not an oak tree. It's not physics (for those who would site "entropy"). It's a fantasy game of make-believe, not the quantum makeup of the universe.

It's the people that want to keep making the money from it. Not the people that want to play the table-top fantasy role-playing game. (Yes, sure, very possibly those that want to do both. But the 'making money" is the driving force here, make no mistake.)

And the people that want to make the money, need us to believe that if we're not playing the new shiny, then we are somehow doing it wrong or the old no-longer-shiny game is somehow sub-standard...because it's not/we're not being "innovative."

Those that DO want "this like it is in this system" and "that like they do in that..." or video game...or some other (fantasy or NON-fantasy) RPG...or like I saw in that movie/tv show/book...Why are you playing D&D? Why all of the assertions (that almost invariably become arguments) saying D&D should do/have/add/change this or that?

"Innovation"? No. I don't really think that is it. Sounds good. Nice buzzword to throw around. But what is that supposed to mean?

"It's not 30 years ago." No..it's not. That defends shredding a game and turning it into something completely different how, exactly?

"Such-and-Such RPG is way better so D&D should have it too!" That's not "innovation" that's just "copying someone else's ideas."

Cuz "new is better"? See above.

And as a few folks have astutely noted already, change something enough and it is no longer the thing it was. That's a Polymorph/Transmutation spell not "innovation." And "change", like "innovation", is not necessarily always for the better.

Rambling a bit...only on coffee #2. But I guess the whole point in here, I am trying to make/assert is...

That, while I do agree with many things that have been said and many proposals and alterations, optional alternatives, I have read in other threads regarding the new edition/incarnation, I think it behooves us to just keep in mind...

New and/or Different does not necessarily equal better.

and "Innovation" is a business-speak buzzword devoid of any objective actual meaning.
--SD