I dropped out of gaming recently precisely because gamers suck - far too many obstinate assholes who have decided that RPGs must be a certain way.  I recently got back into it because I miss it (and my kids are old enough to play, and like it).

I didn't exactly like 4e, but I liked how D&D was evolving away from the conventions that it has stuck to over the years (naturally, my old-school d&d friends hated it).  I'm disappointed that the goal of D&D Next is to unite previous editions, rather than innovate and move forward.

I think the difficulty is that just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it is broken or obsolete. The legions of people who like the game often want to see tweaking and improvement around the edges, but not whole scale modification, or "innovations" if you prefer, because they feel that there is nothing wrong with much of what's already there.

Quote from: DrGentleman;548835I didn't exactly like 4e, but I liked how D&D was evolving away from the conventions that it has stuck to over the years (naturally, my old-school d&d friends hated it).  I'm disappointed that the goal of D&D Next is to unite previous editions, rather than innovate and move forward.

There is plenty of room in gaming to innovate and move forward. Just let D&D be D&D and move forward with other games. I don't see D&D being shaped by those who hate what its all about being good for the game.

Don't like a lot of traditional D&D elements? Then don't include them in your game. Move away from D&D and leave it behind.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;548867There is plenty of room in gaming to innovate and move forward. Just let D&D be D&D and move forward with other games. I don't see D&D being shaped by those who hate what its all about being good for the game.

Don't like a lot of traditional D&D elements? Then don't include them in your game. Move away from D&D and leave it behind.

I disagree. D&D growing and changing to be a better game (regardless of what that might mean) doesn't mean that the factors that make D&D distinct have to be left behind. It also goes without saying that if people are so invested in D&D that they want it to be the best it can be, they're doing it out of love for the game and its history and not because that hate it.

Quote from: pryingeyes;548872I disagree. D&D growing and changing to be a better game (regardless of what that might mean) doesn't mean that the factors that make D&D distinct have to be left behind. It also goes without saying that if people are so invested in D&D that they want it to be the best it can be, they're doing it out of love for the game and its history and not because that hate it.

If you keep the name of something and pretty much start over (4E) then you actually have left the distinctive elements behind.

If I take a coke bottle and fill it with Spishak cola, is it now a coke?

Then we have the term "better". New and changed does not always equal better. If this were true then this thread wouldn't exist because there would be no 5E playtest on the horizon a mere 4 years after the previous edition.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;548884Then we have the term "better". New and changed does not always equal better. If this were true then this thread wouldn't exist because there would be no 5E playtest on the horizon a mere 4 years after the previous edition.

Of course newer, changed things aren't always better. Hell, once you reach a certain point they more than likely aren't.

I'm just fed up with the attitude that I see from so many people, that not only is improvement impossible, that improvement itself is not a laudable goal.

Quote from: pryingeyes;548885Of course newer, changed things aren't always better. Hell, once you reach a certain point they more than likely aren't.

I'm just fed up with the attitude that I see from so many people, that not only is improvement impossible, that improvement itself is not a laudable goal.

I think the sticking point is what constitutes improvement vs what is being changed for the sake of change.

For example, making beginning PCs much tougher than their TSR era versions.
Improvement or change for the sake of change?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;548891I think the sticking point is what constitutes improvement vs what is being changed for the sake of change.

For example, making beginning PCs much tougher than their TSR era versions.
Improvement or change for the sake of change?

That one's a matter of taste. Though I would say it's a poor change (I like more options but in a weaker character - 1st level 3e would be my favourite 'beginning PC'), it certainly wasn't 'change for the sake of change'. The designers intended it as an improvement and many D&D fans would agree.

Quote from: pryingeyes;548893That one's a matter of taste. Though I would say it's a poor change (I like more options but in a weaker character - 1st level 3e would be my favourite 'beginning PC'), it certainly wasn't 'change for the sake of change'. The designers intended it as an improvement and many D&D fans would agree.

What was the intended improvement? What did it accomplish that just beginning play at a higher level couldn't do?

Quote from: pryingeyes;548885Of course newer, changed things aren't always better. Hell, once you reach a certain point they more than likely aren't.

I'm just fed up with the attitude that I see from so many people, that not only is improvement impossible, that improvement itself is not a laudable goal.

Improvement != change, change != improvement.

Totally warping D&D to become something different to support someone's gameplay style doesn't make it better - there are so many other games, why must people make D&D be Exalted or Dogs in the Vineyard or some horrible combination of the two?  Those games already exist!  Why not go play them?  (not you, specifically)

I hear this, "let's slaughter the following SACRED COWS of D&D and fix it!" and then we see the usual litany of "let's ditch alignment," "let's ditch ability scores," "let's ditch classes," "let's ditch levels," "let's ditch fire-and-forget magic systems".  Jesus Christ, there's plenty of games that already exist that don't have alignment, levels, classes, FnF magic...seriously, and again, why can't people just go play them?

Tweaking D&D?  That's fine.  I can see why people would want to go to ascending versus descending.  Hell, I hate it but I can also understand why some people can't get their heads around differing XP charts.  But this whole, demolish the game, leave nothing but the words D&D and start over?  That's horseshit.  To those people I say go away.  Go find another hobby, or another game.  Go play burning 13th whatever it's called or Exalted or whatever.  Jesus, leave D&D alone already.

Again, change != improvement, and improvement !=change.

The thing about Sacred Cows is...
What you might call the thing that defines them as bovines...
And the clue is really in the fucking name here...

They Are Sacred.

So killing them really, really, fucking pisses people off.

Quote from: Ladybird;547904Perhaps, though, you need to ask yourself a question; is it more important that an RPG you play be one that you like, or be called D&D.

THIS is a key question many gamers need to honestly ask themselves.

I have friends whose hobby is to play the current version of D&D. That's their hobby and they are very cool with that.

Quote from: talysman;547931What's the matter with WotC keeping 4e in print and developing 5e whatever way they feel like?

Supposedly TSR suffered from having multiple editions in print along with multiple settings which resulted in a fractured fanbase. I don't know if such a business analysis is accurate. Coke does fine selling Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero to three different audiences, but perhaps this really does not work in the RPG world.

I am expecting 4e to have its own 3PP Pathfinder sooner or later. And if it doesn't show by Christmas 2013, I may write one.

Quote from: Melan;548046The greatest immediate danger to our hobby is self-hate. The greatest long-term one is disinterest.

Yes.

Quote from: APN;548049I don't see why the hobby needs D&D to be successful anyway, when the choice of game right now is massive, far bigger than its ever been.

D&D is the only RPG brand name with any market presence. WotC is the only company profitable enough to launch an advertising campaign to promote the hobby.

The hobby as represented on the internet is far too insular (and surly) to attract new fans. Without fresh blood, the hobby dies.

Thus we need D&D's success.

Quote from: DrGentleman;548835I'm disappointed that the goal of D&D Next is to unite previous editions, rather than innovate and move forward.

Agreed.

Fortunately, there are plenty of really awesome RPGs out there. I wish there was a way for these lesser known gems to get a larger audience.

Quote from: Spinachcat;549013Supposedly TSR suffered from having multiple editions in print along with multiple settings which resulted in a fractured fanbase. I don't know if such a business analysis is accurate. Coke does fine selling Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero to three different audiences, but perhaps this really does not work in the RPG world.

As I recall, the problem was that they were trying to sell all that stuff to the same people.  They weren't increasing their player base, they simply marketed a dozen settings and hundreds of supplements to the same captive audience.

The Coca-Cola folks market their different products to different segments of a (granted, much larger) consumer base.  I would presume Coke would have crashed and burned if they tried to market all their products to all their consumers as well.  

On the other hand, Coca-Cola didn't have Lorraine "Dumbshit" Williams fucking up all their brands...  

God I am tired of the butthurt over 4e.  Yeesh, just get over it already.  Play what you like to play, and quit whining about what some others play.

Quote from: Mistwell;549041God I am tired of the butthurt over 4e.  Yeesh, just get over it already.  Play what you like to play, and quit whining about what some others play.