Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537058Putting it in yourself is no substitute for it being there in the first place, and we have a sort of pandora's box where 3E and 4E opened a lot of doors that allowed a lot of new things into D&D that just won't get back into the box.

D&D as its own thing only matters to people who have embraced D&D as its own specific thing. It doesn't matter to somebody like me who has been playing D&D for 17 years with utter disregard for the history of D&D, and it doesn't matter to somebody who just walked in the door.

Sure. But again you are left with the fact that they lost half their customers by changing D&D into 4E. It very much satisfied some people but it made the game unrecognizeable to others.

So your model of eliminating the old for the new doesn't work. I am not saying you can't update the game. As you pont out 3e allowed fo some crazy flavor concepts. But if you alter the core game you a taking out the basic things that made it succesful over thirty years.

You can hate vancian casting all you want (andit certainly doesn't work for certain modes of play), but the minute they took it out, they lost people. Because it isnt just the folks who started 30 years ago that see it as essential, it is the people who started in 3e and 3.5 as well.

Wonder if the OP post is thinking along the lines of the 2009 rebooted Star Trek movie.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537058I disagree with your assessment of 3E, assuming you go past the core 3. Once you get into flying Warlocks shooting laser beams at will, Tome of Battle, and monsters as PCs(including Half-Dragon templated ones) the general shape of traditional shape starts disappearing. A kitchen sink anything goes 3E game goes well past everything 4E did thematically, though 4E's core was much further away than 3E's core.

.

Then you weren't paying attention to my post. All that stuff you mention is outside the core (just ike ravenloft and spelljammer were outside the core). The core is still very much D&D. It gets you the broadest general audience. Stuff like tome of battle and savage species gives you option that can be added in for interesting flavor. That is the key to versatility. I could easily run 3E either way.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537058Core mechanics were the same, but the tone of the rulebook and the advice they presented made all the difference in the world. OSR people say the same about the advice and presentation of older editions in achieving an "Old School" game.
.

Sure, and I pretty much said in my post that was the key difference between 2e and 1e (advice and tone-----though much of the story heavy advice comes in with later 2e books, not the initial 2e phb). So you and i dont disagree on this point. However you keep mentioning 4e in your posts and suggesting this is more than a flavor issue (that you want mechanicsthat support your flavor vision). Lots of people who liked 1e continued with 2e because the mechanics were at core the same (even if dragonlance irked them). Same with 3e. I personalky disliked the flavor and some mechanicsof 3e, but it had the same core shape so i didn't mind playing. By the time 4e came out not only was it a different game (not D&D) it was a terrible gamist system I had no interest in.

Quote from: danbuter;537037I have to say, I wish Appendix N had not been included in the game. It's caused more useless internet arguments than almost any section of actual rules.

I completely agree. Sad, sad thing.

Quote from: Melan;537033The issue is, the "Appendix N" list was not the most popular selection of fantasy in the 1970s or the 1980s either. If D&D had been targeted squarely at what was popular, it would have been a high fantasy game based on LotR, The Belgariad, Shannara and whatever would make the renfaire people interested. Instead, it was a personal selection based on what some guy in Wisconsin thought would best work in his game, a game which was in turn partially based on that same reading list (yeah, it's a bit circular, D&D is its own genre, blah blah blah). You can do Gandalf in D&D, and he is a 5th-level Magic-User, while Conan is a 6th level Fighter.

The renfaire fans weren't happy about it either. Actually, even when I started gaming in the 90s, I would routinely hear arguments about how AD&D sucked because it didn't do Tolkien right (or because it featured spell memorisation, hit points, abstract AC, or classes and levels). Well, it didn't do Tolkien right because it wasn't trying to. It had its own identity, and it did well on that strength, because - and never tell the bitter online people that, because it will drive them up the wall - the D&D formula works if people are willing to accept its basic premises. You are a Fighter and that means a measly hit with a sword won't kill you, you are a Wizard and you have to relearn your spells every day, great; now that this is out of the way, let's have an adventure.

Most newbies get that fairly well, although they will draw on different sorts of inspiration when visualising their characters and adventures. That's cool. The people who have the most problems with the D&D formula are the same disaffected thirty- and fourtysomethings who can't enjoy D&D anymore because it doesn't let them accurately model Cowboy Bebop and My Little Pony and those other cartoons which are so popular with disaffected thirty- and fourtysomethings. Then they write screeds like the OP on ENWorld, SA or RPGNet. Well - it is their problem. The rest of us will be happily playing a D&D.

As usual, you are right.

I think focusing on D&D's past would be as big a mistake as continuing 4e. A large portion of the Current D&D community prefers things how 4E or splat heavy 3E did it, and even Pathfinder is a clear, if less drastic, break from traditional D&D. They tried it in new ways, and while some hated it some loved it, and now both are D&D.

The next edition needs to cater to both old and new school, as well as cater to newbs who arrive with their own preconceived notions of what fantasy looks like, and most importantly shouldn't play favorites.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537080I think focusing on D&D's past would be as big a mistake as continuing 4e. A large portion of the Current D&D community prefers things how 4E or splat heavy 3E did it, and even Pathfinder is a clear, if less drastic, break from traditional D&D. They tried it in new ways, and while some hated it some loved it, and now both are D&D.

The next edition needs to cater to both old and new school, as well as cater to newbs who arrive with their own preconceived notions of what fantasy looks like, and most importantly shouldn't play favorites.

Again it isn't about going back to chainmail or the 1st edition version of the game. It is about recognizing what has been constant in the game up though 3e that you really cant remove without changing the game's nature.

I don't think 4e has as much of a claim to be being D&D as the first three editions. Yes they need to figure out how to make these people happy because they are a large group of customers. But they wont be able to take the 4e approach of changing the core game to do it.

I agree with your last paragraph entirely. But I think we dispute how best to achieve this.

Quote from: jeff37923;537020Got a link to the original post?

If I didn't, I wouldn't be me.

I totally agree that D&D should be inspired by the shows/literature that the kids these days are into... like Game of Thrones.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;537256I totally agree that D&D should be inspired by the shows/literature that the kids these days are into... like Game of Thrones.

RPGPundit

Now that would be cool*. But that's your point, whatever inspiration they use has to resonate with everyone to make the game successful.  Just like the original.

*I made my save throw.

Quote from: RPGPundit;537256I totally agree that D&D should be inspired by the shows/literature that the kids these days are into... like Game of Thrones.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Marleycat;537257Now that would be cool. But that's your point, whatever inspiration they use has to resonate with everyone to make the game successful.  Just like the original.

I think the problem with trying to resonate with everyone is that fantasy seems to be increasingly splitting.  You've got the fantasy of some anime and computer games which seems to be heading in more of a super hero direction and then on the other hand you have literary fantasy which seems to be increasingly more "gritty" like George R.R Martin or Joe Abercrombie.

You can't really do both, any drift in one direction pretty much invalidates the other.  The former is a bigger audience but may well feel it is pretty well served already by computer games.  The second is smaller, but has the advantage of coinciding more precisely with the core demographic of D&D which is kids that read.  (Because really, if kids don't read, I can't imagine them ever sticking with D&D for very long.)  It may well be counter-productive to chase after the computer game crowd, because the kids there you're liking to capture are pretty likely only going to be the kids that also read fantasy anyway.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;537261I think the problem with trying to resonate with everyone is that fantasy seems to be increasingly splitting.  You've got the fantasy of some anime and computer games which seems to be heading in more of a super hero direction and then on the other hand you have literary fantasy which seems to be increasingly more "gritty" like George R.R Martin or Joe Abercrombie.

You can't really do both, any drift in one direction pretty much invalidates the other.  The former is a bigger audience but may well feel it is pretty well served already by computer games.  The second is smaller, but has the advantage of coinciding more precisely with the core demographic of D&D which is kids that read.  (Because really, if kids don't read, I can't imagine them ever sticking with D&D for very long.)  It may well be counter-productive to chase after the computer game crowd, because the kids there you're liking to capture are pretty likely only going to be the kids that also read fantasy anyway.

I seriously hope today's generation is not as self involved and stupid as this suggests they are. If so,  Everything is done, not just rpg's.

Quote from: Marleycat;537269I seriously hope today's generation is not as self involved and stupid as this suggests they are. If so,  Everything is done, not just rpg's.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;537270I'm not sure what you mean.

If the kids don't read, actually read something beyond say USA Today the world is done, let alone our little hobby. This hobby requires a love of reading and what it leads to to actually understand it.

QuoteHey, old people...Your stories aren't relevant anymore...you need to go step back, and - in essence - go away...I don't want mechanics steeped in the old, anymore. I want [a new game that supports a different approach to play and genre influences]...

No problem, dude, I'm way ahead of you.  I've been off the edition carousel for years.  To me, "D&D" means certain things (i.e., the things that embodied the game from the start, and that you see as outdated and needing to be swept away in a "Next Generation D&D").  I'll probably always see it that way, and see different games as...well, different games.  

But don't let my narrow vision of D&D stop you!  I assure you that I have no investment in "D&D Next."  I leave it entirely in your hands, to form as you will and to take in whatever direction you like.  (Didn't you guys already do that with 4e? Eh, I digress...whatever...)    

WotC keeps trying to lure me to whatever "D&D du jour" they're selling, but it's kind of like being propositioned by an aging transsexual streetwalker squeezed into some 70s-era disco pants: "C'mon baby, it's the same as it ever was, I promise.  I'll give you the real deal, just what you want.  Back to the dungeon, baby.  The game remains the same.  I'm the best of all worlds, you can play me any way you want..."  I'm just not buying it (you might say I'm not in the market).  I assure you that as far as "D&D Next" goes, I have Gone Away.

So spike up your hair, grab your massively oversized sword, and bust loose your Dragon Tail Kick.  Go on with your bad self, brother.  "D&D Next" is your oyster.  Shuck it and slurp it down.  I wish you joy and hope you find a pearl.