D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[GMforPowergamers]

I understand that they wanted to drop some new hotness into 4E with warlords and dragonborn. I was pretty annoyed that my favorite things were not present though in the PHB.

I kknow the feeling. I was promised every class in any PHB would be in 5e in one way or another. I then had one of my two favorite classes not show up (still now 8 years later I need to kitbash to play a warlord)

 

[payn]

I kknow the feeling. I was promised every class in any PHB would be in 5e in one way or another. I then had one of my two favorite classes not show up (still now 8 years later I need to kitbash to play a warlord)

I feel for ya. That is a rock and hard place for WOTC. On one hand, the mechanics have changed making a Warlord hard to do in 5E. If you make a version that 4E fans hate, its going to just pour salt in the wound.

 

[Oofta]

I kknow the feeling. I was promised every class in any PHB would be in 5e in one way or another. I then had one of my two favorite classes not show up (still now 8 years later I need to kitbash to play a warlord)

You were? I don't remember that being promised. Mearls talked about some overall goals early on but I don't remember anything like this. On the other hand like many projects wish list goals are often cut based on the realities of implementation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You were?

yes

I don't remember that being promised.

okay... thats cool not everyone remembers everything... I can't for the life of me remember almost ANY of the 3e stuff back in 99 they had dragon articles but I couldn't tell you what if any of it was said.

Mearls talked about some overall goals early on but I don't remember anything like this.

yes the goal was to have every PHB represented. It was Mearls (who at the time was in charge) saying it. afterward people (I can't say WotC people persay it may have been fans) claimed the battle master having commander strike was the warlord representation... even though no fan I know of was happy with that answer.

On the other hand like many projects wish list goals are often cut based on the realities of implementation.

and again, I have been told repeatedly on the threads about 5.5/6/anniversary edition that they are promising things today about a book coming out in 2024 and they know for 100% fact it is true, and everything coming out today is 100% what they are doing and it wont change and there is no way to even imagine such things could change... to the point that when I said they don't even need to be lying, they could be wrong or they could no longer be in that position in 2 years I was told that Nuke war was more likely then someone retireing/promoted/getting new job...

 

[Oofta]

yes

okay... thats cool not everyone remembers everything... I can't for the life of me remember almost ANY of the 3e stuff back in 99 they had dragon articles but I couldn't tell you what if any of it was said.

yes the goal was to have every PHB represented. It was Mearls (who at the time was in charge) saying it. afterward people (I can't say WotC people persay it may have been fans) claimed the battle master having commander strike was the warlord representation... even though no fan I know of was happy with that answer.

and again, I have been told repeatedly on the threads about 5.5/6/anniversary edition that they are promising things today about a book coming out in 2024 and they know for 100% fact it is true, and everything coming out today is 100% what they are doing and it wont change and there is no way to even imagine such things could change... to the point that when I said they don't even need to be lying, they could be wrong or they could no longer be in that position in 2 years I was told that Nuke war was more likely then someone retireing/promoted/getting new job...

Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. I remember some off-hand comments in one single interview about trying to build a modular system. Goals change, compromises have to be made to have a coherent set of rules, discussing possible options early on in a project is not "promising" anything.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. I remember some off-hand comments in one single interview about trying to build a modular system. Goals change, compromises have to be made to have a coherent set of rules, discussing possible options early on in a project is not "promising" anything.

again, I have been told on these very boards things said months ago are 100% true no matter what about the 2024 books, so if that is true then back when this was said it should have been too.

argueing with one person that WotC has no reason to lie mislead and can't be misstaken or change, while in an adjacent thread argueing with another that 'that didn't count things changed durging the year' is hurting my brain

 

[Oofta]

again, I have been told on these very boards things said months ago are 100% true no matter what about the 2024 books, so if that is true then back when this was said it should have been too.

argueing with one person that WotC has no reason to lie mislead and can't be misstaken or change, while in an adjacent thread argueing with another that 'that didn't count things changed durging the year' is hurting my brain

I don't think anyone at WOTC was lying. They were not being intentionally misleading. There's no reason for them to do that on something like this.

Will everything for future releases meet your definition of fully compatible? Probably not. Doesn't mean it won't be compatible enough for the vast majority of people.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Snarf's initial post seems to be just a long winded way of telling us about the sacred cows of D&D.

Admittedly, no one has ever accused me of being short-winded. But ... that's not really it.

Ignoring the (possibly) unfortunate connotations of the term that you are using, it isn't the same as path dependency. While the examples I used to be illustrative are often common ones that are negative, path dependencies are usually positive. In other words, to use the easy example-

There are two roads in the forest. One leads to where you want to go, one doesn't. You take the left. At all points (until you've gone the distance where you know you've taken the incorrect road), it is less 'costly' to keep going down the road you're on, because 'switching' roads at the point is more expensive.

Now, if the other road is the correct one, this sucks. But if you're on the correct road, you don't even think about it. Which, again, is nothing more than the observation that ... history matters (it constrains and affects our choices).

Your phrase is a recitation about beliefs that are (usually) irrationally unquestionable and (usually) exempt from critique- which isn't the same thing at all. Recognizing the difference between the two things (what is a path dependency, and what is simply a belief people are holding onto) is kind of important.

Let's unpack an easy one- the six ability scores. People don't think they are exempt from critique- hardly a month goes by without someone proposing a new system here! And there have been multiple official efforts to change and amend them (adding abilities like comeliness, or the '12 abilities' of late-era 2e).

The reason people keep using them is because their use is so ingrained, and has gone on for so long, and is so deeply embedded with each and every D&D system, that to change them at this point would require a complete break from all prior editions- in effect, we have had (almost) 50 years using those ability scores, and while they have had slight alterations regarding them, they are so deeply embedded with the fabric of each and every edition of the game and rules that to change them would require a redo of the system of itself (which is hardly costless when it comes to selling the game to consumers).

Now, you might want to perform a similar exercise with alignment - I did not include it in my list, because at this time, they continued de-emphasizing of alignment with the rules means that for whatever controversies it might cause, the actual cost of removing it from the rules is getting less and less.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

sacred cows of D&D.

yeah... some of those I like/love some I dislike/hate... but that is a good way to describe them.

And I think edition differences tend to be a bit overstated. It's not that they don't exist but people blow them out of proportion. Different play styles across editions seem to have a bigger impact.

yeah... I find even in 5e some people still play the way they did in 3e, others play like they did in 4e. Some changed with each edition to fit the style.

I am a mix, but I do find I have always (and most likely will always) carried some of 4e with me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The reason people keep using them is because their use is so ingrained, and has gone on for so long, and is so deeply embedded with each and every D&D system, that to change them at this point would require a complete break from all prior editions- in effect, we have had (almost) 50 years using those ability scores, and while they have had slight alterations regarding them, they are so deeply embedded with the fabric of each and every edition of the game and rules that to change them would require a redo of the system of itself (which is hardly costless when it comes to selling the game to consumers).

Of course distinguishing this from a sunk cost fallacy is largely in the eye of the beholder.