Legends & Lore - Get out the vote

[YHWH]

(warning: a text wall approaches)

Mike Mearls (just in case you don't know that's the guy who's probably going to be in charge of making 5th edition) has a weekly column and is using it for market research, asking questions that basically boil down to stuff like: "do you like that D&D's based around minis now?"

The current question asks if Fourth and every other edition (including basic!) is "Too complicated", "Just right", or "Not complex enough".

The lifespan of the other WotC editions, 3 and 3.5, was about four years average for each. So if Fourth follows suit, then it's got just over 1 year left. That might be a little soon but editions don't happen overnight, they're probably working on it or at least thinking about it. Especially considering Fourth was a disappointment for them, in how it split the market with Pathfinder.

The column is focusing on D&D history, how it's changed and it started off with an appeal for unity. It sounds to me like 5th has a chance to be more classic friendly, or at least they're using the column to explore that possibility. This Mike Meals fellow apparently does play some TSR D&D every now and again. (And let's not forget the redbox, somebody is pushing for classic even if it's not coming through to the final product.)

Hopefully it's not just WotC fans voting, being more likely to stumble over it on the WotC website than OSR or former players.


This week I voted that 3rd and Fourth editions were "too complicated" and that 1st, 2nd and basic were "just right".

The results from last week's pole were kind of grim, but it was a bit of a loaded question. It was about the possibility of removing feats and skills from the game (!) and the winning result was "I'd be bored doing the same thing over and over again, round after round in a fight". Wow...

In that poll I voted for "I’d be happy that I can have an effective character without the complexity". The column is really harping on complexity. I worry there are too many WotC fans now who've been trained to love complexity and I hope WotC realizes the key to a popular D&D is B/X style elegant simplicity.

[Dyson Logos]

I can't imagine saying that 1e was less complicated than 3e. I just finished playing a 1e campaign that used the rules as written. It was nightmarish. But that's my personal hate-on for 1e, I *love* B/X and enjoy 3.x as the two most perfect iterations of the game.

[Black Wyvern]

The results of this pole were that 4th edition is just right. 3rd edition is to complicated. And 2nd through basic... people answering the polls had not played them. I looked this up out of curiosity. It has been many moons since I last visited WotC's website. I wonder why I no longer feel welcome there.

[Blood axe]

I do NOT like 4th. In fact, "not like" is a very weak term describing how I feel about 4th.
Maybe loathe is better, or find utterly repulsive, or reject it with every fiber of my being, or..........

[Black Wyvern]

I have not played 4e nor do I ever plan to. I am sure it is a fine game it just isn't D&D as far as I am concerned. But any hope that old schoolers have for 5th edition is probably baseless. WotC is going to listen to the people that are buying their games. We are not (for the most part) those people. They may try to get some of the devotees that have migrated to Pathfinder back but us OSR players, well we are the minority market and we need to accept that.

Our game of choice is never going to be a current edition of Dungeons & Dragon. We are never again going to be DMs. But all is not lost. We have LL and the AEC and it is a fine game. We have a community that produces top quality support. The spirit of our D&D is alive. It is called Labyrinth Lord.

[The Iron Goat]

It would be nice to think that we could affect the vote, but I'd imagine the majority of people voting are only familiar with (and comfortable with) later editions, and their votes will be skewed that way. Honestly, they just aren't going to get it. There is no perfect argument you can make to convince someone that what they like is wrong.

[Black Wyvern]

I know you would think they would listen to reason and like what I like. Maybe my wife is right... maybe it isn't all about me... NAW!!!

[kaomera]

I have played (and enjoyed) 4e, and I do think it's D&D (says so on the package), but it is in no way the same game as AD&D. I agree that it's great that we got stuff like Labyrinth Lord out of the OGL, as I really enjoy both systems, just for different reasons. But one thing for me is that I really don't think I'd want to see a "retro" 5e. If I want to play retro I've got LL and my 1e books. But then again I thought Unearthed Arcana was a bunch of hooey that the game didn't actually need...

The big issue with "retro" right now (as far as 4e goes) is that a lot of people seem to think that WotC is trying to make 4e more retro, to their disadvantage (in that they like the game the way it is). I think that 1) they pretty obviously don't mean the same thing by "retro" that I do, and 2) any game that is getting "support", that is: has new products coming out for it, is going to evolve and change. I think they want the same thing that I (mistakenly, IMO) wanted when I picked up UA: more of the same, not some new race or class that was different from what I already liked...

[bathwizard]

The best way of persuading people that OSR, especially LL, is best is not by intellectual arguments but by getting them to experience game-play. Once they see how easy and straightforward (and inexpensive) LL is, I'm sure many would want to continue with it, maybe in parallel with other editions.
Having said that, I haven't actually experienced 4th ed, so, like Black Wyvern I'm not going to get opinionated or emotionally involved in it. Enough people have played it and enjoyed it to keep it a sort of viable line, and good for them. I hope they have a good time. But I have decided that after learning and playing B/X, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed I don't need to invest time, money, effort and emotion into another set of rules.
As for complexity, I found 3rd Ed pushing my patience, so anything more complicated than that is unacceptable to me. 1st and 2nd Ed are ok, but LL/BX is the level of complexity I am most comfortable with.

[kaomera]

The best way of persuading people that OSR, especially LL, is best is not by intellectual arguments but by getting them to experience game-play. Once they see how easy and straightforward (and inexpensive) LL is, I'm sure many would want to continue with it, maybe in parallel with other editions.

I think that the complexity is actually the draw for many 4e players (they tend to call it "tactical complexity"... ). But I've definitely found a lot of them are at least interested in seeing how "this old-school stuff" actually works. The biggest hurdle for me is that it seems like a lot of stuff that was really abnormal, stuff that we joked about or poked fun at "back in the day", has become seen as just the only way you played older games. If you can convince them that some of those ideas are really mutually-exclusive I think it becomes a lot easier to show off the multiple aspects of OSR.