D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[CapnZapp]

This statement underestimates a few key notes:

1) that small changes can have big design impacts. Even if a 5e mechanic is similar to a 4e one, that doesn’t mean they play the same.



2) 5e was as much a UI improvement as it is a design one. Mechanically I respect the hell out of 4e in many ways…but the PhB reads like an accountants handbook. In a game that id more story than rules…how you present those rules matters a lot.

Yes. 5E looks and feels like a drastically different game than 4E.

On the other hand, the rhythm, the cadence of gameplay, is very reminiscent of 3E. Or for AD&D for that matter.

If you squint, you could say that it isn't immediately obvious if an adventure is written for AD&D, or for 3E, or for 5E. Or for OSR for that matter. (Obviously stat blocks differ. Talking about the structure)

In sharp contrast, it is immediately obvious an adventure is written for 4E. A 4E adventure was a very different beast, and something very specific to 4E.

The closest comparison to the way 4E scenarios feel highly... regimented perhaps? I can think of is Pathfinder 2E.

A PF2 scenario is also immediately apparent as a PF2 scenario and specifically a PF2 scenario.

This is, in my opinion, a huge factor as to why 5E is popular to an extent that is wildly eclipsing 4E and PF2.

Those games just never felt like D&D. They felt like 4E and they felt like PF2.

 

[CapnZapp]

3.5 was a major improvement to the game to me. Classes were better, monsters better designed, spells better, feats better, combat tactics better, magic items better.

Yet the things that made me drop d20 remained the same.

Fighters remained linear compared to wizards.

And creating NPCs remained a bureaucratic nightmare.

On the other hand, 5E fixed both these really fundamental flaws while not throwing out the baby with the bathwater like 4E did.

So there's no need to quibble whether 3.5 was a "major" improvement.

The ultimate analysis is that it remained the same in the aspects that decided whether I could keep playing.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I do agree that ultimately the game is not going to change much, probably less than 3.5 did. A 5.25e seems more appropriate here.

You mean "5.24e"?

 

[Stalker0]

Yet the things that made me drop d20 remained the same.

Fighters remained linear compared to wizards.

And creating NPCs remained a bureaucratic nightmare.

On the other hand, 5E fixed both these really fundamental flaws while not throwing out the baby with the bathwater like 4E did.

So there's no need to quibble whether 3.5 was a "major" improvement.

The ultimate analysis is that it remained the same in the aspects that decided whether I could keep playing.

You could argue that is the whole point of a “half edition”…keeping it mostly the same with polish and improvements.

New editions is where you go more radical and mess with the fundamentals

 

[Atomoctba]

You mean "5.24e"?

We could just call it 2e, where e is not for "edition", but for the math constant. After all, 2e is about 5.436556...

 

[Vaalingrade]

You mean "5.24e"?

With those delays, there's still a chance of 5.25e now.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

With those delays, there's still a chance of 5.25e now.

Fair! At least for third book.

 

[Clint_L]

The one metric we can be sure of is…if 5.5 doesn’t sell well with principal feedback being “there’s not enough here to justify new books”…than your point is validated…because yes wotc is a company whose job it is to sell product. And if your new product isn’t better enough to the old one to justify the price…that’s a business failure. Until that time though…maybe a 5.25e is really all the main user base wants, and so a more fundamental overhaul would not be in the interest of 5es continuing success.

Respectfully, I think this metric kind of misses the point of the 2024 revision. From the start, WotC has emphasized that they are trying to maintain the momentum of 5e rather than create a dislocation the way that the previous edition paradigm did. So the point of 2024 is not to juice sales that then dramatically fall off, as happened with 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, it's to keep the books selling at a steady pace.

What they specifically don't want is for folks to feel like they need to rush out and replace all their books, because that creates a jumping off point (c.f. 4e).

So IMO, the measure of success will not be whether the 2024 books bring a huge initial sales spike (if that is even what you are suggesting; perhaps I misunderstood). It'll be whether WotC can keep their fanbase more or less intact, and ideally keep growing it, while managing the transition to a primarily digital sales model.

Edit: In fact, I think a huge initial sales spike could lead to trouble for D&D in the long run.

 

[Stalker0]

Respectfully, I think this metric kind of misses the point of the 2024 revision. From the start, WotC has emphasized that they are trying to maintain the momentum of 5e rather than create a dislocation the way that the previous edition paradigm did. So the point of 2024 is not to juice sales that then dramatically fall off, as happened with 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, it's to keep the books selling at a steady pace.

What they specifically don't want is for folks to feel like they need to rush out and replace all their books, because that creates a jumping off point (c.f. 4e).

So IMO, the measure of success will not be whether the 2024 books bring a huge initial sales spike (if that is even what you are suggesting; perhaps I misunderstood). It'll be whether WotC can keep their fanbase more or less intact, and ideally keep growing it, while managing the transition to a primarily digital sales model.

Edit: In fact, I think a huge initial sales spike could lead to trouble for D&D in the long run.

A fair point, the criteria could then be redefined as seeing a downslope in sales after the switch or from some amount of time after that suggesting the half edition didn’t have enough juice to sustain the game into the future.

Now the argument could be made that with wotc aggressive growth plans noted before with the dnd brand that perhaps they do expect an uptick in sales…but you could counter argument that the brand growth js expected in other areas and the book sales are to serve as a steady baseline. The “intro drug” to get people into other areas of the brand

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know. I know you've been dog-piled, Hussar. Trust me, it's happened to me in other forums (Reddit, Discord), and I continue to be mystified by that pushback. Keep fighting the good fight.

Edit: It's early too, who knows, plenty of time for me to get dog-piled yet.

I thought everyone agreed about the exploration rules being underwhelming?

There are some conclusions some people come to from that, often about other aspects of the game, that get strong pushback, but I am confident that you could say, “I am underwhelmed by the 5e exploration rules. I find the lacking. What have any of you done to fix them in your game?” Or something like that, it’d be fine.

You’d get at least one contrarian trying to argue over the premise, ofc, but that apperently can’t be avoided!