D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Micah Sweet]

I really don’t think you actually understand my point.

It’s obviously impossible to compromise on a “include/don’t include” binary. That’s why the best position is to simply not care either way. That’s why the “who cares” position is to simply include whatever people want to use, because rejection requires a certain level of curation and concern.

Now, obviously, you have to care that at least the game is somewhat functional. You shouldn’t allow (or propose) some monstrosity that can do 5 attacks at level 1 and has full spellcasting. But the difference between a 2014 option and a 2024 option is barely noticeable.

"People just shouldn't care about it" is not a position that is going to work for everybody, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being a person for whom that's not going to work.

 

[Scott Christian]

That might make sense if the DM player relationship was adversarial, not cooperative. I work under the assumption that everyone gets along, because if they don’t, I’m not in that group.

I think this is an important designation. I mean, it doesn't even have to be the two extremes. It could be people at the table have buy in, but this one player really wants to see how this class feature or something from the "new" plays out. And that is the slippery slope. I don't think, at least at most tables, this leads to an argument. Mostly, it is just a quiet acceptance from the DM. And then another acceptance. And then the new material is part of their table.

The buy in is the key here. Heck, I ran a summer campaign where I asked the players to only use the PHB. No other books, features, classes, races, spells allowed. They bought in just fine, but that is because they trust me. They understood my rationale and knew I had their best interest. But if one player would have come up to me and said, can I take this one spell from Tasha's because it makes my character a bad-#** or fit my character's backstory, I would have said yes. But they didn't because there is trust among us.

 

[TwoSix]

So no one should get what they want out of a game unless everyone else wants that same thing? What if people want mutually exclusive things? Sometimes a decision has to be made.

I…literally explained that in the post you quoted and the post afterwards?

What part of the “default assumption should be acceptance, not rejection” is complicated?

I think I need to back away from this topic, as more posts seem to be leading to less comprehension, not more.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I want it because otherwise we are telling corporations that it's ok to lie about their motives to the public, that we don't mind being lied to (even if in just a minor way). They can sell their product effectively without claiming it's something that it isn't, whether people see through it or not. I also want it because I value honest discourse, between people and between corporations and the public. Is there something wrong with that?

No... but telling all of US that, over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread does not actually do anything that you are hoping to happen. We don't control corporations or their actions, so why complain to us about it? What are any of us going to do?

From my perspective, you are bringing negativity to the boards in multiple threads for absolutely no reason. Now are you "allowed" to do that? Sure. No forum rules against it. But I do question your motives as to why you feel the need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I…literally explained that in the post you quoted and the post afterwards?

What part of the “default assumption should be acceptance, not rejection” is complicated?

I think I need to back away from this topic, as more posts seem to be leading to less comprehension, not more.

I suppose I disagree with the idea that the default should be straight acceptance. I think instead that every choice should be considered and explained as needed, but ultimately decisions have to be made and that likely means someone isn't going to get everything they want.

 

[Oofta]

My thoughts on this are simple. If you are a corporation, and the public asks you a question, and there isn't a legal reason why you can't answer it, you should, and you should do so honestly. Even if the answer is something like, "We're still working out our product schedule and have no release dates yet" or, "This is an edition change to a degree similar to what's been done in the past, but we're not using that term in our advertising because some people react negatively to it". Or even, "We do want you to buy the new stuff we're releasing, and expect it to replace the existing material".

I know: hopelessly naive. But it's the right thing to do.

I just checked my PHB, it doesn't reference edition. Since they don't officially label the 2014 PHB with an edition, it's meaningless to give the 2024 PHB with an edition. The fact that the general public references it as 5E doesn't mean anything, they have never officially given it an edition label.

They have not lied. They have been telling people they're changing the rules. They don't give it a version number because they don't do that for the current game. Whether a group buys new books is, as always, completely up to the group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No... but telling all of US that, over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread does not actually do anything that you are hoping to happen. We don't control corporations or their actions, so why complain to us about it? What are any of us going to do?

From my perspective, you are bringing negativity to the boards in multiple threads for absolutely no reason. Now are you "allowed" to do that? Sure. No forum rules against it. But I do question your motives as to why you feel the need.

I suppose there are reasons why I do this that are outside the scope of the community, but that's certainly not for this thread. Sometimes you get tired of feeling you're the only person who cares about something, but you also can't pretend you don't care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just checked my PHB, it doesn't reference edition. Since they don't officially label the 2014 PHB with an edition, it's meaningless to give the 2024 PHB with an edition. The fact that the general public references it as 5E doesn't mean anything, they have never officially given it an edition label.

They have not lied. They have been telling people they're changing the rules. They don't give it a version number because they don't do that for the current game. Whether a group buys new books is, as always, completely up to the group.

They are saying it's the same game, and the new books are intended as additional options, but it isn't and they aren't.

 

[TwoSix]

I suppose I disagree with the idea that the default should be straight acceptance. I think instead that every choice should be considered and explained as needed, but ultimately decisions have to be made and that likely means someone isn't going to get everything they want.

And I agree with pretty much all that. My only caveat is that you should have a really good reason to want to reject something. “I only want to have exactly one version of a class” is, to me, a very bad reason to reject something, but people seem oddly attached to it for aesthetic reasons that are foreign to me.

 

[mamba]

nvm