D&D (2024) Hypothetical Direction Shift For 1D&D/6E

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Not really the spirit of the thread.

What concrete design directions could they employ to create a distinct new edition that would still feel like D&D?
It's kind of a chained question pair though. "what does that look like" can't be answered without answering or assuming the design goals @Benjamin Olson brought up in #4 because he's right about it seeming random so far & the lack of focus design by committee or worse. That lack of focus is how we get 5e style design for nobody & everybody with the gm left holding the bag to make it work when the system itself fails to be about doing anything well out of fear that somebody might not like that thing.

Personally I kinda hope that 6e is meaningfully different from 5e & felt that way long before the whole OGL debacle. I'm already trying to move away from 5e & eagerly awaiting options on the near horizon before deciding what to do about my current holding pattern. Bare minimum I'll probably give it a glance but what I do from there depends on the goals they aim for.

Different for the sake of being different is just exhausting if I need to convince my players that 6e is designed for xyz goals in order to begin making a case fir why we need a given houserule for the campaign. I've had that for the last several years & not interested in a rehash of that brick wall.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Clint_L

Legend
I think they ar going back to the drawing board and compatibility is out the window. They’ve shown they really really want their IP, so we’ll see a system that is more unique than we’ve seen in the play test I don’t know what exactly that looks like. Major changes in alignment, race (species) and TT mechanics that are going to be rooted from VTT mechanics. VTT is their focus, I believe, so they will design mechanics that a computer can take advantage of.
I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.
Yeah, for the record I don't think it is happening, I'm just curious what folks might think it looks like.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.
They did the same thing with 3e when they moved to 4e. 3e brought back tons of fans and growth from 2e, just 5e did.

I see your point, but I also wouldn’t put any bad decision past them at this point
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
I think we'll see a new STL: the OGL was originally meant to work eith a trademark license, which importantly would actually accomplish what WotC was Ted to do with control over their brand. Ot would need to offer more than the d20 STL did to encourage uptake, but that is certainly possible.

I really don't think that there will be a significant change in the rules, as in I don't see anything they could do that would break compatibility without losing money, and I think the ddesign team has the data to back that up at this point.

What we may see is more folding of Magic IP, which WotC has much stronger control over, into D&D. Orcs are not copyrightable or trademarkable, but Eldrazi or Phyrexians are.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
This thread isn't really the place to debate what WotC is going to do. It hypothetically presupposes they will make a design shift.
 





Remove ads

Top