D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[mamba]

There seems to be little reason for the 2014:2024 "compatibility" concerns aside from the fact that wotc wants to continue selling books for the next several months. Are there any reasonable reasons to explain or justify it that doesn't amount to making it harder for the gm to shut down overpowered and broken combos built across editions?

After pages and pages across multiple threads there seems to be a central core of overpowered combos are easier to make if "compatibility" makes it easier to overrule the gm.

I am not sure you could be more wrong if you tried. And just below a post where I explained that the reason for compatibility has nothing to do with avoiding a drop in 2014 book sales, that is the icing on the cake

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do you have an official statement declaring that organized play won't allow 5e material? I mean, they will obviously allow anything not in the PHB, that's just blatantly obvious. But do you have a press release that they will demand no one use 2014 PHB material in organized play? Or is this just your "obviously this is what is going to happen because I am correct" argument?

It's how they've done everything before. You get the PHB and one supplement. Why would they allow both Original 5e Do Not Steal Only Copy With Attribution and Eustace Clarence 5e, when (demonstrably) almost all of the backgrounds from the former don't work anymore? A complicated and unnecessary change in a policy they've maintained for ages sounds like it requires more evidence than "doing exactly what they've done before, just with the newest books."

I already demonstrated this is not true the vast majority of the subclasses. Only three classes will have any difficulty at all. And only two of them will need minor guidance and at most a page of text to deal with.

And I simply disagree with your analysis. Hence why I chose not to respond. Nothing productive is left to be said.

 

[mamba]

The pretense is that nothing whatsoever is changing, carry on citizen, nothing to see here. That they can reap all the benefits of publishing a genuine replacement, something that overwrites the old, while at the same time never telling people that's what they're doing, because actually saying it would upset people.

I disagree with the pretense bit, but I have no idea what your issue with the rest is. Sounds like a great solution to the problem of edition change (when phrased a little less condescending towards people).

 

[mamba]

This is not just about adventures (unless you're WotC, apparently).

I asked earlier if there was a reason they're doing it this way that doesn't revolve around making more money. So far, the answer still appears to be "no".

‘No’ is a perfectly reasonable answer. I am not sure what your objection to this approach is, other than ‘I do not like the changes and because of that would want them confined to a different edition’, which simply does not cut it as a reason.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The pretense is that nothing whatsoever is changing, carry on citizen, nothing to see here. That they can reap all the benefits of publishing a genuine replacement, something that overwrites the old, while at the same time never telling people that's what they're doing, because actually saying it would upset people.

This is pretty gross.

People who disagree with you aren’t just “pliant and unquestioning”.

Being cynical is one (kinda annoying) thing, but letting your cynicism lead to misanthropic dismissal of anyone who doesn’t see things as cynically as you is pretty garbage behavior.

 

[Parmandur]

This is pretty gross.

People who disagree with you aren’t just “pliant and unquestioning”.

Being cynical is one (kinda annoying) thing, but letting your cynicism lead to misanthropic dismissal of anyone who doesn’t see things as cynically as you is pretty garbage behavior.

I think the last two modifiers that could be applied to anyone posting on this forum would be "pliant" or "unquestioning."

 

[Azzy]

Again: Why is the usage based on number of games printed, rather than on something like market share? Demonstrably, the WotC usage is extraordinarily common, and likely more widely used by the average TTRPGer, because the average TTRPGer got started with D&D (and, lamentably, rarely looks anywhere else.)

The WotC usage is only common to them, Paizo and the D&D/PF fanbase. However, it's the RPG publishers that title their content editions, not the fanbase nor the shareholders.

Given that because WotC has poisoned the well with editions that are complete rewrites of the system, it's no wonder that they are not calling this a new edition (because it's not a total rewrite of the system).

 

[Azzy]

This is not just about adventures (unless you're WotC, apparently).

I asked earlier if there was a reason they're doing it this way that doesn't revolve around making more money. So far, the answer still appears to be "no".

No, I relied earlier:

Sure. It allows people that want to DM a particular adventure to do so with minimal to no conversion regardless of whether they use the '14 or the '24 core rules. So, it's beneficial to the buyer (regardless of whether they buy into the revised edition) as well as the seller.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No. In most games, it just means fairly minimal changes. D&D and PF are not representative of the larger RPG industry.

And in some games it means major changes.

You're right that D&D is not representative, but in they way of being one of the few games that gets significant updates without a new edition label.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is pretty gross.

People who disagree with you aren’t just “pliant and unquestioning”.

Being cynical is one (kinda annoying) thing, but letting your cynicism lead to misanthropic dismissal of anyone who doesn’t see things as cynically as you is pretty garbage behavior.

I'm not saying they are.

I'm saying I believe WotC is hoping people will be. Which you can see from the post in question (emphasis added):

Which, to me, is honestly the worst option (other than sticking with "One D&D," because of how openly corp-speak-y that is.) Because both things--5e (YEAR) and "One D&D"--are holding up what seems, to me, like a blatantly false pretense on the hope that customers are sufficiently pliant and unquestioning to never actually think about said pretense.

There's a big difference between the two things. Edit: And if you've thought about it and genuinely don't believe there's a pretense there, you literally cannot possibly be someone I'm talking about. Because you've thought about it!

And yes, it is pessimistic regarding the actions of a major corporation. Given WotC's moves over the past year, I don't think being pessimistic about a corporation's motives is even remotely unjustified. In fact, I think it's pretty damn warranted.