D&D 5E Origin New Edition Panel

[Mercurius]

Well it makes me think that the core rules will be in Basic D&D, an organic document and rules set, and then every few years they can print a revised version of the core three that take into account any rules changes. This avoids a completely new edition - at least for a long time - but also gives them flexibility and an excuse to make a bunch of dough on reprinting the core three. People will still be upset, but not as much because there will always be free rules online.

Best of both worlds, really. People who don't want to spend money on new books can rest easy because they can access changes online (or simply run from the original core three), while those who want new shiny books with updated books get that too, and of course WotC gets to reboot the core three every few years without calling it a new edition.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I want to focus on a really, REALLY important quote

"#dnd will be more of a living game and a conversation rather than Wizards dictating what the game should be."

I think the change away from "rules come first, adjucate corner cases second" to "adjucate first, rules come second" is one that will really change a lot about how people play.

Agreed, I hope they keep hitting the 'You own your game' mantra over and over until everyone gets it.

When you're playing the game and you hit a 'I don't like that' moment, change it. Don't hit the boards in an attempt to get the almighty Wizards to change it for everyone.

 

[Agamon]

Hmmm. Well, while I always giggle at people that complain that their older edition is obsoleted by newer ones. The fact is it's not. But that's not really the case with slightly updated editions. Sure, you can ignore them and keep playing the original, as long as you know you're playing an admitted wonky version of the game that will no longer comply with any digital tools being offered.

I wasn't too worried about a pdf option before. Now I think that's the route I'd rather go.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Hmmm. Does this infer constant rules updates? I hope not, that doesn't work well with physical books.

Best case scenario: gives WotC an idea as to what people want to see in future adventures/supplements. Worst case scenario: makes it likely that a 5.5 or 6th edition will be out very quickly.

Which is a really great reason to move beyond physical books.

If you ever want to see an end to the edition treadmill, this is the only way that happens.

I disagree. The physical book (or PDF, or whatever) gives a common starting point for the game. Altering the core on a regular basis leads to headache scenarios where everybody has a different set of rules because the DM upgraded to Player's Handbook 1.3 and everybody else is still at 1.1.

EDIT: I also don't think the edition treadmill is really a bad thing. The game should be improved now and then. The problem is when the changes come out really quickly (3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4.0 in 2008, Essentials in 2010, 5.0 in 2014) or when each edition is essentially an entirely different game. I'd rather see D&D go back to being a game that doesn't have to be reinvented from the ground up every five years.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd be happy with errata on the same scale as Magic rules updates: 5 or so changes every year or so.

 

[TheBlueKnight]

Mike wrote a sidebar on THAC0 for the DMG!
Why ohh why! and isn't the fact AC is not capped going to be an issue, I mean you can get a huge negative AC value if you go the THAC0 route.

Perhaps the sidebar on THAC0 is for converting 2E content to 5E?

 

[Boarstorm]

Anyone have any ideas what an "aspect-like skill system" is?

 

[Dannager]

I disagree. The physical book (or PDF, or whatever) gives a common starting point for the game. Altering the core on a regular basis leads to headache scenarios where everybody has a different set of rules because the DM upgraded to Player's Handbook 1.3 and everybody else is still at 1.1.

Why would everyone else be at 1.1? The system should push updates automatically.

Besides, that sure as hell isn't any more complex than the idea of house rules, which we've been dealing with fine for decades now.

EDIT: I also don't think the edition treadmill is really a bad thing. The game should be improved now and then. The problem is when the changes come out really quickly (3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4.0 in 2008, Essentials in 2010, 5.0 in 2014) or when each edition is essentially an entirely different game. I'd rather see D&D go back to being a game that doesn't have to be reinvented from the ground up every five years.

Then why not get on board with the living game idea? The game gets improvements when it needs them - big or small - but never too fast or too large to manage, changes can be broadcast well in advance, and you structure the game line as a service rather than a set of products.

Tabletop games are really the only sphere of gaming that is stubbornly resisting this model, and yet we have countless people who complain whenever the edition cycle repeats itself.

 

[Agamon]

Anyone have any ideas what an "aspect-like skill system" is?

FATE reference. Skills are based on descriptives about your PC. "Beer-chugging blacksmith" as a simple example would be good at making and identifying ironworks and dealing with alcohol-related activities and perhaps have contacts that deal with blacksmiths and tavern patrons.

"Haunted by spirits" might know things about either undead or faerie creatures, might be more perceptive because they're jumpy and might come up with ancient knowledge from the whispers they hear.

 

[doctorhook]

The problem is when the changes come out really quickly (3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4.0 in 2008, Essentials in 2010, 5.0 in 2014) or when each edition is essentially an entirely different game. I'd rather see D&D go back to being a game that doesn't have to be reinvented from the ground up every five years.

(Nitpick: 4E Essentials wasn't a revision, it was just a repackaging of 4E with new, "classic-style" builds for existing classes. Don't forget that 2E AD&D only came out it 1989, and was already revised by 1995.)