D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[tetrasodium]

And, Tetra, my colleague, after reading this sentence five times, I am not optimistic about my ability to decipher it.

I have been reading your posts for pages in this thread and can tell that, likely, English is not your first language, so my hat(matter) is off to you for participating in the forum when you have to translate on the fly...that is more than I could do.

However, when you are criticizing a publisher for including "shredded remnants" of an earlier draft in their work and for failing to publish "well written versions" of their ideas, please proof read and revise your own posts before you click "Post reply" so that people can at least follow what you are saying and, thereby, respond to your ideas in the manner that you deserve.

I do not say this out of a need to be some kind of language police...I have not said anything until now, for example. Rather, it has gotten to the point where I find this sentence incomprehensible and I value you and what you have to say and, so, want to comprehend it.

Cheers!

wotc has shown little interest in doing more than giving empty lip service to the idea that anything in 5e might need revision or reworking. They recognize that it is a large enough customer segment to give hope to & that much is obvious by how much effort they spend playing up the very minor mechanics in books like tcoe & ravenloft as if they are major game changing reworks rather than mere additions. Actually doing anything beyond lip service is a step wotc has shown no indication of considering at this point & the vrgtr fear/stress mechanics don't change that. Wotc needs to accept that problems exist in the core of 5e before they can start changing things to correct the deliberate attempts at coding the rules against certain styles of play present in the core mechanics.

 

[Spudster]

wotc has shown little interest in doing more than giving empty lip service to the idea that anything in 5e might need revision or reworking. They recognize that it is a large enough customer segment to give hope to & that much is obvious by how much effort they spend playing up the very minor mechanics in books like tcoe & ravenloft as if they are major game changing reworks rather than mere additions. Actually doing anything beyond lip service is a step wotc has shown no indication of considering at this point & the vrgtr fear/stress mechanics don't change that. Wotc needs to accept that problems exist in the core of 5e before they can start changing things to correct the deliberate attempts at coding the rules against certain styles of play present in the core mechanics.

That all seems to be contraindicated by the simple fact that millions of people play the game and it's been seeing year on year growth for several years now.

May not be the game for you but it seems to work for most.

 

[Hatmatter]

wotc has shown little interest in doing more than giving empty lip service to the idea that anything in 5e might need revision or reworking. They recognize that it is a large enough customer segment to give hope to & that much is obvious by how much effort they spend playing up the very minor mechanics in books like tcoe & ravenloft as if they are major game changing reworks rather than mere additions. Actually doing anything beyond lip service is a step wotc has shown no indication of considering at this point & the vrgtr fear/stress mechanics don't change that. Wotc needs to accept that problems exist in the core of 5e before they can start changing things to correct the deliberate attempts at coding the rules against certain styles of play present in the core mechanics.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

Again, as I and Marandahir (and likely others) have said earlier in this thread, I think Wizards has been clear that they are not evaluating the game based on these terms, but rather use a story-based method. Personally, I think expressions like "giving empty lip service" and "problems exists in the core of 5e" are very exaggerated, but I think I have made my position clear in this thread and, really, just wanted to jump back on this thread to thank you for making a new posting to make your point clearer. Cheers!

 

[Reynard]

wotc has shown little interest in doing more than giving empty lip service to the idea that anything in 5e might need revision or reworking. They recognize that it is a large enough customer segment to give hope to & that much is obvious by how much effort they spend playing up the very minor mechanics in books like tcoe & ravenloft as if they are major game changing reworks rather than mere additions. Actually doing anything beyond lip service is a step wotc has shown no indication of considering at this point & the vrgtr fear/stress mechanics don't change that. Wotc needs to accept that problems exist in the core of 5e before they can start changing things to correct the deliberate attempts at coding the rules against certain styles of play present in the core mechanics.

I think you are right -- at least insofar in that WotC probably has a "if it ain't broke..." attitude.

What I am curious about is why you would expect them to, and why you would not just move to a game that does the things you want? There are so many options out there, even in the 5e-ish design space.

 

[ph0rk]

That all seems to be contraindicated by the simple fact that millions of people play the game and it's been seeing year on year growth for several years now.

May not be the game for you but it seems to work for most.

The thing about an ad populum argument is that it is naive and misses the fact that, first and foremost, D&D is a business and the books are product.

It isn't a question of if 5e will reach the point where sales of core books dips enough for WotC to release a new edition, it is when.

 

[Parmandur]

The thing about an ad populum argument is that it is naive and misses the fact that, first and foremost, D&D is a business and the books are product.

It isn't a question of if 5e will reach the point where sales of core books dips enough for WotC to release a new edition, it is when.

The better analogy for future edition changes isn't prior D&D editions, but board games such as Monopoly or Settlers of Catan. They do release new editions, but new editions are not the commercial novelty that drives sales, themed boxes are. I have an Ancient Egypt Catan and Legend of Zelda Monopoly, for instance.

 

[Spudster]

The thing about an ad populum argument is that it is naive and misses the fact that, first and foremost, D&D is a business and the books are product.

It isn't a question of if 5e will reach the point where sales of core books dips enough for WotC to release a new edition, it is when.

Seems obvious to me that selling something that is popular is more profitable than selling something that is not. We're not talking moral or philosophical good here, what's right or wrong. We're talking about a commercial product. If anybody at wizards knows if or when there will be another edition they are not talking. Nobody else has a clue.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm actually struggling to think of any RPGs better than 4E D&D for tactical combat. There's a mecha RPG (I forget the name, it's recent) which is pretty much as good as 4E. I can't think of any others better than those two. Games like HERO/Champions and some others are more tactical than 5E, for sure, so I guess if the bar is 5E we have more options.

Lancer. It's a bit of a mix between 4e D&D and Shadow of the Demon Lord but obviously with a sci-fi mecha focus.

 

[Reynard]

The better analogy for future edition changes isn't prior D&D editions, but board games such as Monopoly or Settlers of Catan. They do release new editions, but new editions are not the commercial novelty that drives sales, themed boxes are. I have an Ancient Egypt Catan and Legend of Zelda Monopoly, for instance.

The way D&D has tried to completely reinvent itself between editions is rather strange, really. AD&D 2E was touted as being compatible but it was very different in tone and intent and design in many place. 3E was a complete reinvention, as was 4E and then 5E tried to find a design that felt classic but was still mostly new.

 

[Undrave]

But massive growth in card games doesn't seem to have much to do with D&D, I'd suggest - just look at the utterly demented stuff going down with the Pokemon TCG right now - it's selling so insanely that Target and Gamestop stopped carrying it because it was scaring other customers and causing the staff to be threatened with violence!

If MtG was growing faster and bigger than other stuff, you might be able to at least assert the possibility of a causal relationship, but AFAICT MtG is expanding a lot, lot slower than stuff like Pokemon (I forget what the other stuff selling ridiculously is - but basically all these card things seem to have gone insane since the pandemic).

What you're seeing with Pokémon isn't a real 'growth' so much as a speculator bubble. Some popular Youtube bought vintage boxes of Pokémon, found some cards worth a fortune and every idiot out there think they can make money buying cardboard designed for playground children and profit... None of them realize that old cards get valuable because of rarity, and that rarity is born from the fact nobody cared to preserve their cards for 20 years! Most cards they're buying today won't be worth enough to counter the cost of buying all those packs because EVERYBODY will have them! Even in twenty years there will be a glut of them on the market. It's a ridiculous position honestly. And even if a card is valuable today because of its impact on the competitive scene... Pokémon uses a SET ROTATION format, meaning those cards will be useless when the next rotation come... Yu-gi-oh! is also seeing this kind of speculation affecting it (as did all the Sports card). This is the same kind of bubble seen in comics in the 90s and with Star Wars prequel toys.

MTG, on the other hand is seeing a proper 'growth' (a lot of it has to do with its online arena I'd wager and the fact that there is a few casual friendly format like Commader).