D&D 5E Do you think we'll see revised core books in 2024? (And why I think we will)

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Not sure about how the other generations are defined, but the Baby Boomer generation is from 1945/46 to 1964/65 specifically because of the boom in baby births that happened between the end of WWII and the start of the Vietnam War. The generation after that was originally called the Baby Busters because of a big drop in the birth rate. But that one only covered the 10 years of the Vietnam War and ended up being combined with the 10 years of Gen X, to make a full 20-year generation.

 

[Blue]

Wish this was a multiple choice poll.

Editions are controlled by the suits. I don't see them passing by the 50th anniversary without putting out something, so the "no" is right off the table.

What do I think they'll put out? I've got three possibilities.

1. Special 50th editions of the core (and other?) books. Fancy covers, new art, that sort of thing. Maybe some new material, but no changes to existing. You can sit around a table with people with 1st printing (with the errata) and these and not have a single rules debate because something has changed.

2. A "soft partial edition notch up". I think we'll never see a distinct ".5" like 3.5 again - there was a lot of blowback from fans about that. I think we'd more likely see a soft change like Essentials was for 4e. So that you can make a character with the original books and it's 100% (truely 100%) could be made with the 50th Anniversary rules, but those 50th Anniversary rules can also do more - maybe Tasha's ability score changes are baked in, or there are additional subclasses, or they have more variant features for base classes like Tasha's, or whatever.

3. True new edition, 6e. This I think is the least likely with how 5e has been doing and all of the non TTRPG IP coming out that they wouldn't want to rock the boat - again this is a business decision made by suits. But I won't take it off the table. It would be a nice long run, and core book are the most evergreen in keeping up sales.

I'm not sure if I think #1 or #2 is more likely - I think #1 is the least they will do to take business advantage of the anniversary. And if they are also planning movie/games/software/etc around it then it might be enough. A big "Year of D&D" might be a thing.

But WotC, while wildly profitable for Hasbro, has had diversity and social media missteps and may want to push a new more inclusive vision, and that will push towards #2 or #3.

 

[Mercurius]

Wish this was a multiple choice poll.

Editions are controlled by the suits. I don't see them passing by the 50th anniversary without putting out something, so the "no" is right off the table.

What do I think they'll put out? I've got three possibilities.

1. Special 50th editions of the core (and other?) books. Fancy covers, new art, that sort of thing. Maybe some new material, but no changes to existing. You can sit around a table with people with 1st printing (with the errata) and these and not have a single rules debate because something has changed.

2. A "soft partial edition notch up". I think we'll never see a distinct ".5" like 3.5 again - there was a lot of blowback from fans about that. I think we'd more likely see a soft change like Essentials was for 4e. So that you can make a character with the original books and it's 100% (truely 100%) could be made with the 50th Anniversary rules, but those 50th Anniversary rules can also do more - maybe Tasha's ability score changes are baked in, or there are additional subclasses, or they have more variant features for base classes like Tasha's, or whatever.

3. True new edition, 6e. This I think is the least likely with how 5e has been doing and all of the non TTRPG IP coming out that they wouldn't want to rock the boat - again this is a business decision made by suits. But I won't take it off the table. It would be a nice long run, and core book are the most evergreen in keeping up sales.

I'm not sure if I think #1 or #2 is more likely - I think #1 is the least they will do to take business advantage of the anniversary. And if they are also planning movie/games/software/etc around it then it might be enough. A big "Year of D&D" might be a thing.

But WotC, while wildly profitable for Hasbro, has had diversity and social media missteps and may want to push a new more inclusive vision, and that will push towards #2 or #3.

Yes, I generally agree with this. Actually, the way you describe the three possibilities further solidifies my view of your 2nd option (which is basically the same as my "5.3 to 5.5" in the poll) because the 1st option won't get the sales that the 2nd would. They already have special edition covers and while some would buy fancy new books with "50th Anniversary" logos, a lot of folks would opt out unless there was actual content change.

So the 2nd option combines relatively low risk and relatively high reward. The first option is no risk but probably low reward. The 3rd option is high risk and not really any higher reward than the 2nd, so why bother? The game is popular as is, but could use a sprucing up due to ten years of play and publication.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or to put it more bluntly, an orc baby would be very different if raised within (the culture of) Lothlorien than in (the culture of) Mordor. They may still have certain "orcish" traits--say, greater strength and a (biologically-based) desire to eat meat, but their culture and attitudes would be very different.

Probably important to present this, instead, as, “An Orc would grow up quite different if raised in the culture of the Shadow Marches Orc clans of Eberron, vs in a place like Mordor.

Or that classic Eberron meme that shows a Valenar elf riding toward an Orc on foot, and says soemthing like “One of these is a bloodthirsty raider looking for glory in battle, and the other is an Orc.”

 

[Mercurius]

Probably important to present this, instead, as, “An Orc would grow up quite different if raised in the culture of the Shadow Marches Orc clans of Eberron, vs in a place like Mordor.

Or that classic Eberron meme that shows a Valenar elf riding toward an Orc on foot, and says soemthing like “One of these is a bloodthirsty raider looking for glory in battle, and the other is an Orc.”

I hear your point, but then I would just shift the comparison to Eberron as those are two different worlds with different assumptions as to what an orc is. I think the D&D game should account for that - different, world-specific, takes. Meaning, an Eberron orc is not the same thing as a Middle-earth orc. So while I think race and culture should be differentiated, I also would encourage different DMs to play with both concepts as they see fit.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not sure about how the other generations are defined, but the Baby Boomer generation is from 1945/46 to 1964/65 specifically because of the boom in baby births that happened between the end of WWII and the start of the Vietnam War. The generation after that was originally called the Baby Busters because of a big drop in the birth rate. But that one only covered the 10 years of the Vietnam War and ended up being combined with the 10 years of Gen X, to make a full 20-year generation.

They're all defined by demographics like that. People mapping on decades or life experiences are just trying to put structure onto what are, at the end of the day, population curves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I hear your point, but then I would just shift the comparison to Eberron as those are two different worlds with different assumptions as to what an orc is.

I’d probably go with multiple world examples to begin with, since D&D is game with infinite worlds. So,the section on Orcs would have an Orc Druid with Eberron Gatekeeper fluff, and an Orc Warchief with Many-Arrows style FR fluff, and an Orc Reaver with “traditional” evil Orc fluff, and a brief discussion about Gruumsh, and Orcish culture in different worlds.

I think the D&D game should account for that - different, world-specific, takes. Meaning, an Eberron orc is not the same thing as a Middle-earth orc. So while I think race and culture should be differentiated, I also would encourage different DMs to play with both concepts as they see fit.

Either way, it would be vital to avoid saying “orcs wouldn’t be evil if they were raised by elves.”

 

[Umbran]

Demographers can see the waves pretty clearly. Grouping them by decades is a pretty bad proxy for it.

The usual definition I know of is more like:

 

[PsyzhranV2]

If we use Strauss & Howe, the two folks that popularized generational theory, we get:

Silent Gen (b. 1925-42) - turning 79-96 this year.
Boomers (b. 1943-60) - 61-78.
Gen X (b. 1961-81) - 40-60.
Millenials (b. 1982-2004): 17-39.
Homeland/Z (b. 2005-?): 16 and under.

That's not the model I'm familiar with. The one I see more often goes like:
Silents: 1928-1945
Boomers: 1946-1964
Gen X: 1965-1980
Millenials: 1981-1996
Gen Z: 1997-2012
Gen Alpha: 2013 onward

Can't tell you what the exact sources for those year ranges is, but that's the model I personally see the most.

EDIT: I see that Umbran beat me to it

EDIT 2: to satisfy my personal curiousity, the age ranges corresponding to those year ranges would be:
Gen Alpha: 8 and under
Gen Z: 9-24
Millenials: 25-40
Gen X: 41-56
Boomers: 57-75
Silents: 75-93

So a typical generation under this model lasts between 15-18 years.

 

[Mercurius]

I’d probably go with multiple world examples to begin with, since D&D is game with infinite worlds. So,the section on Orcs would have an Orc Druid with Eberron Gatekeeper fluff, and an Orc Warchief with Many-Arrows style FR fluff, and an Orc Reaver with “traditional” evil Orc fluff, and a brief discussion about Gruumsh, and Orcish culture in different worlds.

Either way, it would be vital to avoid saying “orcs wouldn’t be evil if they were raised by elves.”

I wasn't suggesting that, I was just using it as an example of the difference between race and culture. I mean, it is the same as the "wolf boy" thing. We are, to a large extent, products of our environment, so the point being that an orc would be very different if raised in Lothlorien rather than Mordor. Cuddled, cared for, and drinking birch wine .

But your concern brings up another aspect of this, which is that I think WotC should clarify that fantasy races and ideas aren't meant to be analogues of anything in the real world. I assume that your concern is that it might imply that people in our world of a certain race would be more "civilized" if raised in another. I'd rather WotC clarify that fantasy is fantasy, especially when it comes to non-human creatures and things with no direct correlation in the real world. Otherwise we go down this long and unending road, with no end in sight...and that is a road that we don't want to go ever on!