D&D (2024) The future of edition changes and revisions

[teitan]

I'm going to go on record saying that I fear 5e will be very akin to the Nintendo Wii in that it's massively popular but a large amount of the consumers aren't at all interested in chasing that dragon a second time.

The Wii was one of the most successful consoles of all time in getting new players in on the experience of videogames. The Wii U was a massive flop giving everyone "slightly nicer more of the same".

The WiiU flopped because it was not marketed properly and people thought it was a peripheral to the Wii. It was a pretty good little system. I still have mine hooked up!

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah but BX and BECMI/RC aren’t really compatible. They made changes to the classes to stretch them to 36 levels so BX characters, as flimsy as they can be, still outclass BECMI and RC characters up to a certain level. Fighters really are the only class untouched between those variations.

Fair enough, I only know Basic by reputation and the modules.

Still seems to be a more viable comparison for the 5E revision than most of the AD&D line changes, even 3.0>3.5.

And the modules and such remained evergreen across Basic's lifespan.

Maybe:

B/X : BECMI

as

3E : 3.5

Whereas:

BECMI : RC

as

5E : "2024 D&D"

 

[Parmandur]

The WiiU flopped because it was not marketed properly and people thought it was a peripheral to the Wii. It was a pretty good little system. I still have mine hooked up!

Thst is because you are a scholar and gentleperson, clearly.

 

[Hussar]

Faerie has been the original of a huge number of supernatural beings across many cultures around the world for thousands of years. D&D has (or rather had) it's own way of categorizing existing monsters. Why make a change like this to a major monster grouping that's been portrayed pretty consistently for nearly 50 years?

D&D has never been consistent in categorization. Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type". It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type. SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D has never been consistent in categorization. Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type". It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type. SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.

I'm talking about descriptions here, not game mechanic-driven categories.

 

[JEB]

D&D has never been consistent in categorization. Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type". It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type. SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.

Fun fact: BECMI actually did creature types first, in the Creature Catalogue (purely descriptive), and again in the Rules Cyclopedia (with actual mechanics attached to some). Only learned this recently myself.

 

[Hussar]

I'm talking about descriptions here, not game mechanic-driven categories.

But even that is basically unrecognizable over time. Kobolds aren’t little dog people. Gnolls aren’t giants anymore. Orcs aren’t a kind of goblin. Halflings today wouldn’t even register as halflings in 1980. Dragons have been massively reworked many times.

Hell we’ve got a pretty popular column on en world detailing the changes to creatures over time.

On and on. I’m completely baffled by claims that there was some sort of platonic ideal past that we’ve departed from. Every single element of DnD has changed multiple times over the years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But even that is basically unrecognizable over time. Kobolds aren’t little dog people. Gnolls aren’t giants anymore. Orcs aren’t a kind of goblin. Halflings today wouldn’t even register as halflings in 1980. Dragons have been massively reworked many times.

Hell we’ve got a pretty popular column on en world detailing the changes to creatures over time.

On and on. I’m completely baffled by claims that there was some sort of platonic ideal past that we’ve departed from. Every single element of DnD has changed multiple times over the years.

Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change? It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change? It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.

Somw always have complained when the same thing happened in the past. Sometimes people just don't like something changing. But D&D is very fluid historically. This is small potatoes.

 

[Echohawk]

Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change? It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.

As the saying goes, WotC could give away wads of cash, and someone would complain about how it was folded.

It is perfectly valid for someone not to like the changes to monster in Monsters of the Multiverse, but basing that opinion on a mistaken belief that monsters have ever been handled with any level of consistency in D&D's past doesn't make a lot of sense.