D&D (2024) Is the 5E player base going to split?

[TwoSix]

Sure, but it is WotC problem: there doesn't seem to be much of a problem for them, though, as the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working.

I agree that the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working, but we're all treating 2024 as a new revision as a given. So there must be something to it, right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was putting together a very similar post when I got ninja'ed here. But there are plenty of points of continuity that will indicate it's a flavor of D&D and not Rifts, Vampire, or Deadlands. That's pretty much a hyperbolic non-starter. Someone might confuse Pathfinder or another OGL-based clone but then the story is pretty easy to explain.

Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments. (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hell, I don't treat my clothes as fashion, but the market for non-utility clothes is obviously extensive. Just like with other luxury items, plenty of people buy new gaming material for the sake of having new stuff.

All I can safely discuss is my own opinion, of course.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree that the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working, but we're all treating 2024 as a new revision as a given. So there must be something to it, right?

For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.

 

[TwoSix]

All I can safely discuss is my own opinion, of course.

Well, I think it's pretty safe to make observations on various market trends and speculation on the future.

 

[TwoSix]

For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.

Sure. My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks. There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been. It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure. My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks. There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been. It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.

there used to be a show on History called "man machine moment" and it was basically a theory that you needed all three of: the person with the idea, the technology to do it well, and the right timing for inventions to take off... I know in an episode of it or a related show someone showed when the first (mechanical) computers were made and that there were people who had a rudimentary knowledge of magnetism, and others with rudimentary know of electricity... basically all you need to make a pretty modern computer. IF it had all come together than, and advanced as it did post WW2 Shakespeare would have been writing on laptops or tablets more advanced than any of us have.

I said all that to say that we had a great growth... but it wasn't JUST the edition, there are alot of other factors. It might keep growing until D&D is as popular as video games. Or it might end at anytime. Without a high level diviner we just don't know

 

[Reynard]

Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments. (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')

You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.

okay, maybe I just have very different experiences with players calling out the things as 'sooooo different' even here on enworld even WITH the time and slow adjustments

 

[Oofta]

they only feel progression if you take each step in the path... skipping 2e 2e player options (more of a leap but) 3e and 3.5 then 5e seems VERY off.

that is every RPG ever... so Rifts, Deadlands, and Vampire would all be recognized as D&D...

When I switched editions from 2E to 3E it didn't feel like a different game. I was just happy they changed the math to get rid of THAC0 and rolling high for saving throws. At the time discussed how I wished they had done those changes back in 2E. I don't see that much difference between 3E and 5E in the play loop or actual execution.

Skipping 4E, I've always been able to transfer over PCs from one edition to the next pretty easily. The details of the implementation changes a bit but the resulting character is much the same. I can't go back in time of course so it all just comes down to opinion. In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D.