D&D (2024) Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.

[dave2008]

Why? I really don't get why new art is so important that some people will buy expensive products they already own so they can look at new pictures.

If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. Nothing wrong with that, people are just different. I am an amateur artist and a professional designer (architect) so maybe that plays into it. I am a visual person and am more inspired by visual art than written art (though both inspire me more than movies generally do).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.

not just what we want now... but that module would have us still useing Thac0,

 

[darjr]

Why? I really don't get why new art is so important that some people will buy expensive products they already own so they can look at new pictures.

Some people eschew the book content altogether and just buy art! Wacky I know!

Edit:: to be clear I meant art like art books or sculpture or drawings, not a book of rules just for art. Thiugh im shure there are some, it’s not what I meant.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Uhhh….that’s not what I said.

I said it’s more fun. Meaning, I’d rather have to make decisions and use my abilities to get sneak attack than just attack any target from anywhere and get it automatically. Even if it’s not “hard”.

Funny how people complain that the fighter is just “I attack” but the rogue requires even the tiniest bit more interactivity and the reaction is “why can’t it be automatic?”

except if it is so easy to just get it most to all turns what are you really working for?

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Including Tasha's free classes boosts" and "being 5e backward compatible" are... not compatible. Unless those free boosts are in the DMG under a paragraph labelled as optional.

Just to clarify this is not what is normally meant by not being backwards compatible.

Changes are normally considered backwards compatible when there are no knock-on changes that mean that you need to clarify which ruleset you are using. So, for example 3.0 -> 3.5 was not backwards compatible change because they did things like change the shape of a horse from 5ft by 10ft to a 10ft square (leaving nothing rectangular in the game) and tweaked the skill list, removing skills such as Animal Empathy, Innuendo, and Read Lips that (theoretically) apply to every character. Meanwhile if just the 3.0 bard and ranger had been replaced with the 3.5 versions that would have been entirely backwards compatible as you could play a 3.5 bard alongside a 3.0 wizard and no one would care. It would also be considered backwards compatible if spells were erratad (as Haste was) as long as fundamental rules were unchanged.

 

[dave2008]

Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.

And there are some of us who would like changes that will never happen (like me), but it is not big deal if can do them myself easily.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And?

Seems to me that a lot of current players won't care if the books have a small amount of changes, because any amount of new material is fine to spend their cash on and they'll buy them. It's $200 and we have 2 years to save our cash to buy them. For some of us, putting $8 a month in our sock drawer for when the times comes is not that much of an issue.

um... why would you put ANY money into something that you can just keep useing the old one? and how many people do you think would rather rebuy the core 3 books then buy new add on books?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. Nothing wrong with that, people are just different. I am an amateur artist and a professional designer (architect) so maybe that plays into it. I am a visual person and am more inspired by visual art than written art (though both inspire me more than movies generally do).

would not a art book for D&D (or any adventure or new book with new content AND art) do the same but without rebuying things?

 

[dave2008]

except if it is so easy to just get it most to all turns what are you really working for?

I get what @Bill Zebub is saying, but I don't think I can explain it better. I think you just need to accept that people are different and we enjoy different things.

 

[overgeeked]

Do you think ANY edition has improved on previous ones?

Not many, but yes. 4E was an improvement on 3X in just about every way imaginable. Layout & design, art, rules, balance, monsters, encounter design, teaching people how to run and play, etc. 5E was an improvement on 4E in a few places, namely playability, though massive steps back in many ways, like monsters, encounter design, balance, rules, etc.

yes an evergreen game sounds good in theory, but think how stagnant that is... no growth no change?

No growth and change? The core will remain and likely be slightly altered over time, but WotC will always put out new splat books. New spells, new feats, new subclasses, new classes (maybe), new modules, new settings, etc. There will always be growth and change.