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

[Jer]

except how do you gradually change from AC 10 through -10 and Thac0 to bonus to hit and ascending AC?

You release a supplement showing how to do ascending AC as an optional rule and then in the next revision it becomes the actual rule.

how do you gradually change from 6 different charts to 1 unified formula for stats?

You release a supplement showing how to consolidate the stat charts into a single chart as an optional rule, and then in the next revision it becomes the actual rule.

how do you gradually change from non weapon prof and % skills to a skill system like we have now?

Release the supplement, optional rule, next revision it's the standard rule.

In fact that's a good example because non weapon proficiencies entered the game via a supplement in 1e and then become an official rule in the 2e PHB. That's the process I'm talking about.

sooner or later the editions HAVE to make major changes

Sure - but you can seed the ground beforehand so that when you do make the major changes everyone knows they're coming and many folks have already been using them. Tasha's and MoM are both really good examples of this kind of approach and are part of the evidence of why I think that Wizards is planning on taking this approach.

Also again - D&D was in a very different spot when Wizards released 3e than they are with 5e. 3e came after TSR has basically been basically intentionally ignoring any game design that didn't come from within TSR itself. 3e was the "catch up" edition where D&D was brought up to date with where RPGs basically were in the 90s. 5e isn't suffering from being 2 decades behind in game design the way that D&D was when 3e game out.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because buying new copies of old books that have edits and small changes made to them isn't a problem?

You might as well ask why I would buy a new pair of sneakers when my old pair still fits? It's because I'd like a new pair of sneakers.

I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...

Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except...sometimes you just can't get it. And sometimes it does in fact take a bit of cleverness, using cunning action and movement.

And god forbid there's "theater" in a roleplaying game. /shudder

EDIT: I get it that "real" decisions are more desirable, and I agree. But that makes it sound like, "If I can't have exactly what I want I don't want anything at all!" Which is an...interesting...position.

you can just aim now

 

[Sacrosanct]

except how do you gradually change from AC 10 through -10 and Thac0 to bonus to hit and ascending AC?

OSR games already do this. They have the older way of doing it, and then the ascending way in (). Admittedly other areas are more problematic (like saving throws), but some things are pretty simple.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...

Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...

Considering how many “DMs” have clearly never bothered cracking open the DMG and how many “players” don’t understand the basic mechanics of the game, maybe we should assume far more people are collectors rather than actually gaming with these books.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...

Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...

Nor should we. But why would that impact what people choose to produce, and what others choose to buy?

If WotC finds they have a reason to edit, change and print a new set of 3 core books... and there are people out there who are happy to buy new core rule books... why wouldn't we expect that exchange of goods for money to take place?

And if there are others who choose not to buy... that's fine too. Not every book is going to be bought by every person.

 

[darjr]

Supplements that change core rules go back to the very beginning of D&D. D6 damage for every weapon was core before a supplemental book changed it.

A supplement changed out an entire combat section.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Cool. So answered your own question.

no becuse again... we upgrade when we buy new (or hope to then turn back) we don't buy new the same system (You could argue we did with 3.5 but my current group all agree we should have just quite D&D then until 4e came out)

 

[dave2008]

I wonder if they will just tell people straight out what 2024 is going to look like, sooner rather than later. If this is a minor revision -- something more along the lines of the black border 2E reprint -- it would be good to know that going ahead. hether the ranger gets another crappy redesign, or whether gnomes finally get excised from the multiverse.

I feel like they have told it us what it is going to be, but people still don't believe them. I guess they can be more explicit, but it is still 2 years out. I assume they want some wiggle room at this point.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would add "or half edition that both sides will have issues with" as a 3rd option

Well, quick zinger aside, no not really.

Either it is perceived as compatible or it is not.

Your "half edition" shares with "completely new edition" what probably is a fatal flaw - dividing up the customer base in two camps.

The only way to prevent that is to do more of a 5.1 edition regardless what it is named.

I would be very surprised if WotC doesn't err on the side of caution, basically just compiling what now exists in various supplements in a new PHB.

I would be very surprised if WotC did something akin to 3.5, an edition that claimed to be compatible with 3.0 but really isn't, thanks to changing a zillion little things. Trying to play in a 3.5 group with the 3.0 books was hopeless, and that's what causes customer bases to split.

While such a strategy certainly could be successful I highly doubt WotC is inclined to give it a go now.