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

[CleverNickName]

The fact that those "optional" rules immediately became the law of the land moving forward makes that claim by WotC suspicious.

If they put those "optional" rules in the Player's Handbook, yes. For better or worse, all of those so-called Optional Rules that get printed in the PHB (feats, multiclassing, variant humans, etc.) become 'the law of the land' and all players will assume that they are available for use in all campaign settings. It creates a lot of work for DMs who do not wish to employ those rules in their games. (Ask me how I know!)

Meanwhile, all other optional rules (Spell Points, Renown, Mixing Potions, etc.) that were printed in the Dungeon Master's Guide are not assumed to be ever-present and available...they languish unnoticed in the DMG, barely read by anyone. Players don't build their sorcerers with the Spell Point variant without checking with their Dungeon Master first, and they don't automatically start rolling on the Spell Mishap table when they botch a spell scroll.

All that to say: if a rule is to be truly optional for all games, it cannot be printed in the Player's Handbook. Otherwise, it's not really an optional rule.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

yup... my number 1 fear right there... just enough change to get people mad not enough change so it makes others mad... basicly standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways.

The point of backwards compatibility is no one needs to change right away. As with the Tasha's rules, you can have characters made with them, and characters made with the old rules in the same game, and nothing breaks.

need a reason to buy a new book...

They don't need to sell every new book to every current player. That isn't WotC's business model. New players will buy the new books, old players can continue to use their old books until they wear out.

 

[darjr]

Yea, I do intend to keep around the old PHBs even if I set them back in preference to the newer ones.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They don't need to sell every new book to every current player. That isn't WotC's business model. New players will buy the new books, old players can continue to use their old books until they wear out.

nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)

my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.


let me put this another way. If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds? (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)

my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.


let me put this another way. If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds? (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)

They will expect the new editions of the core rules to sell in the same way as the current editions, which continue to have good sales.

They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.

 

[darjr]

nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)

my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.


let me put this another way. If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds? (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)

Do you mean existing players?
If so I think it’s possible WotC could be happy.
For instance they’ve sold a lot of PHBs, if half those people buy one of the new core I. The first year that would be a lot of books!
Second, I dint think most of the new purchased PHBs are going to existing customers and if the new books are good I think that will
continue.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Every release does this, which is why there are so many camps in 5E fandom. Those who play RAW, those who don't. Those who play core three only, those who don't. Those who play with Gritty Realism, those who don't. Those who play with only core three plus one book, those who play anything official. Those who use 3PP, those who don't. Those who use Tasha's, those who don't. Those who allow Eberron, those who don't. Those who allow Theros, those who don't. Those who use official modules, those who don't.

Every book released creates factions and camps. Every one. When new editions come out, even half editions, the overwhelmingly vast majority of fans get onboard. It's only happened...twice...that the bulk of fans didn't adopt a new edition with enthusiasm.

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

Which is exactly what they've said they're doing. We don't know if that's what they're actually doing. But it is their stated intent.

 

[Jer]

My PH is doing fine, but my Monster Manual has a substantial section that has broken out of its binding. I'll have no difficulty justifying buying a new one in 2024 as long as its compatible with the rest of my 5e kit.

My MM is also the book that has received the most abuse and is most in need of replacing (I blame myself - I will stuff notes into the book sometimes and I suspect that I broke the binding by doing it). I'd be getting a new one sooner or later even if there weren't a revision coming along (in fact I'd probably get one sooner if I didn't know that there would be a revised one coming in 2 years tbh).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

It would be 5.3. Tasha's was 5.1, MoM was 5.2.

 

[overgeeked]

If they put those "optional" rules in the Player's Handbook, yes. For better or worse, all of those so-called Optional Rules that get printed in the PHB (feats, multiclassing, variant humans, etc.) become 'the law of the land' and all players will assume that they are available for use in all campaign settings. It creates a lot of work for DMs who do not wish to employ those rules in their games. (Ask me how I know!)

Meanwhile, all other optional rules (Spell Points, Renown, Mixing Potions, etc.) that were printed in the Dungeon Master's Guide are not assumed to be ever-present and available...they languish unnoticed in the DMG, barely read by anyone. Players don't build their sorcerers with the Spell Point variant without checking with their Dungeon Master first, and they don't automatically start rolling on the Spell Mishap table when they botch a spell scroll.

All that to say: if a rule is to be truly optional for all games, it cannot be printed in the Player's Handbook. Otherwise, it's not really an optional rule.

Weirdly, the one house rule I got no push back on was banning multiclassing. It mostly seems to be a hard-core power gamer thing to insist on multiclassing. Maybe I just got lucky in that regard.