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

Regarding creature challenge rating.

I hope 2024 translates all "CR" formulas into plain character "Level" formulas.

If a level 8 party fights a level 10 monster, great.

If a level 8 party fights a level 6 monster, great.

If a level 8 party fights five level 4 monsters, great.

Stick with "levels" as the unit of measurement. Make it easy for the DM to know how to go about this when pulling together an encounter on the fly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

"Mike Shea is going to be happy" is NOT telling us what it is. Just look at this thread.
No, I'm not talking about the tweet at all, but it does reinforce what they have already told us. I'm referring too when they announced the '24 edition. They said it will be backward compatible and the books released before '24 could be used with the updated core books. They said they would playtest somethings before '24 via UA (IIRC). I can't remember 100% if they said it will contain errata but that is my recollection. Then later they have repeatedly said that MotM and changes in the recent adventures / setting books preview what we will see in the '24 updates. They have given every indication it will be minor incremental changes that we have already seen.
 

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.
It has literally never, ever come up. Also, that's not a houserule, the PHB notes that it using Multiclassing is a variant, not a standard rule.
 

It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional. They just wanted people to think they were at first.
I agree. But the designers did test the waters before full implementation.

There were things the designers wanted to do, but werent able at the time. Such as, dropping the jargon of "race", and using "species" instead.
 

New art is literally the worst reason I can think of to re-buy a book i already own.
That's literally my main motivation for buying most RPG books. No compelling art, no sale. And I know that I'm not unique. I went for Monsters of the Multiverse because of the new art.
 

true I forgot they didn't care about sales... Your right I give up
The thing about cash cows is they bring in short term profit but alienate the customer base and harm long term profits. The difference between Hasbro and TSR and (indy)WotC is they look to LONG TERM profits, not just surviving into the next quarter.
 

I can't imagine someone sitting in a business and saying "Most of our customers wont want this, but some will... but don't worry we are opening up new markets with it" and it ending well for them.

Edit: Okay we have this smash hit TV series... lets end it and make this spin off that isn't going to be for the old TV fans...
What data do you have to suggest that new art isn't a motivating factor for most customers...?
 


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.
I disagree. I would reverse that and say it is only option if it is in the PHB. As you noted, so few even realize optional rules are in the DMG.
 

How does baseline Risk sell copies every single year without changing the rules? Or Catan? Or any other evergreen game?

If we've actually moved into a world where D&D has become a real mass market game rather than the purview of a small number of hobbyists who need to be milked for their cash like cows every 10 years, that would actually be a good thing IMO. The game shouldn't be changing so much that they have to force players to buy new rules every decade to "stay current" to turn a profit on the game. If they're able to reach a point where they can get a consistent profit from new players aging into the game combined with people having to replace books periodically, then that's actually an astonishingly good thing for D&D as a game and for Wizards as a company. Even if there are a lot of folks who wish that D&D had settled into being that kind of game at some different point in its development history.

If the game ever hits that point - whether its now or in the future - then I could see a cycle where every decade or so a revised rulebook is published to gather together errata, cleaner explanations of existing rules, and any new rules that have been published in the interim. That's basically how Call of Cthulhu works for example and it's on its 7th edition. D&D is in a weird state where everyone expects edition changes to be huge changes to the game because of how 3rd edition brought 20+ years of game development advances into the game all at once, but it doesn't actually have to be that way.

Also - and I think this gets underestimated - tying themselves to DDB means that any major changes to the game have to be supported by DDB or else they lose all of that work the same way they basically threw away all of the 4e tools when 5e came out. When they bought DDB that was another mark to me that they were planning on the core of the game being pretty stable long term because if they were thinking about making big changes, the DDB purchase would have been a bad move on their part.
All of this, absolutely. And I think D&D has hit that critical cultural threshold to be something one just gets their 12 year old nibbling or godchild as a Christmas present, like Monopoly or Risk. And Hasbro is an expert at that sort of evergreen product.
 

Remove ads

Top