D&D (2024) It feels so much like the D&D Next playtest did

[Parmandur]

We don't know if that'll be the case for the feedback.

The links they used previously for feedback didn't need any kind of login.

If they're changing to an authenticated method though, i.e. by requiring a Beyond login, which in fact means a Gmail or Apple account login (now, for new accounts), that's a pretty high bar. That alone would make this extremely challenging unless they screwed up the authentication somehow (there are ways, esp. if trying to integrate an existing survey system).

A big reason they are probably doing this. They can also have demographic information tied to survey results, probably.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A big reason they are probably doing this. They can also have demographic information tied to survey results, probably.

I hope so. It could make the surveys less annoying to do if they could retain information historically as being from a specific account. Though it does open them up to some data protection stuff if they do that. They're probably fine if they keep it securely and only keep it until 2024.

 

[Scribe]

All the good ideas were shouted down by grognards, who are now vastly outnumbered by new players.

Leading to the most popular edition of the game, which sees continued growth 8 years after release?

 

[Aldarc]

Agree totally but for me there's hope but also a lot of fear, because the Next playtest had tons of great stuff that got cut and a lot of this feels beautiful but vulnerable, and like a bunch of people who don't even get it are going to stomp all over it.

Hopefully not though.

My worry is that some of the materials in the playtest will be shouted down before they are properly playtested, in particular things like the auto-success/fail crits, monsters don't crit, etc. I'm worried about gut reactions that aren't that focused on the aims of the changes.

Leading to the most popular edition of the game, which sees continued growth 8 years after release?

Because as we all know correlation is the same as causation, right?

 

[Parmandur]

My worry is that some of the materials in the playtest will be shouted down before they are properly playtested, in particular things like the auto-success/fail crits, monsters don't crit, etc. I'm worried about gut reactions that aren't that focused on the aims of the changes.


Because as we all know correlation is the same as causation, right?

Well, the auto crit/fail is already a super common houserule, as they say, including crucially hiw Matt Mercer runs his game on Critical Role. Dollars to donuts most people taking the survey not only approve the change, but express confusion because they thought that's how it works already.

 

[Scribe]

Because as we all know correlation is the same as causation, right?

Nope, but if 'everything good' was shouted down, and its already crazy successful, am I to accept that everything shouted down was actually good, or perhaps there are reasons it wasnt included?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I suspect I'm in a distinct minority here, but I can't help but wonder if part of the underlying issue is the idea that changes to the game are "improvements" as opposed to just being "changes."

I've been playing D&D for just shy of thirty years now, and from what I've seen, different editions are just that: different. Not better, not worse, just more in line with certain expectations and play-styles than others. 3E wasn't a "superior" game compared to 2E, 4E wasn't an "improvement" compared to 3E, 5E wasn't "better" than 4E, and One D&D won't be an "upgrade" to 5E.

Parsing it this way pushes divisiveness; I can understand wanting the game to better reflect your personal preferences and values, but that's not an indication that the new edition is necessarily an upgrade over how it used to be. It's just different.

While I don't think the overall thrust of what you're saying here is wrong (there is certainly good things about every edition, and each are someone's favourite.) Every edition has had some things about them that nearly everyone (from the original designers to the players & DMs) find just don't quite work as intended.

The trouble is, every time they iterate editions, they try a bunch of new stuff that fixes some of those issues and creates new ones.

Again, I don't think it's possible to create something that's "perfect" (in particular because what that would look like is different in each player's eyes) - but the thing that I like about the potential of 1D&D (obviously it could all go wrong) - is that this is the first time (or at least feels like it) that the designers appear (to me) to (mostly) only be trying to fix things that are generally seen as not-quite-right and as much as possible make improvements only.

YMMV and time will tell, obviously.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, I don't think it's possible to create something that's "perfect" (in particular because what that would look like is different in each player's eyes) - but the thing that I like about the potential of 1D&D (obviously it could all go wrong) - is that this is the first time (or at least feels like it) that the designers appear (to me) to (mostly) only be trying to fix things that are generally seen as not-quite-right and as much as possible make improvements only.

YMMV and time will tell, obviously.

I think this is a big part of why they are being coy about being "beyond editions," because they are going for modest changes only.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Going back to the OP's statement: in a way it's true, but for me personally, the main difference is that I found the original D&D Next play material interesting (I didn't really participate in the test, but read some of it afterwards), because the goal of 5e to be a new, shared home for the D&D community no matter what edition they played resonated with me, as did the early 5e books. Now with late 5e and the direction WotC has taken, it feels like the game is moving away from what I enjoy rather than towards it. So the excitement is rather dimmed, and I suppose that I am more likely to enter late stage grognardism for D&D in the same way it happened with Shadowrun after the 3e->4I'e transition.
(no reason to go sabotage the playtest surveys, though - there's clearly a lot of people enjoying 5e and 5.5e, so why not just let them have fun)

I have trouble understanding the bolded bit. First, because it really seems to me to be far to early to know what it will be like, and second because I don't see how any of the changes can change the way that anyone plays, but I admit that I generally like most of the changes so I might be seeing things through rose-coloured-darkvision.

I'm honestly very curious and don't plan to argue with you. Can you elaborate in what makes you feel that way?

 

[Aldarc]

Well, the auto crit/fail is already a super common houserule, as they say, including crucially hiw Matt Mercer runs his game on Critical Role. Dollars to donuts most people taking the survey not only approve the change, but express confusion because they thought that's how it works already.

Sure, but there is also a lot of pushback in these threads about this. Also, I have in mind things like spells not critical hitting. I suspect that many wizards and spellcaster players will pitch a fit about that regardless of whether that would make a better overall game.

Nope, but if 'everything good' was shouted down, and its already crazy successful, am I to accept that everything shouted down was actually good, or perhaps there are reasons it wasnt included?

It seems like a pretty easy dodge as you can just point to anything changed and say that the change is good because 5e is successful. I don't think that pointing to 5e's success as a defense of every single change is necessarily a strong argument. It's basically a repackaged ad populum argument, and the reasons for why that sort of argumentation is crap has already been discussed elsewhere.