D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[SkidAce]

I mean, sure, it is derived from 3.5, but it's not D&D.

I feel it is, and call it d&d, since its based on the d20 system, share attributes, classes, etc, but technically you are correct.

 

[Parmandur]

Unless you are an owner of either company, of course it is, just as OSR books are D&D.

I mean, no. Those are also not "D&D", those are different games.

 

[Vaalingrade]

All Tabletop games are D&D in the same way all tissues are Kleenex.

And yes, it will create a divide in the community because that's the thing we do. We get divided and we fight. It just gets worse during and edition change (which is absolutely is).

 

[Jahydin]

And with the changes you have seen so far, if they all pretty much make it into the finished 1D&D release, would you and your group change to the new version? What are your thoughts so far about this?

I don't think the rule changes are what's going to cause the "divide". It will be digital vs non-digital groups.

I think WotC is going to go "all in" with digital and create a need for it somehow. Whatever that is, I don't think groups are going to be able to "dip their toes" into it; it will be all in or all out. And all in is going to be $$$. This will create the divide.

Just my tinfoil hat opinion.

 

[Yora]

Now that I think of it, D&D seems to be the only game that has that approach.

Might be because other games are way too small to justify the initial investment, but it very much seems to be a D&D thing only.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't think the rule changes are what's going to cause the "divide". It will be digital vs non-digital groups.

I think WotC is going to go "all in" with digital and create a need for it somehow. Whatever that is, I don't think groups are going to be able to "dip their toes" into it; it will be all in or all out. And all in is going to be $$$. This will create the divide.

Just my tinfoil hat opinion.

Yes, but...

I don't think that WotC has to be heavy handed about this. They will continue to publish print books as long as people buy them and we can continue to run games fully analog if we want.

But a growing majority of players are not going to want to be completely analog. Even if playing in person with battlemaps and minis, many players will prefer digital character sheets and being able to search the rules in DDB. The convenience of VTTs, especially for players who have difficulty finding groups or arranging schedules for in-person games, has created a growing demand for these platforms. The conveniences of VTTs have also bled over into in-person play with more and more people using digital displays for battlemaps rather than Chessex mats and printed terrain/battle maps.

The divide is less about WotC forcing us into digital tools and more about them responding to the market and some people not being happy about the direction in which the market is going.

In away, it is easier to deal with changes to rules than moving from analog to digital play (or vice versa). I know some tables have a non-devices policy at the table. Other players would avoid such tables. Those in the former group, may feel "abandoned" by WotC as more and more attention is given to the preferences of the digital crowd (live updates to errated rules, early release of new books, more focus on VTT features and assets than printing physical game aids, etc.) This may lead to any physical products being priced at collector and luxury-good prices, which will rankle many in the analog-but-not-"rich" camp. But WotC is going to follow the market. And there is a healthy market of third-party creators of minis, terrain, and other analog assets.

 

[MNblockhead]

Now that I think of it, D&D seems to be the only game that has that approach.

Might be because other games are way too small to justify the initial investment, but it very much seems to be a D&D thing only.

Do you mean digital approach?

Yeah, most publishers in this space don't have the money to set up a software-development arm. And for those that do, like Paizo, they have focused more on creating CRPGs based on their IP.

It make much more sense for smaller publishers to work on getting their material in one to three of the major VTT platforms. Even that not economically viable for most.

But WotC has the money, they see the trends, and they don't want to leave money on the table.

 

[Corinnguard]

I mean, sure, it is derived from 3.5, but it's not D&D.

In other words, anything that looks like D&D but wasn't created and owned by WoTC isn't D&D. When WoTC allowed 3rd party companies to create supplements and accessories for 5e via the OGL, those products in the eyes of some of the players became a part of D&D. PF1 is very much a part of D&D, again because of the OGL.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In other words, anything that looks like D&D but wasn't created and owned by WoTC isn't D&D. When WoTC allowed 3rd party companies to create supplements and accessories for 5e via the OGL, those products in the eyes of some of the players became a part of D&D. PF1 is very much a part of D&D, again because of the OGL.

Personally, I distinguish between D&D the brand and the genre. Anything set of rules that serve a D&D experience is D&D for practical purposes.

 

[Corinnguard]

Personally, I distinguish between D&D the brand and the genre. Anything set of rules that serve a D&D experience is D&D for practical purposes.

After 50 years of providing the D&D experience, D&D has definitely become a genre.