D&D (2024) Why no new packs since late September?

[Maxperson]

So we are actually not speaking about 6e, but 50e?

Yep. It's going to be 5.5 unless it's completely incompatible with 5e. 6e will be incompatible.

4e alone had uncountable numbers of changes to the core books.

4e had the absurd notion that every book was core.

3e had a lot of changes to stealth and polymorph rules.
5e had updates to divine smite, darkness and quite a few more.

Are you talking about the erratas? If so, and they changed the PHB, those were changes to the core of the game and altered the game, however small, from being what it was. Those were fundamental changes. 5.5 will be significantly greater.

So if you want to go by that arbitrary definition, have fun.

There's nothing arbitrary about a reasoned definition.

 

[dave2008]

Clearly in the context that I'm using it, I'm discussing changes to the actual rules. I've cited the racial and monster changes in MoM, the character creation changes in Tasha's, the class changes in the playtest doc and 1st level feats from the playtest doc.

A reordering or index change doesn't change any of the fundamental rules in the core books.

OK good. You are usually so precise with your language I was taken back by the previous statement. We all make mistakes!

 

[Maxperson]

OK good. You are usually so precise with your language I was taken back by the previous statement. We all make mistakes!

No worries!

 

[dave2008]

4e had the absurd notion that every book was core.

Why is that absurd in your opinion?

Are you talking about the erratas? If so, and they changed the PHB, those were changes to the core of the game and altered the game, however small, from being what it was. Those were fundamental changes. 5.5 will be significantly greater.

There's nothing arbitrary about a reasoned definition.

It is hard to understand the reasoning if you don't explain what is "fundamental" in your opinion. I would hope you could understand what is fundamental to some, is not fundamental to others. So if you don't understand what is fundamental to you, your reason can seem odd. You use that word like everyone understands what you are talking about. But I, and I imagine others, do not know what you mean by "fundamental."

 

[Maxperson]

Why is that absurd in your opinion?

Core means center. If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG.

It is hard to understand the reasoning if you don't explain what is "fundamental" in your opinion. I would hope you could understand what is fundamental to some, is not fundamental to others. So if you don't understand what is fundamental to you, your reason can seem odd. You use that word like everyone understands what you are talking about. But I, and I imagine others, do not know what you mean by "fundamental."

The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game. You need nothing more to play. Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.

Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it. Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.

 

[overgeeked]

Core means center. If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG.

The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game. You need nothing more to play. Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.

Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it. Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.

I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.

1. The referee describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The referee narrates the results of the characters’ actions.

 

[dave2008]

Core means center. If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG.

You are taking the term "core" too literally compared to the intent of the 4e D&D team. The idea was that everything was "official." There was a movement in prior editions (particularly 3e) to assume anything outside the the big 3 (what you are calling core) was more official: better balanced, more playtested, etc. The "everything is core" idea of 4e was them trying to say that everything will be equally balanced, thought out, playtested as the big 3. I don't think that was necessarily achieved, but I think the idea had merit. I think they could have chosen a better word for you, as you seem to take things very literally, but I think most people understood the intent.

The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game. You need nothing more to play. Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.

Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it. Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.

So you considered every rule and guideline in the PHB & DMG to be fundamental to the game? That is an interesting take. I mean, the variant & optional rules in the DMG alone would seem to imply otherwise. Regardless, is definitely not the subset of rules and guidelines that I see as fundamental to the game.

Thank you for the response. I helps me understand where you are coming from. Your responses make a lot more sense now!

 

[dave2008]

I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.

1. The referee describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The referee narrates the results of the characters’ actions.

Yes, I feel like I can, and do, play 5e without a lot of what Max is considering "fundamental."

 

[Maxperson]

I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.

You can have the play loop without buying or even playing D&D, though. If I sit down and freeform roleplay with a bunch of friends and have the loop, is that D&D? I'd argue no.

D&D is the core rules in the first three books, plus extras that come later and any house rules/home brews that the group comes up with.

 

[Maxperson]

You are taking the term "core" too literally compared to the intent of the 4e D&D team. The idea was that everything was "official." There was a movement in prior editions (particularly 3e) to assume anything outside the the big 3 (what you are calling core) was more official: better balanced, more playtested, etc. The "everything is core" idea of 4e was them trying to say that everything will be equally balanced, thought out, playtested as the big 3. I don't think that was necessarily achieved, but I think the idea had merit. I think they could have chosen a better word for you, as you seem to take things very literally, but I think most people understood the intent.

Fair enough. I didn't play 4e, so I'm not all that familiar with it.

So you considered every rule and guideline in the PHB & DMG to be fundamental to the game? That is an interesting take. I mean, the variant & optional rules in the DMG alone would seem to imply otherwise. Regardless, is definitely not the subset of rules and guidelines that I see as fundamental to the game.

Those three books provide the foundation for the game. You can tinker with it(house rules/optional or variant rules/home brew), but they are still the foundation that you work from. Foundation = fundamental.

Thank you for the response. I helps me understand where you are coming from. Your responses make a lot more sense now!

Thanks! That's what discussion is for.