D&D (2024) What is positive?

[GMforPowergamers]

I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind. So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.

I agree, and from the time I entered the hobby (with 2e) that is what I learned editions were... 1e wasn't radically different it was just 2e with some things not tweaked yet (and over the years I met plenty of people who played 1e and had house rules that lined up a lot with 2e)

This is what I mean by 'they don't want to call it an edition but it is"

now to be fair 3e was VERY different then 2e, but 3.5 (that half edition) it at the time lined up that I was told it was slightly more different then 1e and 2e where, BUT way less then the difference between 2e and 3e.

Now 4e was a major change again but if we stick pin in this...

5e is a bigger change to 3e then 1e is to 2e and bigger then 3e to 3.5 and smaller then 3.5 to 4e...

so up until now the term of edition sometimes means a slight version change updateing with popular house rules and modern ideas (1 e to 2 e) or a drastic overhaul (2e to 3e and 3e to 4e I think fit here) or even a half edition change (the .5 modle.

so when I see a new version that is tweaking major parts (like say new versions of cleric bard ext) I see a new edition (or version) of teh game.

I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen. If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.

so if the 2024 PHB doesn't sell like the 2014 PHB did in 2014 or 2015 that would mean it was a success and not a new edition/version in your mind?

To my mind it is much like how various MMOs go through a lot of updates, such that what WoW or LOTRO look like today, even outside of the expanded areas, are very different to when they first launched in terms of mechanics, how classes work, class skills etc - but is still considered the same game.

On that note, I do think that realistically 1e to 2e could have been similar, just tweaks to the game but still essentially same game, except that I think it likely TSR at the time did try to encourage everyone to buy the latest edition, and helped set the long term expectation that WOTC is trying to tackle now - that ideally only 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e were in their
mind genuine edition changes, with 3.5 being quite borderline in that regard, and ones that require people to buy new books.

so as long as we only count the major change editions we can say that...

I think they would like to keep the old adventurers in print, and reprint as needed like with Tyranny of Dragons, post 2024, which hasn't occurred with previous editions without having to revise them to match the new rules (I'm unsure what happened between 1e and 2e, a little bit before I came in, I was only playing from 2e onwards).

I agree they plan to reprint the adventures... the 'back compatibility' appears (to me) to be entirely on the adventure side... but not the player side

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.

yeah I think the "if you are doing fine and your book isn't damaged no need to update" argument falls very flat.

What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?

I would say the only fear would be if they came out and called it a new edition of the game... but they can't hide it is at least an updated new version of the game. There will be people left behind, and there will be edition waring.

 

[gban007]

I don't accept that argument. You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.

Let's look at 5e as it stands now. It is currently enjoying an unprecedented surge of financial and popular success, for a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into here. What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?

I think they want people to buy the books, but I think it is new customers they want to continue buying the books, with some degree of existing customers. They want it to be a game that the likes of Critical Role and such will continue to play / stream, and might be looking to make changes they think will continue to support that, rather than Critical Role perhaps thinking at some point they could make a game more suited to their needs than 5e.

Also, on flip side, if they are doing that well with unprecedented surge of success, why even make a change at all? I think looking ahead, they feel that 2024 offers an opportunity to make changes, and maintain momentum.

This is based on assumption on my part that most core book sales these days are to new customers - and so it isn't a fear of losing customers as such, but a fear that sometime in next few years they may stop attracting new customers.

It could be glass half full / optimistic thinking on my part, but is just what my thinking is at this point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is based on assumption on my part that most core book sales these days are to new customers - and so it isn't a fear of losing customers as such, but a fear that sometime in next few years they may stop attracting new customers.

I assume that is true of every edition by the 3 year mark... there are not a lot of existing customers buying the PHB year 3, but new people are. (yes some are replacing damaged lost ones, sometimes a person plays for years without a PHB then finally gets one, but I think they are more 1 offs then the regular)

 

[gban007]

so if the 2024 PHB doesn't sell like the 2014 PHB did in 2014 or 2015 that would mean it was a success and not a new edition/version in your mind?

Well, depends on how well they can define metrics, but yes, I think if the books continue to sell as well as they are today, having the PHB still strongly up in the book ratings on Amazon etc, I think they could consider that a success. If they can determine who is buying the books, if they can work out that majority of books sold are to new customers, with not that many to old, then again a success, and I don't think under this paradigm they should be looking to replicate the sales numbers from 5e launch (assuming that today's sales are lower than launch sales).

For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.

I'm willing to give this mindset a go, and consider it not an edition change, and wait to see what happens as to whether that aim is realised or not, and it will come down to whether I feel me and my group need to upgrade to the new player options straight away, or just merge in a bit of the new rules as we see fit (like we've done with the inspiration changes as it felt it made sense), and whether or not we do change, whether we can play the campaigns / adventures we have now readily with or without the 2024 books.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.

I can understand why they may want to use a different word, but again that just comes down to renaming the rose. I imagine that they have not thought through the new player walking up to a game and trying to find out what book the rules are in. The editions titles (IMO) are mostly just a way to lable your game. "Can I bring my 3e phb character?" not to my 4e game. "Can I bring my 2014 5e PHB character to your table?" not to the one I am playing useing the 2024 phb.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, depends on how well they can define metrics, but yes, I think if the books continue to sell as well as they are today, having the PHB still strongly up in the book ratings on Amazon etc, I think they could consider that a success. If they can determine who is buying the books, if they can work out that majority of books sold are to new customers, with not that many to old, then again a success, and I don't think under this paradigm they should be looking to replicate the sales numbers from 5e launch (assuming that today's sales are lower than launch sales).

For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.

I'm willing to give this mindset a go, and consider it not an edition change, and wait to see what happens as to whether that aim is realised or not, and it will come down to whether I feel me and my group need to upgrade to the new player options straight away, or just merge in a bit of the new rules as we see fit (like we've done with the inspiration changes as it felt it made sense), and whether or not we do change, whether we can play the campaigns / adventures we have now readily with or without the 2024 books.

First of all, I have to wonder how many new players, especially players that apparently haven't yet purchased a PH, are actually going to watch a WotC marketing video.

Secondly, if success is measured as basically the same sales numbers as now, what justifies the expenses and effort of creating the new books in the first place?

These arguments still don't hold water to me.

 

[gban007]

First of all, I have to wonder how many new players, especially players that apparently haven't yet purchased a PH, are actually going to watch a WotC marketing video.

Secondly, if success is measured as basically the same sales numbers as now, what justifies the expenses and effort of creating the new books in the first place?

These arguments still don't hold water to me.

Fair enough if doesn't hold water for you, but for me it is like when a company may change it's branding, up to and including brand name, even with companies that are gradually losing market share and continue to do so post brand change, so why go to that expense? As they believe they would have performed even worse if they didn't do so. Why do companies like McDonald's / Coca Cola still spend a lot of money in advertising, to have the same sales numbers as previously? Again, because if didn't, they feel sales would decline.

Or new printings of books - e.g. the multiple different LOTR book versions you can get - many of which for better or worse have slight tweaks to some of the words in there as various issues seem to crop up from time to time (is quite interesting reading some of the forwards of editions of what changes have been made to the text, and why) - some collectors will be getting every edition, but most of the sales are just to new customers getting LOTR for the first time - why go to expense of creating new art, going back and forth between one volume / 3 volumes etc? I don't think they are driving more sales for most part by doing so, but believe need to in order to maintain sales.

My main point being that I think WOTC feels if they don't go to this expense, they won't maintain the same sales as today, and will go into decline at some point, so the justification is there to maintain sales through this expense / effort, against not making the effort and having less sales in future.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fair enough if doesn't hold water for you, but for me it is like when a company may change it's branding, up to and including brand name, even with companies that are gradually losing market share and continue to do so post brand change, so why go to that expense? As they believe they would have performed even worse if they didn't do so. Why do companies like McDonald's / Coca Cola still spend a lot of money in advertising, to have the same sales numbers as previously? Again, because if didn't, they feel sales would decline.

Or new printings of books - e.g. the multiple different LOTR book versions you can get - many of which for better or worse have slight tweaks to some of the words in there as various issues seem to crop up from time to time (is quite interesting reading some of the forwards of editions of what changes have been made to the text, and why) - some collectors will be getting every edition, but most of the sales are just to new customers getting LOTR for the first time - why go to expense of creating new art, going back and forth between one volume / 3 volumes etc? I don't think they are driving more sales for most part by doing so, but believe need to in order to maintain sales.

My main point being that I think WOTC feels if they don't go to this expense, they won't maintain the same sales as today, and will go into decline at some point, so the justification is there to maintain sales through this expense / effort, against not making the effort and having less sales in future.

Yes, but why would they believe that? Where is the evidence that justifies that expense? Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?

 

[gban007]

I can understand why they may want to use a different word, but again that just comes down to renaming the rose. I imagine that they have not thought through the new player walking up to a game and trying to find out what book the rules are in. The editions titles (IMO) are mostly just a way to lable your game. "Can I bring my 3e phb character?" not to my 4e game. "Can I bring my 2014 5e PHB character to your table?" not to the one I am playing useing the 2024 phb.

If people can't bring 2014 5e PHB to table using 2024 PHB, then yes there is an issue - I guess from what I have seen of the playtests thus far, I don't think this holds true. It may require slight tweaks here and there (like getting class ability at different level, not getting stat score from both race and background) but I haven't yet seen stuff to suggest that party can't have both 2014 5e PHB cleric and a 2024 PHB cleric - that is just personal opinion obviously, but that is my feel, like I think ultimately with 1e / 2e I think a 1e Assassin could have gone into a 2e game, so as long as that holds true, I don't think there is an issue.
If that doesn't hold true, and can't have people with different PHBs able to play same game, then I think it will have failed, and would be a proper edition shift as such.