D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[doctorbadwolf]

I know the fallacies and frustrations that went into 5e's design. I'd rather not re-litigate them.


And do you think people would accept Bethesda selling TESVI at full price, if it were literally just an expansion for Skyrim, game-breaking warts and all?


And do you think people would accept it if they said that GTA6 was going to be simply a new expansion for GTA5?


Yet major engine updates, radically changing the stuff under the hood, have actually happened, at least for WoW. (I haven't played enough ESO to speak about whether it has had heavy reworks under the hood.) Other MMOs have required heavy reworks of their engine to keep up with the times as well. FFXIV, for example, has already promised some improvements, and has already transformed quite a bit from the version that was limited by the capabilities of the PS3.

You never have a static engine that people simply put out additional content for. Not even in a "live-service" game.


New content for years--but never forever, which is what "evergreen" requires. Modding communities and homebrewers certainly matter, but do you think fans--or modders!--would have been even remotely satisfied if StarCraft 2 released as merely exactly the same game as SC1, just with new animations? (That's a case where it wouldn't have even been possible; Blizzard failed to keep copies of the SC1 source code, and only got a copy returned to them by a loyal fan in 2017, two years after the final installment of SC2 launched.)

I don't mean to crap on these communities. I've been, after a fashion, part of one; I played Master of Orion 2 long, long, long after it should have been put in the bin, because it really was the best option for something like a decade.....

...but that's sort of the magic number, isn't it? After a decade, the world has changed enough that we should expect the tools to change too. You run into limitations: memory, code, features, what-have-you. An MMO that tried to run on completely unmodified code after a full decade would be laughed out of the room--not even Old School Runescape, which is as close as MMOs will ever get to what Pathfinder was, could survive if it tried to doggedly insist on absolutely never ever changing the underlying components.

And I guarantee you that the WoW of today is NOT backwards-compatible with the WoW that launched in 2004. The FFXIV of today is compatible with neither 1.0 (intentionally so) nor 2.0 (natural result of change over time.) The ESO of today is probably not compatible with the ESO of 2014.

D&D isnt a video game, nor any sort of computer software program.

You have no reason to accuse WotC of anything, because you and those on your side are generally getting what they want. People usually don't complain about a result that favors their preferences.

Not getting what you want is not remotely an acceptable reason to accuse someone of anything.

 

[codo]

Show of hands: Who wants Ohio State Buckeyes Edition D&D -- at least three versions. Because that's where Evergreen got Monopoly at my local BnN

I am sure that WotC would, and ultimately they are the ones making the decisions.

 

[TwoSix]

Show of hands: Who wants Ohio State Buckeyes Edition D&D -- at least three versions. Because that's where Evergreen got Monopoly at my local BnN

Depends on what features the Buckeye class gets, really.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

D&D: Bard Edition?

ducks

 

[mamba]

Good. Backward compatibility is just a albatross around the designers neck and just there to promise people that the product that is there to obsolete their books and make them buy new ones will certainly not do that, no sir; now please lookin in that other direction so I can finish this magic trick.

So is it backwards compatible and an albatross or is it not and just a ruse to obsolete the current books?

Calling it anything but 5e is a self-inflicted wound. WotC knows that and they maintain compatibility so they can keep on calling it 5e.

You can like that or not, but it will not change what One D&D is designed to be and will be called.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Ok, forcing may have been a bit strong. But it doesn't affect my point.

is your point that we are all guessing based on limited info? is it that you have an issue with me responding to talk about IT by bringing up IT in a limited point?

You were looking at the Software model of "evergreen"

nope infact I said "I don't know IT" so not what I am looking at.

and claiming that evergreen products never work.

I didn't say that.

Computer programs and board games are completely different products in different industries.

yup... did someone claim they were the same?

Instead of looking at software, why don't you look at Hasbro's history of selling evergreen board games?

You can but like computer programs board games are not TTRPGs so both you and the other person are just making an analogy.
I wonder if someone will now say I am forceing a board game analogy?

I think if you want to look at the success rate of evergreen products maybe look at the history of the company actually selling evergreen products, instead of unrelated products in an unrelated industry.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The evergreen idea was the real stupid move.

You simply should not just promise RPG fans that they're game is going to be left to stagnate and wither on the vine. You just slowly ramp down your innovation and editing over time and never acknowledge you're doing it, like Shadowrun.

The moment you have proof that is what is going to happen, let me know.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, you don't expect a new book with an updated Artificer to appear? You're sure those existing subclasses won't be republished again, with modest, appropriate changes to match the new level format? Maybe the slow pace of 5e publishing will remain the same, but frankly I completely expect the same arc as the 3.5 years, where the outdated material is slowly replaced with new versions, and conversion guides slowly fade into obscurity as everyone expects you to update to the 2024 (or will it be 2025, if it comes out a year later?) version of the Banneret.

This is exactly the same thing, admittedly slightly better handled and certainly better marketed. There's some difference in scope, but no real difference in kind.

So... exactly what happened with... many of the species options? We've had, what? Three or four different variants on the Aasimar, each one being slightly newer and replacing the old ones?

Or the fact that the Artificer was modified (not much, but a little) between its original printing in Eberron and the later printing in Tasha's? Or how the Bladesinger was changed from SCAG to Tasha's?

Yes, eventually they will likely reprint older material to update it. That has never been a problem before, so I don't see why it would be a problem now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know the fallacies and frustrations that went into 5e's design. I'd rather not re-litigate them.


And do you think people would accept Bethesda selling TESVI at full price, if it were literally just an expansion for Skyrim, game-breaking warts and all?


And do you think people would accept it if they said that GTA6 was going to be simply a new expansion for GTA5?


Yet major engine updates, radically changing the stuff under the hood, have actually happened, at least for WoW. (I haven't played enough ESO to speak about whether it has had heavy reworks under the hood.) Other MMOs have required heavy reworks of their engine to keep up with the times as well. FFXIV, for example, has already promised some improvements, and has already transformed quite a bit from the version that was limited by the capabilities of the PS3.

You never have a static engine that people simply put out additional content for. Not even in a "live-service" game.


New content for years--but never forever, which is what "evergreen" requires. Modding communities and homebrewers certainly matter, but do you think fans--or modders!--would have been even remotely satisfied if StarCraft 2 released as merely exactly the same game as SC1, just with new animations? (That's a case where it wouldn't have even been possible; Blizzard failed to keep copies of the SC1 source code, and only got a copy returned to them by a loyal fan in 2017, two years after the final installment of SC2 launched.)

I don't mean to crap on these communities. I've been, after a fashion, part of one; I played Master of Orion 2 long, long, long after it should have been put in the bin, because it really was the best option for something like a decade.....

...but that's sort of the magic number, isn't it? After a decade, the world has changed enough that we should expect the tools to change too. You run into limitations: memory, code, features, what-have-you. An MMO that tried to run on completely unmodified code after a full decade would be laughed out of the room--not even Old School Runescape, which is as close as MMOs will ever get to what Pathfinder was, could survive if it tried to doggedly insist on absolutely never ever changing the underlying components.

And I guarantee you that the WoW of today is NOT backwards-compatible with the WoW that launched in 2004. The FFXIV of today is compatible with neither 1.0 (intentionally so) nor 2.0 (natural result of change over time.) The ESO of today is probably not compatible with the ESO of 2014.

I'm going to pick this post for the general response to what you are saying. And I'm going to start with this.

Pokemon.

Pokemon was created in 1996, and has been going strong for nearly thirty years. And the baseline formula for the game has remained unchanged. There have been changes and innovations, but even the newest games that are responding to a FAN desire for innovation... are still basically the same pokemon games. Pokemon is also worth 92 BILLION dollars.

Sure, maybe it is fair to say pokemon isn't "evergreen" because after 30 years it is starting to change traditional formulas to allow more open-world games.... but I can still go and pick up a copy of Pokemon Violet and it plays VERY similar to Pokemon Silver from my childhood. In terms of "DnD editions" it... hasn't really had a new edition. They have had tweaks, expansions, errata's.

So, I actually disagree with you in practical terms, because if DnD 5e continues to go for AT LEAST another 20 years in its current format, then we have likely seen them succeed in their goal, an edition (in DnD terms) of DnD that is evergreen. Needs to be tuned-up every so often, but fundamentally just works instead of being completely reimagined every decade.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You mean the "stagnant" game that keeps growing and growing bringing in more and more players every year? Any other game company would literally kill to have that sort of "stagnation".

Sure, you might want changes and a new game, but you are not the only player. Ask the millions of new 5e players if they think 5e is stagnant.

Yeah, that's one thing to consider.

Is mechanical "stagnation" the same as game "stagnation". For example, there are people who still play 2e, who have been playing 2e since longer than other editions of the DnD existed from start to finish. Is 2e mechanically stagnant? I can't imagine it isn't, considering it is a discontinued product that has no official company making rules for. But is 2e itself stagnant? I mean... not really, people still play new campaigns and have ongoing stories for it.

So, maybe 5e doesn't get the mechanical revolution I want (which would be upsetting) but they could revolutionize the STORIES and the Campaigns. That could be an interesting thing to see in the future.