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

[Clint_L]

Look at OneD&D from the perspective of motive. Previous editions were intentional breaks from the one before. AD&D was literally TSR trying to break up with Dave Arneson (and get out of paying him money), while 2e more or less served the same function with Gygax. And TSR noticed that they could simultaneously get a short term boost in sales. 3e was intended to establish a clear baseline for the WotC version of the game, while 4e was a reaction to the (at the time) hegemony of the MMORPG (basically World of Warcraft). Each edition was designed with the intention that it would replace the previous one.

That motive doesn't make sense when your game continues to do well and has basically become the lingua franca of TTRPGs. As soon as WotC bought DnDBeyond they were basically announcing that they were locked into 5e. Everything afterwards is just details.

 

[codo]

no, I responded to someone talking about IT and said I don't know anything about IT and then continued to tell a joke a friend always tells.
YOU then went into bully mode to pretend that my response was creating something whole cloth out of nothing.

okay, since I am not talking software so what?

again I didn't bring up software I responded to people talking about IT and said I didn't know about it and you have now double or trippled down on the lie that I am the one bringing it up.
stop, please.

I responded to talk about IT, so again, please stop pretending I brought it up.

and I see nothing in common with either.

edit: here is the post if you want to talk IT and software. https://www.enworld.org/threads/jeremy-crawford-“we-are-releasing-new-editions-of-the-books”.697916/post-9035635

I am not trying to bully you. I am sorry I used the word forced in my first post, that could be read as more hostile than I intended. I only used it because you used it in all capitals in your post.

I was just responding to your claim that " nothing has truly stayed evergreen", and then you talked about Windows.

All I was pointing out was that the software model is a horrible model for a RPG, particularly when we have a much better model to use with Hasbro and their evergreen board games.

 

[SteveC]

how is me responding to someone talking about IT forceing and IT model? did you see the context of my post? It was me saying that I DON'T know IT, even though I was responding to someone that does, and giveing a NON IT example.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry if I got you into anything over my reference to evergreen. It sounds like the person you're discussing with is on my ignore list, so I'm not even seeing their comments.

For anyone who cares: I think the "evergreen" notion is one way of discussing Editions, not the only one. I'm just making an analogy that exists in an environment I'm familiar with and I can make an argument as relevant. Certainly not the only one that can be made.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I am not trying to bully you. I am sorry I used the word forced in my first post, that could be read as more hostile than I intended. I only used it because you used it in all capitals in your post.

I was just responding to your claim that " nothing has truly stayed evergreen", and then you talked about Windows.

All I was pointing out was that the software model is a horrible model for a RPG, particularly when we have a much better model to use with Hasbro and their evergreen board games.

The problem with the "evergreen" model is that, generally speaking, the different board games don't interact with each other. You don't have to worry about Risk 1989 rules and how they interact with Risk 2019 rules because you're only playing with one set of rules, no matter what you choose. You don't have to worry about how one rule which was changed in a later edition may interact with a newer one. That's not the case here, where you are going to have the 2014 designs interacting with the 2024 designs and such.

 

[mamba]

After the past year, maybe them abandoning the field of RPG development to just do cash-in franchising might be for the best.

no one is forcing you to buy new WotC releases, not sure why you even care about the playtest

 

[codo]

The problem with the "evergreen" model is that, generally speaking, the different board games don't interact with each other. You don't have to worry about Risk 1989 rules and how they interact with Risk 2019 rules because you're only playing with one set of rules, no matter what you choose. You don't have to worry about how one rule which was changed in a later edition may interact with a newer one. That's not the case here, where you are going to have the 2014 designs interacting with the 2024 designs and such.

How many groups are actually going to be using the 2014 and 2024 books at the same time? How many groups that actually use both will actually have any problems or confusion?

For the vast majority of new players they are just going to buy the new books at the store and use them. I don't see much room for confusion there. It's like any other D&D version. You just buy the current books at a store and start playing.

The vast majority of groups that do end up using both the 2014 and 2024 books at the same time are going to be experienced groups using both because they choose to. They might like certain sub-classes or races from the 2014 books, and want to use them with the new rules.

There may be the potential for confusion, but I think that for the overwhelming majority of groups there aren't going to be any actual problems. At least no more than there already is with different versions of D&D. You are always going to get the occasional kid who shows up at a 5e D&D game with their brothers old 3e books. I don't think that evergreen model will cause anymore misunderstandings than calling to 5.5 or 6e would.

 

[billd91]

Look at OneD&D from the perspective of motive. Previous editions were intentional breaks from the one before. AD&D was literally TSR trying to break up with Dave Arneson (and get out of paying him money), while 2e more or less served the same function with Gygax. And TSR noticed that they could simultaneously get a short term boost in sale. 3e was intended to establish a clear baseline for the WotC version of the game, while 4e was a reaction to the (at the time) hegemony of the MMORPG (basically World of Warcraft). Each edition was designed with the intention that it would replace the previous one.

That motive doesn't make sense when your game continues to do well and has basically become the lingua franca of TTRPGs. As soon as WotC bought DnDBeyond they were basically announcing that they were locked into 5e. Everything afterwards is just details.

Cutting people out of the rewards isn't the only reason for putting out a new edition (even if it's sometimes a big deal in the backstabby world of game publishing). Compiling and regularizing rule additions is also a well-recognized reason even if it, arguably, hasn't been the primary reason for many of D&D's edition changes. And as much as 2e served as a way to shuffle aside Gygax from the same royalties he might have been due with 1e books, the edition also served to compile differing rules on non-weapon proficiencies that had debuted in interim books like Oriental Adventures and the Survival Guides as well as fix other rules that had badly warped over time like surprise rules in 1e.

 

[Emberashh]

Some part of me wants to bookmark the posts asserting therr won't be issues mixing the editions together for later.

A year or so down the line Im really going to be interested if the same folks still insist the birds aren't real.

 

[Justice and Rule]

How many groups are actually going to be using the 2014 and 2024 books at the same time? How many groups that actually use both will actually have any problems or confusion?

For the vast majority of new players they are just going to buy the new books at the store and use them. I don't see much room for confusion there. It's like any other D&D version. You just buy the current books at a store and start playing.

The vast majority of groups that do end up using both the 2014 and 2024 books at the same time are going to be experienced groups using both because they choose to. They might like certain sub-classes or races from the 2014 books, and want to use them with the new rules.

There may be the potential for confusion, but I think that for the overwhelming majority of groups there aren't going to be any actual problems. At least no more than there already is with different versions of D&D. You are always going to get the occasional kid who shows up at a 5e D&D game with their brothers old 3e books. I don't think that evergreen model will cause anymore misunderstandings than calling to 5.5 or 6e would.

I think it's actually going to be far more confusing because you are going to have two different sets of designs for the same classes be viable at once, allowing players to choose between two rather differently-designed systems. You can say "Well, who will play the old stuff?" and I would say "More than you probably think".

Seriously, look at the debates we've had on this board alone: there are plenty of people who don't like the new designs and want things closer to the old stuff. Instead of saying "Well, you can play the older edition that is balanced around those conceits", you're now saying "Well, you can still use that old version at the table", thus completely negating the attempt to fix it by still outright allowing it with no changes. Don't like the 2024's version of the newly-balance druid? Well, time to go back to the 2014 druid with all its Circle of the Moon problems.

You can try and handwave the idea away, but the fact that people can just bring the old rules to the table if they don't like the new ones and try to play them is going to happen, and almost certainly more than you think. We've already seen some rough feedback for things like the Warlock. You don't think a bunch of people aren't just going to play the 2014 version?

Also, I find the conceit of "Everyone is going to buy the new rules" doesn't really play with the conceit of "You're going to cause a split in the community with a new edition", because I don't think a bunch of people are suddenly going to buy the rules only because they have a "5E" next to them. People are interested in the new rules because they are new, and I suspect that more people than you'd think would be up for an edition change right now. Instead, we're going to try and do a weird mixture of editions, where we have opposing designs competing. You're going to have people who ban old classes, or at least certain versions.

 

[codo]

Some part of me wants to bookmark the posts asserting therr won't be issues mixing the editions together for later.

A year or so down the line Im really going to be interested if the same folks still insist the birds aren't real.

Maybe the birds aren't real? I am still predicting thing are going to work out fine. Seriously what problems are you predicting that would take more than a 5 minute discussion with your group to solve?