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

[Chaosmancer]

~looks at the last ten years except Tasha's. Looks at One D&D after the first playtest~

Well, I guess they're still doing a decent job editing. You got me there.

Fizban's Dragonborn options and dragon statblocks

Multiverse of Monsters Racial options and monster design

Xanathar's subclasses

Was there a deluge of material that was constantly pushing the bounds? No. But let's not pretend that WoTC has done NOTHING except Tasha's.

Also, looking at the One DnD playtest, they've done quite a bit. Not all of it is flashy, not all of it is good, but it is looking at the various options, not just stagnating.

 

[mamba]

"why wont they stop being concerned??? Better denigrate their entire position by dismissing it as pointless complaints!"

I’d care more if we hadn’t had >50 pages (over various threads) of them being addressed already.

At this point nothing I can say will change their mind, so sometimes I do not bother

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why should WotC care if people like you, consider the game "mechanically stagnant" if it still keeps selling incredibly well and people are still enjoying playing the game? Just because you consider being "mechanically stagnant" doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

You might be mixing me up with someone else. What I'm saying is that even if they ended up never changing the mechanics again, and just kept getting new players and exciting them with new stories, new places and new monsters, that it would still be a massive success for them.

The fact that they ARE looking to improve the mechanics (even if they don't always succeed or go as far as I like) just makes it even better.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't need to just discuss what you want.

But you do need to stop framing such things as though you're responding to things I said.

If Im talking about apples you don't get to act like I'm in the wrong for questioning why you started in on oranges.

I get you point, I just disagree with it. You think there is no benefit to WotC's evergreen model, only downside.

No you don't get my point at all actually, as Im not arguing against the idea of an evergreen game. Thats how a lot of games work afterall.

What Im arguing against is the implementation, and the unforced error of trying to mix editions.

If you're going to go evergreen, start clean. Don't bolt on an entirely separate game, that you're never going to update separately from the new game, for no reason at all.

I said it earlier in this topic, but deprecation is a necessary part of maintaining a continually developed game.

 

[mamba]

I said it earlier in this topic, but deprecation is a necessary part of maintaining a continually developed game.

that will happen organically

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

puts on sarcasm hat

A five minute discussion! With Players! How dare you try and put that sort of burden on the DM, I mean, TALKING to people? How could you ever expect that to work when I can contrive this scenario where it totally doesn't work because everyone is unreasonable and locked into the positions I gave them!

Takes off sarcasm hat

Yeah, this idea of "confusion" really is a bugbear the same way the shadow of your jacket in your closet is.

 

[Dire Bare]

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).

The only edition change that was motivated . . . in part . . . to cut somebody out of the rewards was AD&D 1st Edition. TSR, under Gary, thought adding the "Advanced" to the name of the game would allow them to stop paying Arneson royalties. That wasn't resolved until WotC took over the game.

We would have gotten that version of the game anyway, it just might not have been called "Advanced" if it wasn't for the beef between Gygax and Arneson. I've always wondered if the split between B/X and AD&D would have been a thing otherwise . . . .

 

[Emberashh]

that will happen organically

In a hobby where certain people are called rules lawyers, it is nothing but hilarious to suggest things will be deprecated organically.

What will actually happen is things that are liked (which are not the same things as what are good for the game) will stay, and everything universally disliked won't be used.

And there will be zero continuity from table to table to WOTC on what all of those things are.

It will be a mess, and it will not work the way they want them to, unless they take time and actually revise 5e relative to itself before adding on the new with OneDND.

 

[codo]

You might be mixing me up with someone else. What I'm saying is that even if they ended up never changing the mechanics again, and just kept getting new players and exciting them with new stories, new places and new monsters, that it would still be a massive success for them.

The fact that they ARE looking to improve the mechanics (even if they don't always succeed or go as far as I like) just makes it even better.

I'm sorry I misread your post on 2e being "stagnant" and though you were on the 5e is stagnant side. I need to stop posting late at night. Sorry.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Given the direction they took 1DND, I suspect the opposite; most of the new material isn't going to be used.

Something like the Wizard that got buffed will, but I'd bet a shiny penny that the nuDruid or nuRogue won't be without some substantial changes, and even then.

See, stuff like this utterly confuses me. Yeah, the Druid was bad. They know that. They have the survey results saying the Druid was bad. They've said they are going to fix that.

Have they done so yet? Don't know. We haven't seen it. But looking at the playtest mid-way through and saying "the things that were broken weren't immediately fixed before we saw anything else, so it will still be broken" just seems... completely silly? Like, sure, maybe it will still suck and be terrible. But we might as well say the nuMonk is going to be unusuable, because the 2014 monk had design problems. Maybe wait until they are done with the process before determining the process is a failure?