D&D General Making and surviving the break…

[Eyes of Nine]

This will be the ONE TRUE EDITION for as long as the core books keep selling and D&D maintains its market dominance

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe, but definitely not all. We liked both. We had PHB and essentials characters at our table. As the DM, I think they improved the monsters a bit with essentials books. Dragons definitely improved.

Sure, but that was also MM3, which was not an Essentials book. I was also mostly speaking about class design--and it's pretty much objective that the majority of the stinkers in player-facing design came from Essentials. The Vampire is awkward and janky and requires ruthless optimization to perform even adequately. The Binder was outright bad. The Berserker and Blackguard were awkward at best. The Bladesinger was almost as bad as the Binder (seriously, encounter powers as dailies? Mearls, what were you smoking, and can I have some?) Etc. (Note, this doesn't mean all Essentials stuff stank; the Elementalist Sorcerer was actually pretty good, and the Skald Bard was quite well-received as I understand it.)

I'm not following you. What does this have to do with essentials being called an "evergreen" edition?

5e has frequently been declared an evergreen edition unofficially, and official statements quite clearly dance around that impression without denying it. The folks talking about how it will never get changes bigger than a "5.1, 5.2" etc. are specifically claiming that even as leadership changes hands, priorities won't change--not for the next two decades or more. I'm giving an example of how even things we already know existed were not nearly as "evergreen" as people thought they would be, over less than three years. The designers say a lot of things. Some of those things don't mean what people think they mean. Some of those things originally meant what people think they mean, but get walked back later. E.g. modularity, which IIRC you mentioned upthread.

Most people thought "modularity" meant genuinely having chunky blocks of rules you could apply or avoid to reshape your experience of play to suit your preferences. And WotC themselves absolutely seem to have intended that meaning...at the start. By the time the public playtest had ended, however, it seems quite clear to me that they had realized that goal was completely beyond their means, but also that coming right out and saying that would have pissed people off. So instead of having the gonad gumption to, y'know, tell people about stuff like this, they just tried to stop talking about it and hope no one would notice. Like how they had come out swinging for "martial healing"--Mearls himself even tweeted about midway through the public playtest something to the effect of "it's going to be in the game, if you don't like that, tell people it's not allowed at your table" (albeit slightly more conciliatory). And then by the time we got the actual game........yeah. The "Warlord Fighter" was nowhere to be seen, and "martial healing" didn't exist (well, other than Second Wind, but that's clearly not what Mearls and co. meant.)

There is no guarantee that iterative tweaks will maintain full backwards compatibility forever. It could still evolve to a point where it is not functionally compatible with 2014 D&D.

Okay. I find that unlikely, given how hostile some fans have been to the mere possibility that their old stuff could be invalidated, and how much they're (rather lamentably) bending over backwards to ensure compatibility with existing 5e material. Much like with PF1e.

Personally I expect 5e to get about 10 more years and then a new edition. 20 years is probably long enough

Then why are we arguing? That's literally exactly what I said! That I expect them to come out with a genuinely new edition (roughly) ten years hence, instead of keeping confined to "5e with minor tweaks" for 20 years or more after 2024, which is what someone upthread specifically said (that they expect no new edition for 20 years or more, and possibly never.)

Basically they are saying both OG 4e and Essentials will both be printed and good to use.

With 5e, they are suggestion that there will not be a new edition. This is the one edition for hear on out. They were not saying the same thing about 4e or essentials.

I disagree with that assessment. It very much comes across as "this is the product meant to stand the test of time, to be reprinted continuously into the future," not just "this will be here as long as 4e is." We can debate semantics forever though. People understood "evergreen" to mean long-lasting. That was not true then. People understood "modularity" to mean (moderately) large chunks of rules that could be applied or removed to alter the experience of play. That was not true then and remains not true now. People understood 5e to be an edition that would only get iterative updates and never be replaced by a new edition--or, at least, not replaced for 30 years or more, based on the comments in this thread. I consider that to be just as mistaken as the previous beliefs. Not because I think WotC didn't mean what they once said, when they said it. Rather, that what the creators believed 5+ years ago may hold little to no relation to what they believe today, doubly so if the design leadership changes. As it likely will, given Crawford and Mearls will both be at the "looking for gentler pastures" stage by then. Crawford worked on his Bachelor's degree from 91-94, according to LinkedIn. Assuming he started at 18, that would make him roughly 60 in 2033, and Mearls isn't even working on D&D anymore (he's on the MTG team now.)

 

[overgeeked]

This will be the ONE TRUE EDITION for as long as the core books keep selling and D&D maintains its market dominance

Just like every edition before it.

 

[Shardstone]

The strangest thing is that people argue that keeping the game the same forever is a good thing. As if the rest of Hasbros forever games weren't the most mid-selling, boring, half-in-the-mainstream things ever by 2023. Sorry but while Monopoly is still played, its no one's idea of the best, most exciting, or go-to boardgame these days.

Keeping 5E the same forever only appeals to the overly cautious crowd who thinks the game will keep enchanting new players forever. As time progresses, 5E refusing to change will see that it's left behind by players and culture alike. Thinking that D&D's name is truly eternal, believing that D&D will actually survive forever, is make believe. Refusing to update, change, or revolutionize the game because people are happy with it now is the kind of corporate short-sightedness you'd expect of people who have no idea how art or games have to evolve.

People want to play something new, eventually. If WotC won't make it, at some point, someone will.

Pathfinder 2E has sold better than Pathfinder 1E. Let the clock turn instead of keeping us frozen on this mid af 11th hour.

 

[Shardstone]

This will be the ONE TRUE EDITION for as long as the core books keep selling and D&D maintains its market dominance

If only fairy tale conditions like these were possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Iterative tweaks confined by backwards compatibility will mean 5e remains essentially the same game forever.

If only they'd taken that attitude with 1e. UA (1985) was far more than an iterative tweak.

That said, look at 2e's evolution. It came out in 1989 as a somewhat stripped-down version of 1e, but by 1999 had - one splatbook at a time - been iteratively morphed into something almost unrecognizable. Yet it was all backwards-compatible with original 2e, in theory if not in practice.

And if they're happy with 5e (and for the most part, why wouldn't they be - it's the most successful version they've had) what reason would they have to make any changes greater than minor tweaks?

Which is why I'm watching the 2024 update/half-edition with great interest, wondering if in trying to make the game digitizable they'll change too much and lose that "thing" that makes 5e work as well as it does for so many people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If only they'd taken that attitude with 1e. UA (1985) was far more than an iterative tweak.

That said, look at 2e's evolution. It came out in 1989 as a somewhat stripped-down version of 1e, but by 1999 had - one splatbook at a time - been iteratively morphed into something almost unrecognizable. Yet it was all backwards-compatible with original 2e, in theory if not in practice.

And if they're happy with 5e (and for the most part, why wouldn't they be - it's the most successful version they've had) what reason would they have to make any changes greater than minor tweaks?

Which is why I'm watching the 2024 update/half-edition with great interest, wondering if in trying to make the game digitizable they'll change too much and lose that "thing" that makes 5e work as well as it does for so many people.

People make rather a big deal out of the changes to 2e. I personally find them hardly that different from just reading them. Even what I've seen of Skills and Powers just looks like cracking open the toolkit, rather than actually developing a new game.

There's no way you could use just those components to produce, say, 13th Age, for example. It's still 2e. It's just 2e with more dials for the player to turn.

Edit: And, per that last comment, I think what you'll find is that there is no secret sauce to 5e. It was a success far more because of when it happened, and far less because of how it happened. Making it more digital-compatible will simply make it easier to spread the seeds to new places, which was the only thing that passes for "secret sauce" with 5e. It was easy to transmit from person to person (in large part because it looks, and plays, like 3e and PF1e...and the places where it doesn't are often either nicer than those things, or easy to ignore/overlook.)

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but that was also MM3, which was not an Essentials book.

No, I was not talking about the MM3. I was talking about the Monster Vault (and MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale)

I was also mostly speaking about class design--and it's pretty much objective that the majority of the stinkers in player-facing design came from Essentials. The Vampire is awkward and janky and requires ruthless optimization to perform even adequately. The Binder was outright bad. The Berserker and Blackguard were awkward at best. The Bladesinger was almost as bad as the Binder (seriously, encounter powers as dailies? Mearls, what were you smoking, and can I have some?) Etc. (Note, this doesn't mean all Essentials stuff stank; the Elementalist Sorcerer was actually pretty good, and the Skald Bard was quite well-received as I understand it.)

We had a slayer at our table and it worked well for us. I feel like we had an essentials druid or druid-like PC too, but I can't remember. We never had anyone play the classes you noted, so I can't speak to those.

Whether or not the execution of a class was good, I appreciate they tried some different design space. I think the game got better when everything wasn't AEDU.

5e has frequently been declared an evergreen edition unofficially, and official statements quite clearly dance around that impression without denying it. The folks talking about how it will never get changes bigger than a "5.1, 5.2" etc. are specifically claiming that even as leadership changes hands, priorities won't change--not for the next two decades or more. I'm giving an example of how even things we already know existed were not nearly as "evergreen" as people thought they would be, over less than three years. The designers say a lot of things. Some of those things don't mean what people think they mean. Some of those things originally meant what people think they mean, but get walked back later.

I don't disagree with this, but still not sure how it applies.

E.g. modularity, which IIRC you mentioned upthread.

I did not, it must have been someone else. I have talked about modularity before though.

Okay. I find that unlikely, given how hostile some fans have been to the mere possibility that their old stuff could be invalidated, and how much they're (rather lamentably) bending over backwards to ensure compatibility with existing 5e material. Much like with PF1e.

I find it unlikely too (as I pointed out with my next statement). I just saying it is possible.

Then why are we arguing? That's literally exactly what I said! That I expect them to come out with a genuinely new edition (roughly) ten years hence, instead of keeping confined to "5e with minor tweaks" for 20 years or more after 2024, which is what someone upthread specifically said (that they expect no new edition for 20 years or more, and possibly never.)

I didn't think we were arguing. I can believe one thing while also discussing different possibilities.

I disagree with that assessment. It very much comes across as "this is the product meant to stand the test of time, to be reprinted continuously into the future," not just "this will be here as long as 4e is." We can debate semantics forever though. People understood "evergreen" to mean long-lasting.

I disagree. That was not the impression I had at the time and that is not the impression I got form the posts you quoted. What you quoted was WotC, fans, etc. and they pretty much all talked about "this edition." The over arching point was that 4e and essentials could both be used at the same time. One did not supersede the other. I none of those quotes, nor in my memory (which I admit could be wrong) did they think 4e/essentials would be a forever edition.

People understood 5e to be an edition that would only get iterative updates and never be replaced by a new edition--or, at least, not replaced for 30 years or more, based on the comments in this thread. I consider that to be just as mistaken as the previous beliefs. Not because I think WotC didn't mean what they once said, when they said it. Rather, that what the creators believed 5+ years ago may hold little to no relation to what they believe today, doubly so if the design leadership changes. As it likely will, given Crawford and Mearls will both be at the "looking for gentler pastures" stage by then. Crawford worked on his Bachelor's degree from 91-94, according to LinkedIn. Assuming he started at 18, that would make him roughly 60 in 2033, and Mearls isn't even working on D&D anymore (he's on the MTG team now.)

I pretty much agree with all of this, except the bolded part. I think people have been doubtful that 5e will be a forever edition from the beginning and still are. Many understand that this what WotC is selling, but I have seen many comments on this forum about how when sales start to sink we will see a new edition. The problem with 5e is that sales have not started to sink yet.

 

[payn]

Pathfinder 2E has sold better than Pathfinder 1E. Let the clock turn instead of keeping us frozen on this mid af 11th hour.

This is because 5E is selling like hotcakes like never before. 5E is growing the market, not losing ground.

 

[Scott Christian]

What is interesting to me is that this will inevitably lead to people arguing what a new edition actually is. I mean, how much has to change before you call it a new edition? There will certainly be people that will state, "Well, they kept the abilities and classes and subclasses the same, so it is not a new edition," while others will say, "They changed how background feats and bonuses work, and took species and changed the heck out of them, so it is a new edition."