D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Faolyn]

I don't think that. At all. I choose my words carefully (most of the time). The goal isn't to make the best game they can AND make a profit doing it, as much as I wish it was. The goal is to make the most money off the brand as possible, using whatever practical means are necessary. They're calling D&D "undermonitized" in that board meeting proves that to me. Making the best game is further down the list IMO. People keep equating not always pushing for maximum profit with not making any profit. They are not the same thing.

Yes, again, that's what everyone is saying. Because it's a company.

But I've been told to stop harping on this, so I'm through talking about it. I only responded here because a direct question was asked

Fair enough; I haven't gotten that far down the thread yet.

 

[Parmandur]

There's another thing that factors in to how I get my "gut" feeling (and I trust my gut, it's rarely wrong) that the products have been lacking. (And I think you're right, not only is there no objective way to really judge these things, but if you try, I think that you can only conclude that there's no real drop in quality, at least not a substantial one). That is, that for US (my FLGS) there has been a fairly substantial drop in sales on Adventure books. This factor inevitably deflates my feelings on the state of things.

Of course, there are many reasons for that beyond quality. In no particular order, they are: A new "edition" is coming, which makes customers shy of new products; there is and must be some success on WotC's part in getting people to switch to DDB (or physical/digital bundles sold through DDB); customers are generally overwhelmed with Adventure products (IE they already possess more adventures than they can run & books that they still mean to "get to" on their shelves); justly or unjustly, many reviews of recent books do not do a lot to push people toward buying them; Spelljammer sold fine, but was nearly universally disappointing, which colors folk's opinions of things that come after. I could probably go on.

The "overwhelmed shelves" is probably the biggest factor for a small FLGS. Unlike, say Amazon (or WotC overall) we rely on a smaller group of regular customers buying more things. This would explain why the Core books are still selling okay, while the Adventures are slower. There's still a LOT of people "just getting into D&D". These people wouldn't really know what to do with an Adventure (yet). But our core customers have slowed down getting "everything". Therefore, core sales have dropped and we're down to (relatively) a book here, a book there.

All fair points: it took a while for 5E to hit that point, but saturation is inevitable if books stay in print.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, again, that's what everyone is saying. Because it's a company.


Fair enough; I haven't gotten that far down the thread yet.

It was in a PM. Some people seem to think I'm too negative!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

All fair points: it took a while for 5E to hit that point, but saturation is inevitable if books stay in print.

Yes, that brings to mind a good point - it can be true that sales are down for individual 5e books while 5e sales across-the-board can still be doing great. A new, new-ish, or at least a "didn't-buy-them-all" customer that wants to buy a 5e Adventure to run has a lot of books to pick from. They might go for, say, Out of the Abyss today rather than Phandelver and Below. This was rarely ever possible before 5e. Out of the Abyss would be Out of Print by now, so you'd be "stuck" buying something more recent.

There's a reason why when I look at my lifetime sales of 5e books, the older ones are WAY higher (though it's not just that they've been around longer, they also sold better at release, for all my earlier-mentioned reasons). But still. We still sell a healthy number of 5e books (including the new ones - they sell "fine" - just not quite like they used to!) but it's across a lot of books.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It was in a PM. Some people seem to think I'm too negative!

It's true that you don't always come off as very "sweet", Micah!

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, that brings to mind a good point - it can be true that sales are down for individual 5e books while 5e sales across-the-board can still be doing great. A new, new-ish, or at least a "didn't-buy-them-all" customer that wants to buy a 5e Adventure to run has a lot of books to pick from. They might go for, say, Out of the Abyss today rather than Phandelver and Below. This was rarely ever possible before 5e. Out of the Abyss would be Out of Print by now, so you'd be "stuck" buying something more recent.

There's a reason why when I look at my lifetime sales of 5e books, the older ones are WAY higher (though it's not just that they've been around longer, they also sold better at release, for all my earlier-mentioned reasons). But still. We still sell a healthy number of 5e books (including the new ones - they sell "fine" - just not quite like they used to!) but it's across a lot of books.

Frankly, WotC starting to enter direct sales with physical/digital bundles has probably had a more detrimental effect on FLGS sales than quality maybe even could. Really wish they offered a Beyond bundle for FLGS, even though I don't use Beyond, because it would help stores.

 

[mamba]

I haven't read all the published adventures, so I don't know this to be true, but assuming you're right, as I suspect you are, I think this rather undercuts @Oofta's claim

Not sure why you take this claim over the other however... personal preference?

We can make that pretty simple, if you are being teleported to a different plane and have the Criminal background, do you think the following still works / applies?

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

 

[Oofta]

I haven't read all the published adventures, so I don't know this to be true, but assuming you're right, as I suspect you are, I think this rather undercuts @Oofta's claim that it "simply isn't an option" for his Sage character to use their background feature because his group is running through Curse of Strahd, a published adventure which is set in Barovia, that "most background features simply don't apply" in that setting, and that the existence of published adventures set in places like Barovia is evidence that background features are "a bad idea".

I never said backgrounds were a bad idea. I said groups should discuss backgrounds and talk about how much the background feature will be useful. I think the Background Features as presented in the earlier backgrounds were potentially limited because it's based too much on being recognized or who you know. I don't like how they were done, newer backgrounds are better. I still like the concept and the flexibility they give to character design (e.g. a dex based PC with criminal background being a reasonable replacement for a rogue).

But yeah, there are no libraries in Barovia so being a researcher is of no benefit. Same as being a sailor in the desert or any number of scenarios.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not sure why you take this claim over the other however... personal preference?

We can make that pretty simple, if you are being teleported to a different plane and have the Criminal background, do you think the following still works / applies?

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

This is a good example of one of the flaws to the background feature that makes me not prefer them (I generally like what they're trying to do, but not how they're implemented): That is, that they should probably ALSO mention something like (from your above example): "And, you are quick to establish a suitable replacement contact when you are out of your usual region."

My point is, I tend to find that the 2014 Background Features both do too little... and too much (at the same time). Far better, IMO, to give significantly better advice to DMs (and players!) on how to have dynamic interactions with NPCs. A system where PCs will find allies and enemies that thematically suit their characters (not just their background, but their species, class, skill set, alignment/personality, goals, etc.) Like-minded NPCs who will help and unlike-minded NPCs who will cause conflict (and not necessarily combat!)

 

[Parmandur]

This is a good example of one of the flaws to the background feature that makes me not prefer them (I generally like what they're trying to do, but not how they're implemented): That is, that they should probably ALSO mention something like (from your above example): "And, you are quick to establish a suitable replacement contact when you are out of your usual region."

My point is, I tend to find that the 2014 Background Features both do too little... and too much (at the same time). Far better, IMO, to give significantly better advice to DMs (and players!) on how to have dynamic interactions with NPCs. A system where PCs will find allies and enemies that thematically suit their characters (not just their background, but their species, class, skill set, alignment/personality, goals, etc.) Like-minded NPCs who will help and unlike-minded NPCs who will cause conflict (and not necessarily combat!)

I tend to suspect that the material in Bigby's is a preview of what the new DMG will be doing in terms of suggestions for NPC interactions.

The problem with the Features, for.me, ia thst they read like ironclad meta-currency or something, but not only do they not work that way...any reasonable DM will work with players to to replicate the effect if it makes sense in context. Basically doesnadd anything.