D&D General Richard Whitters poll on twitter, "Will you be buying the newest edition of D&D?"

[Reynard]

An evergreen game is better fir the hobby

What are you basing this on? What makes you think this is true?

 

[Parmandur]

What are you basing this on? What makes you think this is true?

A steady, established set of rules that don't get massively changed allow for old and new players ro have a common baseline, and doesn't fracture the player base (as was clearly seen with older Edition changeovers).

Some people may or may not like the changes in the new books, but people who do adopt, people who stick with pure 2014, and people who mix and match can still stay on the same page.

Radical edition changes were only beneficial to corporate number crunches, purely cynical business moves. By moving the monetization strategies to online digital minis and dice, the actual rules are free to not be radically altered willy-nilly to juice sales.

 

[Retreater]

Occasionally, I peek into what's going on with 2024 D&D - such as watching the DND Beyond promo videos. With the focus on the PHB right now, it's difficult for me (a perpetual GM) to be excited.
Sly Flourish hit the nail on the head: it's making it more difficult for DMs while we've heard of nothing it's doing to help us.
300+ spells? weapon mastery traits that require no special actions? more character abilities? leaning into the "bonus" action economy just to slow down turns?
I think I'll use Level Up as my 2014 replacement, if/when the time comes back to revisit D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

Depends on the where and how. A top level post on twitter is one thing. Coming into a thread here to take a dump on a game folks love is another. Your reasons probably don't justify being a direct jerk to folks trying to enjoy their own hobby.

I agree that going into threads like the recent ones discussing the updated classes is not the appropriate place to vent, and any such venting does nothing but invite bad feeling (which is why I don't do it).

I think this particular thread, which is specifically about the question of "are you buying the newest edition", is a fair place for those of us who are ambivalent-to-negative about the current direction of the product line to voice our opinions.

 

[Parmandur]

What are you basing this on? What makes you think this is true?

St. Thomas Aquinas said, citing Cicero, that "argument from authority is the weakest form of argument."

In that spirit, this interview from the D&D Next playtest wra is enlighte ing:

"We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title."

GameInformer - The Final Level

Gary Gygax felt somewhat similarly, juat about 1E AD&D.

 

[Aldarc]

You are probably correct. I on the other hand don't see the need for people to come to a brand specific conversation space to tell me how much they don't like the brand. So they make their comments and I in turn make mine....this is the nature of conversation.

Regardless of whether the D&D brand takes up the lion's share of conversation, this is not a brand specific conversation space. The website does not even market itself as such: "EN World: Tabletop RPG News & Reviews." You came here in 2019. I doubt these people are coming here to tell you anything. A number of people on this forum, myself included, have been on here long before 5e D&D. It's likely that there will be people on here after 5e D&D as well. People come here to discuss a variety of topics related to D&D and tabletop RPGs.

Depends on the where and how. A top level post on twitter is one thing. Coming into a thread here to take a dump on a game folks love is another. Your reasons probably don't justify being a direct jerk to folks trying to enjoy their own hobby.

My preference is not to take such potshots, but I suppose that you may feel differently in that regard. Regardless, I don't think that one should make such malign generalizations about the intentions of nameless people who aren't here. I think that it risks of unfairly strawmanning others. As I said before, I think that there are a variety of reasons why people may voice criticism of the brand, none of which requires ascribing a desire on these people as wanting to be perceived as "experts."

 

[Reynard]

Sly Flourish hit the nail on the head: it's making it more difficult for DMs while we've heard of nothing it's doing to help us.
300+ spells? weapon mastery traits that require no special actions? more character abilities? leaning into the "bonus" action economy just to slow down turns?

See, I don't think any of that is a burden on the GM. That stuff is player responsibility, and if they can't be bothered to learn it, they get clobbered.

 

[Retreater]

See, I don't think any of that is a burden on the GM. That stuff is player responsibility, and if they can't be bothered to learn it, they get clobbered.

It will be a burden when your monster is knocked prone with every attack and all characters gang up on it, attacking with advantage and you never get the ability to move it or threaten a single character because everything that's been added to the game completely favors the players and their characters (since they're the ones buying the largest number of books).
And as someone who has been running 4E D&D and PF2 for a couple years now, it does tax the DM's brain (at least it does to me.)
And then you have to figure out - do you let other weapons do a similar effect? Can you let someone with a longsword do extra bleeding damage - since that's the purview of axes? (I don't actually know what maneuver features go with what weapon group - but you get the idea.)
Can non-martials use weapons creatively at all?
If the creatures get saves against maneuvers, are you ready to roll saves all the time?
Are you ready to remember to track conditions on every opponent? (Orc A is stunned; Orc B has persistent bleed damage; Orc C is prone; etc.) Because I've been doing that junk in PF2 and 4E for the past 2 years, and I'm sick of it.

 

[KYRON45]

Regardless of whether the D&D brand takes up the lion's share of conversation, this is not a brand specific conversation space. The website does not even market itself as such: "EN World: Tabletop RPG News & Reviews." You came here in 2019. I doubt these people are coming here to tell you anything. A number of people on this forum, myself included, have been on here long before 5e D&D. It's likely that there will be people on here after 5e D&D as well. People come here to discuss a variety of topics related to D&D and tabletop RPGs.


My preference is not to take such potshots, but I suppose that you may feel differently in that regard. Regardless, I don't think that one should make such malign generalizations about the intentions of nameless people who aren't here. I think that it risks of unfairly strawmanning others. As I said before, I think that there are a variety of reasons why people may voice criticism of the brand, none of which requires ascribing a desire on these people as wanting to be perceived as "experts."

So the fact that "D&D" is used a few times in the conversation header means that this is not a conversation about "D&D"?
One of us may be, but the other certainly is wrong about that.

 

[Aldarc]

So the fact that "D&D" is used a few times in the conversation header means that this is not a conversation about "D&D"?
One of us may be, but the other certainly is wrong about that.

I think that one of us is looking for an unnecessary heated argument. (Hint: it's not me.)