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

[grimmgoose]

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.

That's funny, because I have the exact view of minimal edition changes.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what the "pitch" is for 5.5, other than:

• Official errata'ing of broken builds/unintended effects
• Hasbro has noticed the line go down, and line must go up

5.5, to me, feels like a cynical corporate number crunch. I would much rather see a "radical", swing-for-the-fences 6th Edition with some fresh ideas, taking the lessons learned of the past 10 years (and beyond).

Some of the 5.5 changes feel "willy nilly" to justify "yeah, we changed stuff!" I don't feel the creative intent, is what I guess I'm getting at.

 

[Parmandur]

That's funny, because I have the exact view of minimal edition changes.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what the "pitch" is for 5.5, other than:

• Official errata'ing of broken builds/unintended effects
• Hasbro has noticed the line go down, and line must go up

5.5, to me, feels like a cynical corporate number crunch. I would much rather see a "radical", swing-for-the-fences 6th Edition with some fresh ideas, taking the lessons learned of the past 10 years (and beyond).

Some of the 5.5 changes feel "willy nilly" to justify "yeah, we changed stuff!" I don't feel the creative intent, is what I guess I'm getting at.

The main purpose is to have a fresh onboardign point that isn't dated, so the old fashioned ideas about "Race" are being removed, etc.

And the designers have made changes based on the past 10 years of experience...to a large extent, thar ia why the changes are so conservative. They are following solid design principles rather than trying to change everything for the sake of change.

The new art is more important to sales than new rules, obviously. That's a big part of why I am upgrading, along with the positive changes to Origins and flavor.

 

[mamba]

Doubtful in practice, particularly if full Adventure Days get utilized properly.

Novas are the result of parties not being pushed to the limit.

agreed, novas are the result of that, but then the 5e adventuring day is not something most tables seem to adhere to. At what point does that become a 5e design problem rather than an individual one...

 

[R_J_K75]

I hope there is never a "6E" as such. An evergreen game is better for the hobby, and 5E is well setup to be that fir decades

Perhaps for some its an evergreen edition but not to me, and it already feels dated and I think the game needs to evolve

 

[Aldarc]

So, this thread is specifically in the "General Tabletop Discussion> Dungeons & Dragons" sub-forum. That's brand specific, and clearly labelled as such.

We have a separate sub-forum for non-brand-specific discussion.

I was talking about ENWorld in general, but okay. But otherwise, it's much as @TwoSix says here.

Getting that detail wrong, in the middle of positioning yourself as a relative expert by experience...? Maybe don't flex that "You're only from 2019" muscle too much. Wisdom is not directly correlated to join date.

I'm not positioning myself "as a relative expert by experience." Nothing of the sort. My point was that people have been here before (and likely) after 5e D&D, and what keeps those people here may not be the current edition D&D or the D&D brand itself. It's the nature of a +20-year-old forum community where bonds are made as part of "hobby talk." As I alluded to before, it's the nature of D&D as a lifestyle brand and this a community for the TTRPG hobby.

You say that as if:

1) When it happens here, we don't get information on the motives of such posters to make generalizations.
2) The actions taken in the wider social media sphere do not show us anything upon which to base generalizations, either.

Are they generalizations, and thus of limited practical use in an individual case? Yes. Can you question if they are accurate? Sure. Is moralizing at people over it a great plan? Meh?

You are positioning this as a moral defense of folks who leave a metaphorical flaming bag of poo on the porch. That approach may work well for disproportional responses to the offenses. But for thinking mildly unflattering thoughts, it is probably not terribly persuasive.

I think that "If" may be doing a lot of heavy lifting for your argument here, and I would politely request that you don't presume the bold is my intent.

 

[grimmgoose]

The main purpose is to have a fresh onboardign point that isn't dated, so the old fashioned ideas about "Race" are being removed, etc.

And the designers have made changes based on the past 10 years of experience...to a large extent, thar ia why the changes are so conservative. They are following solid design principles rather than trying to change everything for the sake of change.

The new art is more important to sales than new rules, obviously. That's a big part of why I am upgrading, along with the positive changes to Origins and flavor.

I guess I just disagree entirely. Removing "old fashioned" ideas is fine. That's not really an issue. Obviously there is 'more' than just that, but my issue is: why am I being asked to spend 50+ on conservative changes? Make it $10. Heck, make it $20. Don't charge me for a "new edition", when they keep saying it isn't a new edition.

I also gotta say - and this is just me - but I don't give a flip about the new art. I'll look at it once, go, "oh wow, cool" and then never look at it again as I'm scanning the pages furiously for a specific rule. Art is pretty, but the "game" is what I'm paying for - functional rules that translate to a good experience at the table.

If I wanted an art book, I'd buy the D&D artbook.

edit: I want to be super clear - I'm not disparaging art, or the work that artists perform. It's important and vital. It's just that when I'm buying a TTRPG rulebook, art is a tertiary concern (for me).

 

[Parmandur]

agreed, novas are the result of that, but then the 5e adventuring day is not something most tables seem to adhere to. At what point does that become a 5e design problem rather than an individual one...

I am not aware of any evidence that most tables do not use the Adventure Day.

 

[Parmandur]

Perhaps for some its an evergreen edition but not to me, and it already feels dated and I think the game needs to evolve

Yes, for me it is, and thisnis basically the best case scenario that I hope lasts for decades. Whi h it can, easily. I need to monetize rule changes, when virtual minis and dice are more profitable. And long run, a continuous base is healthier for gamers as well.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess I just disagree entirely. Removing "old fashioned" ideas is fine. That's not really an issue. Obviously there is 'more' than just that, but my issue is: why am I being asked to spend 50+ on conservative changes? Make it $10. Heck, make it $20. Don't charge me for a "new edition", when they keep saying it isn't a new edition.

I also gotta say - and this is just me - but I don't give a flip about the new art. I'll look at it once, go, "oh wow, cool" and then never look at it again as I'm scanning the pages furiously for a specific rule. Art is pretty, but the "game" is what I'm paying for - functional rules that translate to a good experience at the table.

If I wanted an art book, I'd buy the D&D artbook.

I mean, the books are as much arbooks as rulebooks. I am happy flipping through for pleasure just as much as for rules.

To an exte t, WotC doesn't really care if you personally updgrade: that's why backwards compatibility is so important to them. A table can stay entirely with 2014, go full 2024, or just partially adopt 2024 (just the MM or DMG, say). WotC still can sell to all those possible groups, because Beyond and the VTT will work for it all. Anyone playing D&D might decide they want an Owlbear t-shirt or other merchandise, which is real money. The new rules are for new players, because the game cycles through a new batch of teenagers on a recurring basis. Longterm players are not the core business.

But that also being said, WotC is also subsidizing that peice: $50 on 2024 dollars is the cheapest Core books have ever been, and the Beyond option is cheaper particularly if you just want a rules quick reference.

 

[mamba]

I am not aware of any evidence that most tables do not use the Adventure Day.

I have no hard evidence either way, but from reading this forum I consider those following it a small minority. It feels like near uniform consensus that the number of encounters is way too high to be feasible