D&D (2024) DMs what do you think of the new PHB?

[DEFCON 1]

I would consider "publish the 4e rules for the VTT" as a form of wooing people back.

That said? This idea that any part of 5e is in any way actually "evergreen" is frankly silly. It never has been, and their claims otherwise were at absolute best pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

They had said things that were very, very much meant to be understood as "we will never replace these core books." They've already broken that "promise" (which, naturally, they never said outright and made sure to always keep soft-touch and equivocal, so people will eviscerate you for claiming that it was a promise...even though it was literally everything BUT explicitly stated.)

If general patterns hold, 5.5e will last all of 4-6 years before we start hearing rumbles about another round of public playtesting. I fully expect an actual public playtest by 2031 at the absolute latest.

Well, like everything involved in this game... each person has decided on their own interpretation of what "evergreen" represents. Same way everyone came up with their own definition of what "backwards compatible" meant, same way everyone had their own interpretation of what "you can play 5E in the style of previous editions" was.

I never had the same interpretation of what their "promise" was for keeping 5E "evergreen". To me... the idea that WotC could never reprint the core foundational rules of the 5E game in a new book after some period of time and after X amount of Xanathar's / Tasha's type splatbooks that added onto or changed various rules of the game is rather silly. That for example, even after they had chosen to print like 10 different 'Xanathar' type books over the next decade that they always still had to keep referencing back to the 5E14 Player's Handbook in order for the 5E game to be considered "evergreen" makes little to no sense in my opinion. And I never held them to that ridiculous standard. After all... books like Level Up and Tales of the Valiant has reprinted the core foundational rules of the 5E game (via the 5E SRD) in their own products and they call themselves "5E" games... so obvious they believe the 5E rules are still in effect.

Other people will draw their line in the sand somewhere else. And that's fine. But it doesn't mean they are right and I am wrong. That's all a matter of personal opinion.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It'd be really damn nice to have the game 95% of people are playing as one I'm actually eager to play for the game itself, and not (almost exclusively) for the good people I share the table with.

Or, to phrase that differently: I tried to play the game that I want to play. Several such games, in fact. It was a huge bust and, by and large, a waste of nearly a year's effort, a few years back.

That's not WotC's problem and never has been. But just because you tried to get games on the table that you wanted to play and failed at it doesn't mean they have to now change their games to suit you just because you have a need to be part of the 95%. That's not their responsibility, nor should they be concerned about your opinions of the 5E game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's not WotC's problem and never has been. But just because you tried to get games on the table that you wanted to play and failed at it doesn't mean they have to now change their games to suit you just because you have a need to be part of the 95%. That's not their responsibility, nor should they be concerned about your opinions of the 5E game.

Tell me "D&D isn't for you, so stop complaining" without telling me "D&D isn't for you, so stop complaining."

This argument is fundamentally bad-faith. You're acting like I'm some kind of petulant, selfish brat for wanting a game I actually like to play. I have neither the energy nor the patience to be insulted so.

 

[Imaro]

It'd be really damn nice to have the game 95% of people are playing as one I'm actually eager to play for the game itself, and not (almost exclusively) for the good people I share the table with.

Or, to phrase that differently: I tried to play the game that I want to play. Several such games, in fact. It was a huge bust and, by and large, a waste of nearly a year's effort, a few years back.

The question is whether D&D becoming a... game you are eager to play for the game itself... will in turn make it a game those 95% no longer want to play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Tell me "D&D isn't for you, so stop complaining" without telling me "D&D isn't for you, so stop complaining."

This argument is fundamentally bad-faith. You're acting like I'm some kind of petulant, selfish brat for wanting a game I actually like to play. I have neither the energy nor the patience to be insulted so.

Nothing I say will ever stop you from commenting on your disdain for 5E and your desire to play a version of D&D that no one else wants to run for you. So I don't know what the problem here is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The question is whether D&D becoming a... game you are eager to play for the game itself... will in turn make it a game those 95% no longer want to play.

Considering the game they want to play is 4E... I think the answer to your question is 'Yes'.

 

[Imaro]

Considering the game they want to play is 4E... I think the answer to your question is 'Yes'.

Ah ok... didn't know that. Well...4e had its time to shine and well... now we have 5e.

 

[Distracted DM]

When was this? In 1e the first book WAS the Monster Manual and it was written with the OCE rules in mind, then the PHB a year later, the DMG a year after that. 2e they were released back to back, same with 3.x and 4e was all same day. There were a few delays with 5e but the schedule was supposed to be back to back then as well.

In other versions of the game the DM advice and monsters were part of the boxed sets and not separate.

That's my bad, I was thinking of another thread where I was informed as such:

D&D (2024) - D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

The Players Handbook is for the Players. It should contain what the players need to create an play the DM allowed Characters presented in the PHB. Common player side variants rules should be there so every DM does not need to explain how to use them to players. Player side variant rules in...

www.enworld.org

 

[deadman1204]

Reading reviews and it's a lot of gushing over how many new options and powers the PCs have. Which is grand from a player perspective.

What do my fellow Forever DMs think?

It should be noted that those who get it early and give bad reviews do not get the next product early. When everyone was saying bad stuff on youtube about the phb, wizards laywers started sending nasty grahms to people. Hearing mostly good things doesn't mean its good, its that theres layers of things that discourage people from saying bad. Plus many who know its bad didn't bother spending the money.
A good corrallary is disney and star wars movies. Any movie critic who says bad things about a star wars movie gets blackballed and is not allowed to see any other disney movie early again. Thus suddenly all the critics only say good thing about star wars movies, because if they cannot see the movie early, their job will replace them with someone who can.

 

[bedir than]

It should be noted that those who get it early and give bad reviews do not get the next product early

DnD Shorts was sent preview products and their channel became famous by attacking WotC/Hasbro

When everyone was saying bad stuff on youtube about the phb, wizards laywers started sending nasty grahms to people.

The messages from lawyers weren't because of the tenor of the review. No one else has claimed that.