D&D (2024) What upcoming WotC D&D product are you excited about?

[Theory of Games]

IDK, I think I will agree to disagree:

1. 3e: The start of the WotC era.
   1. Eberron was pretty interesting / innovative. Not my preferred style of D&D, but interesting and better thought out than a lot of 2e settings
   2. 3.5 draconomicon is the gold standard for TTRPG dragon books IMO
   3. Standardizing on the d20 mechanic was a nice innovation
   4. OGL was a huge impact and was definitely an innovative idea for TTRPGs
   5. Probably a lot of things I am not thinking of because I didn't play this edition.
2. 4e: I also think 4e as whole was extremely interesting and innovate in both lore and mechanics. I think it may even be near a high water mark for TTRPGs since the founding of D&D.
   1. Dawn War and general cohesive mythology/cosmos
   2. Nentir Vale setting
   3. AEDU powers design & class balance
   4. Class roles
   5. Divorcing Monster design from PC design (really this harkens back to TSR era design).
   6. Monster design in general, but...
      1. Monsters by level and type (minion, standard, elite, solo)
      2. Monsters by role (brute, leader, controller, etc.)
      3. Iconography
3. 5e: I think there are a lot of interesting and innovative things with 5e too.
   1. Advantage / Disadvantage
   2. Bounded Accuracy (more the idea than the implementation)
   3. Legendary and then Mythic monsters
   4. First World
   5. Radiant Citadel (more the worlds it opened up than the citadel itself)
   6. DnD Beyond
   7. Edition based canon

I'm not a boycotter in general unless it is something of real importance, and TTRPG companies do not qualify IMO.

sigh

1. 3.0 wasn't the first ttrpg to use d20 as core AND rolling against a DC has ruined roleplaying
2. The OGL was useful in the creation of OSRIC, which (while not the first) kicked opened the door for the OSR
3. 4e was 'so good' that WotC lost nearly half the D&D player-base to a competitor (Paizo). That is the opposite of 'good'
4. ADV/DISADV isn't new to the hobby as you can find similar rules in older games (it's a variant of "Roll & Keep" systems)
5. Bounded Accuracy was achieved by buffing characters (HP & Proficiency) while nerfing monsters (AC & HP). Hardly 'innovative'.

WotC is the Disney of ttrpgs: they just copy what someone else has done and use marketing to convince folks that what they did was new and cool

 

[Zaukrie]

Sigh.

 

[Zaukrie]

Eberron content is my top choice, but I'm looking forward to all of these .

 

[Imaro]

sigh

1. 3.0 wasn't the first ttrpg to use d20 as core AND rolling against a DC has ruined roleplaying

What game was?

1. The OGL was useful in the creation of OSRIC, which (while not the first) kicked opened the door for the OSR

So it was innovaive and spurred the creation of the OSR

1. 4e was 'so good' that WotC lost nearly half the D&D player-base to a competitor (Paizo). That is the opposite of 'good'

But it was innovative... or are you confusing innovative for good or maybe popular... because neither of those are synonyms for good. To be fair I think alot of folks forget that.

1. ADV/DISADV isn't new to the hobby as you can find similar rules in older games (it's a variant of "Roll & Keep" systems)

It's not the same as roll and keep... that's a dice pool system. So what game actually implemented adv/disadv in the way 5e did, before it?

1. Bounded Accuracy was achieved by buffing characters (HP & Proficiency) while nerfing monsters (AC & HP). Hardly 'innovative'.

How something was achieved isn't the main factor in whether something is innovaive or not, it's result on gameplay is.

WotC is the Disney of ttrpgs: they just copy what someone else has done and use marketing to convince folks that what they did was new and cool

How many games exist that are based on D&D, the OGL and the d20 rules at this point? But WotC is the one copying what someone else does. Riiiighht.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps unfortunately, timing has vastly reduced by need and thus interest, for D&D products.

I just finished up a Wild Beyond the Witchlight campaign, and my players unanimously said they'd prefer to do something not high fantasy, which means I'm unlikely to be running much D&D for a while.

If I were, I don't know that setting based materials are what I, personally, would need. Player options and adventure options would be higher on my list.

 

[Imaro]

I'm looking forward to the Eberron book, the starter set and the Dragon Delves book. I'm more wait and see with the FR books as my preferred WotC settings are more along the lines of Planescape, Ravnica and Eberron vs. FR or Greyhawk.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some of us weren't posting on En World back then .... but many were:

Thread 'The OGL -- Just What's Going On?'

Jan 5, 2023

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one.

What's the OGL?
The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like license created by D&D owner WotC about 20 years ago so that third parties could create material compatible with the then-3E D&D game. This allowed smaller publishers to ensure the game was supported with products which WotC could not make themselves, driving sales of the...

• Morrus
• Replies: 2,483
• Forum: Publishing Business & Licensing

• 
• 
• 

And most were not saying that we should never buy wotc products again and all that.

 

[SkidAce]

sigh

1. 3.0 wasn't the first ttrpg to use d20 as core AND rolling against a DC has ruined roleplaying
2. The OGL was useful in the creation of OSRIC, which (while not the first) kicked opened the door for the OSR
3. 4e was 'so good' that WotC lost nearly half the D&D player-base to a competitor (Paizo). That is the opposite of 'good'
4. ADV/DISADV isn't new to the hobby as you can find similar rules in older games (it's a variant of "Roll & Keep" systems)
5. Bounded Accuracy was achieved by buffing characters (HP & Proficiency) while nerfing monsters (AC & HP). Hardly 'innovative'.

WotC is the Disney of ttrpgs: they just copy what someone else has done and use marketing to convince folks that what they did was new and cool

Have you ever looked at the Primal Order?

 

[billd91]

I'm interested in Dragon Delves because I can usually find something useful to use in an anthology. And my own Forgotten Realms materials are pretty spotty and dated at this point, so it will be nice to have some more recent treatments.

Of the other two, I don't really need another starter set and I've never been particularly into Eberron.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yikes. Sorry was this the thread on EnWorld where we talk about the products we’re excited about. Sorry think I might have got turned around somewhere. Seems to be full of angry people who don’t play or buy 5e products as usual.
.

I disagree with that sentiment, it has nothing to do with anger. There's a difference between being excited about something and an echo chamber. There are more on the list that I want to be excited about than not, but changing "want to be" into something like a"definitely am" is a thing dependant on wotc's marketing and hype of those products along with their content. Most of the things on that list are reprints and updates of things already available except that the gm needs to do a lot of lifting to make the themes and tones fit, reprinting then "but for 5.5" without the book doing that lifting raises the obvious question of what buying it would do for me as a gm.