D&D General What version of D&D are you playing?

[Micah Sweet]

As of today, this survey accounts for approximately .001% of all people playing D&D and has a significant selection bias and is pretty meaningless. Interesting.

Do you really think the bulk of the D&D player base has dropped their $50-150 on the new books and is happily playing 5.5?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Very much wish I could vote 4e, but the correct answer is 5.5e.

I understand that the "4e Essentials" line is there because folks think it's different....I just wish people would stop feeding that perspective.

Yeah. It's a bunch more material, differently formatted and marketed, for the same game.

 

[AlViking]

Do you really think the bulk of the D&D player base has dropped their $50-150 on the new books and is happily playing 5.5?

I think any and all surveys on this site are basically meaningless when looking at broader trends.

I don't really care what game other people play while also acknowledging that there is a significant bias on this forum for several reasons. On the other hand $50-150 will get a couple a meal at a good restaurant nowadays if you don't splurge on wine, D&D is still an incredibly cheap hobby for the hours of enjoyment I and my players get out of it. Especially because most of my players just use my DndBeyond account and never spend a dime on books.

 

[cranberry]

As of today, this survey accounts for approximately .001% of all people playing D&D and has a significant selection bias and is pretty meaningless. Interesting.

ENWorld may only represent a tiny percent of D&D players, but it tends to be a "hard core" group of players.

So the fact that only 45% are playing 2024 should be very telling.

And if I read the defensive tone of your response correctly, just remember that WoTC is a business, they are not your dear friend...

 

[AlViking]

Very much wish I could vote 4e, but the correct answer is 5.5e.

I understand that the "4e Essentials" line is there because folks think it's different....I just wish people would stop feeding that perspective.

I was playing 4e when the essentials came out, it was at least as big a difference as the other versions mentioned with 1e and the three basic versions, 2e and 2e + Player's Options. The survey isn't picking on 4e.

 

[Valetudo]

4e basic and essentialvare 2 separate games. They even wiped out core on their online stuff(I forgot what it was called). You couldn't run a magic missile build from core. And certain classes had powers nerfed and changed. Definitely a half edition there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was playing 4e when the essentials came out, it was at least as big a difference as the other versions mentioned with 1e and the three basic versions, 2e and 2e + Player's Options. The survey isn't picking on 4e.

It literally actually wasn't though.

Because you can, without changing anything, no house-rules, no conversion documents, absolutely nothing changed, play "original" 4e characters and Essentials-only characters at the same table. As long as you don't cross a class with itself, you can even hybridize an Essentials-formatted class with an "original"-formatted class without issues. Literally not one thing changed mechanically, except for having more options.

That's simply not true of going from 1e to 2e, and as far as I can tell, not even 2e+PO.

It's not a matter of anyone picking on anything. It's a matter of people just straight-up falsely saying that Essentials is in any way anything more than SCAG was for 5e. In the modern lingo, alternative subclass options for existing classes. That's literally all Essentials did. The new monster math predated it (it first appeared in MM3, prior to MV, indeed three months prior to the first Essentials book.) Themes predated it. Essentials literally did not remove nor alter a single existing mechanic of 4e. That isn't true of 1e->2e, which most folks agree is the single smallest edition jump the game has ever had, as far as I'm aware; I was unable to read when 2e came out so I couldn't really have known either way personally.

It would be like listing (using WotC's absolutely ridiculous year-based nomenclature because they're afraid to admit that 5.5e is, y'know, a revision):

D&D 5e (2014)
D&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGE
D&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGE + Tasha's
D&D 5e (2024)

 

[AlViking]

ENWorld may only represent a tiny percent of D&D players, but it tends to be a "hard core" group of players.

So the fact that only 45% are playing 2024 should be very telling.

And if I read the defensive tone of your response correctly, just remember that WoTC is a business, they are not your dear friend...

I never said one way or another whether more people have adapted 2024 vs 2014 (or any other edition), all I said was that we can't draw any broader conclusion. Surveys on this forum are not representative of the broader public.

On the other hand this response is another clear indication of clear and persistent bias that I see on multiple threads. Having had a couple of responses implying that I'm somehow biased, it's clear to me why many people don't acknowledge if they happen to like things like the new version. There's always those people waiting to pounce and call anyone who supports the new edition somehow a drone who blindly accept whatever WOTC produces. Can't possibly be that I thought that after a decade there needed to be a bit of an upgrade, I must think WOTC is my benevolent friend! Give me a break.

 

[AlViking]

It literally actually wasn't though.

Because you can, without changing anything, no house-rules, no conversion documents, absolutely nothing changed, play "original" 4e characters and Essentials-only characters at the same table. As long as you don't cross a class with itself, you can even hybridize an Essentials-formatted class with an "original"-formatted class without issues. Literally not one thing changed mechanically, except for having more options.

That's simply not true of going from 1e to 2e, and as far as I can tell, not even 2e+PO.

It's not a matter of anyone picking on anything. It's a matter of people just straight-up falsely saying that Essentials is in any way anything more than SCAG was for 5e. In the modern lingo, alternative subclass options for existing classes. That's literally all Essentials did. The new monster math predated it (it first appeared in MM3, prior to MV, indeed three months prior to the first Essentials book.) Themes predated it. Essentials literally did not remove nor alter a single existing mechanic of 4e. That isn't true of 1e->2e, which most folks agree is the single smallest edition jump the game has ever had, as far as I'm aware; I was unable to read when 2e came out so I couldn't really have known either way personally.

I'm not getting into edition wars. I was just pointing out that the survey included every publication some people considered different enough to be considered a significant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not getting into edition wars. I was just pointing out that the survey included every publication some people considered different enough to be considered a significant.

Given how people caterwauled about Tasha's being 5.5e before we got actual 5.5e?

No, they did not include "every publication some people considered different enough to be considered a significant" jump.