D&D (2024) 6E When?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

And successfully!
Looks like they learned something.

Meh. 5e has done some things just exactly like all the classic eds, others it's continued the trend line over time, and others (like BA) it's gone the exact opposite of anything D&D has every done before.

Picking one of those things and laying the current commercial success at it's feet isn't at all compelling.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GreyLord]

In a sense 4e lives on. For 4e fans how reusable are elements from the board game for playing regular 4e D&D?

It depends. They started a Levelling system with the most recent ones published (ToEE for example). Up until DotMM you could only get to level 2, but with DotMM they increased the level limit to 4. It's very similar to 4e combat, but simplified and lower powered in many ways.

It obviously is more boardgame like so you really don't have skill challenges, skill usage, or free form play at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, they certainly haven't been hurt by not naming a book "PHB 2" and using evocative and interesting names, have they?

Not having a quantum alternate universe they did do that in to check against, we can't say for sure.

In fact, given the growth of new players to the hobby, perhaps we can at least assume they are doing something right? Just maybe?

Could be nothing but an accident of market timing. Just a come-back that'd've played out the same whether they were selling anything from 5e DM-Empowered BA to Spawn of Fshawn nonsense between the covers. Could be if they did even one tiny little thing different it'd've crashed and burned. Maybe if they'd stayed with a +2 bonus instead of a second d20 for advantage, or given the fighter weapon specialization, or put a red idol on the cover of PH, that PF1 would still be beating them out in ICv2 rankings.

Extensive analysis could give clues, of course, but we don't have that on here. And what WotC deigns to share never seems to add up to any sort of consistent picture.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Good point. If 5e had bundled the player-side material in the various supplements we've seen so far and instead released it in a PH2 that would not have been continuing an old convention. Instead, it's returned to an old convention, in publishing not-too-focused supplements with unintuitive and/or setting-referent names.

Here's the thing; what you're arguing is that in 5e, WotC should bite the bullet and make an updated PHB (or PHB 2) that includes many of the new changes and updates. You believe that this is less confusing for buyers, as they won't need to bother with something called "Xanathar's Guide to Everything," as a new player doesn't know what that means.

But Wizard's doesn't think like that. Instead, they think in two streams; products/marketing designed to bring in new players, and products/marketing to give to current players. Products like the Essentials Kit or Rick and Morty box are designed for new players, placed in places like Target, to bring in new players; they're simple and designed to be simple so someone can learn the game easy. Which for someone completely new to TTRPGs, is confusing enough from the Starter's Kit; it took me a while to figure out how magic works. Lumping more options makes it more difficult for people to learn the game and have fun playing it quickly.

The other products, like Xanathar's, are meant for current players. They're meant for people who now understand how 5e works, but want more options and tools to keep the game interesting. They are being retargeted, and making new purchases; it is later in the customer lifecycle.

This strategy is not only breathtakingly simple, it's also pretty successful.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's the thing; what you're arguing is that in 5e, WotC should bite the bullet and make an updated PHB (or PHB 2) that includes many of the new changes and updates.

Nah, that got dragged into it, somehow.

I was wondering why they hadn't updated the related boardgames to readily segway into 5e. Or rather, I was finding the story as to why they didn't odd and even a tad contradictory.

This strategy is not only breathtakingly simple, it's also pretty successful.

It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one.
But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.

Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.
So the reflexive apologist tack of "well it's successful, so this specific detail must have been the only right choice," doesn't fly, even though it gets launched constantly when the game is doing well (or even when it was doing very badly, but still better than all other RPGs).

I probably shouldn't always be rowing against such an overwhelming current. I should just head for shore and leave this hobby to those who deserve it, since I, clearly, as one not keeping the faith, do not.