D&D (2024) 6E When?

[Hussar]

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.

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

I answered this pages ago but I think it got lost in the scrum. Well, no, you brushed off my point by saying that 5e looks like 1e.

They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical. There's really very, very little difference. Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e. So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.

Mechanically, at these levels? 4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game. So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics? They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The rules for the board game were quite simplified from 4E from what I remember (we played a few games at a friend's house).

I'm not recalling a whole bunch of it. But it was fairly recognizable, and had served as an on-ramp (we called it a 'gateway drug') to D&D.

I don't find a company selling a game that only costs them manufacturing costs as particularly "odd".

Sure, if it were the same three games, just keep 'em in print untill they stop selling.

They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it. Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity? For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?

 

[Tony Vargas]

They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical.

I know that's one of your pet theories.
OK, facts.
On a basic mechanical level, before you get into, say, classes, advancement (BA), and the like, they are a bit more similar to eachother than any other two d20 games picked out of a hat at random, say.

There's really very, very little difference. Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e. So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.

Except in 5e you don't have a character with a handful of powers starting out. If you've a caster, you have a handful of cantrips, and handful of spells, and a handful of slots to cast them with. If not, you have a weapon or two, and rage or action surge or SA.
(Heck, now that I'm down this rabbit hole, anyway: why didn't they update with Legend of Drizzt to reference Essentials-style characters?)

Mechanically, at these levels? 4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game. So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics? They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.

I may be mis-remembering how much the characters in Castle Ravenloft resembled D&D characters. I'm going to have to at least glance at it again, before I come back to the discussion...

 

[Parmandur]

They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it. Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity? For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?

Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.

 

[Oofta]

Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.

Betrayal at Baldur's Gate is also labeled as a D&D game but only bears a passing resemblance to 5E. It's more or less a FR version of Betrayal on House on the Hill.

There's no reason to rewrite the rules for old board games if they work.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I buy them used for the miniatures, I do like the board game but I never really get it to the table. I know it’s played a lot by other folks I know.

Just curious, did you buy Vault of Dragons? It's got something like 40 minis in it for $30, but the minis seem a little too small for use in a D&D game.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is one of my favorite things to speculate about.

D&D is doing so well now, with mainstream popularity, book sales, celebrity endorsements, and number of players at all-time highs. A new edition probably isn't even in the works at the moment. They seem to be putting all of their resources into more 5E content, like the new Eberron campaign setting, the Tyranny of Dragons modules, and the Baldur's Gate adventure path. Whatever they are doing, it's clearly working.

If they are talking about a "Sixth Edition" at all (and I doubt they are), it's probably in the context of a different game. It would be something that would let them test out new things without tampering with their highly-successful flagship product, and without risking its horde of consumers, like maybe a new edition of D20 Modern. (Again, I don't think they are. I don't even know why they would be. But as long as we are speculating, this is my unfounded prediction.)

 

[darjr]

Just curious, did you buy Vault of Dragons? It's got something like 40 minis in it for $30, but the minis seem a little too small for use in a D&D game.

Not that one, that’s not one of the D&D Adventure System board games, I think.

 

[Mistwell]

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

The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D. That evoking imagination with the rules presentation, and getting people to explore the rules rather than approach them like assembly instructions, is important to capturing people's interest and maintaining that interest.

Now they could be wrong. It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition. But given we don't have any data showing it's been harming the edition popularity, and it was the idea from the beginning to make it popular, and it is popular, it sure seems like continuing with that theme is wiser than not continuing with it. You would need some pretty good evidence showing it's both incidental to success and holding back success to make a major change in that theme at this point.

So what's the evidence showing it's incidental, and the evidence showing it has held back success, sufficient to overcome the burden of "it's working so don't mess with success" that is the 1000 ton locomotive driving this edition right now?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D.

Is it?

Because all through the playtest it was "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D" … it's the 'big tent' ... it's gonna support all yer playstyles... I don't recall any story-first or shared-experience positioning at the time. (Once AL got rolling, I started hearing those sound bites. And, I mean, AL did provide a shared experience, much like Encounters had, and the living campaigns before that, so it wasn't exactly outta left field, just an organized play thang. But, trying to make it retroactively the whole point of the kumbaya something-for-everyone edition of the playtest kinda is.)

It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition.

Yep. It could be. There's no hard proof what's responsible for D&D's commercial success this time around. There's myriad factors that could reasonably contribute. Holding up commercial success to assert the importance/perfection/whatever of any one of them is simply not proof, and not even relevant.

Taking it as such is basically just a STFU to any sort of discussion. Oh, the games doing so well, everything must continue to be done exactly as it is right now or it'll all crash & burn, don't even talk about anything that might not be perfect, it's all perfect, don't change a thing! great job WotC!

C'mon. What fun is that?