D&D 5E D&D New Edition Design Looks Soon?

WotC’s Ray Winninger has hinted on Twitter that we may be seeing something of the 2024 next edition of D&D soon — “you’ll get a first look at some of the new design work soon.”.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am wondering how popular those items actually ARE. There was a LOT of noise from a minority of individuals on forums, but I don't think a lot of research has been done to actually SEE how popular those items are.

The best reference may be from how well accepted MoTM is, but because of overlap of a bunch of other stuff, that may not actually be a good indicator.

we have to think WotC is bowing to some set of people that are at least loud enough to make it sound like they are the majority. In this case it worked out for me, I like the new rules. Last time that happend was the playtest and loseing 4e elements from fighter and I HATE that.

It's easy for me to assume that the current change I like is the majority but the changes I didn't like was just loud minority... but we have no way to ever tell. I can tell you there are posters here that like what I dislike and dislike what I like... so there are someone not happy no matter what.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the benefit comes from D&D (and TTRPGs in general) having a DM shortage problem. If WotC can make an easy to use VTT it could help with the DM shortage problem, thereby leading more people to play D&D. I've been using Roll20 since the start of the pandemic, and the only thing that makes it somewhat tolerable is the DDB plug in. But I can't imagine a casual or new to the game player trying to run a game on it (I've never tried any of the purchasable APs for it, so maybe that make's it easier?). By having a VTT that focuses only on D&D, it should make everything work more seamless.
I do hope that even if WotC does put out it's own VTT, that it doesn't stop providing licenses to other VTTs.

VTTs have come very far since roll20 was the new thing many years ago. That goes for both online and in person play.

 

[Kurotowa]

I am wondering how popular those items actually ARE. There was a LOT of noise from a minority of individuals on forums, but I don't think a lot of research has been done to actually SEE how popular those items are.

The research exists. It's all those surveys and feedback forms that WotC puts out, to say nothing of other sales and customer data. They're just not sharing any of that information with the general public.

 

[Parmandur]

You could be right. But I wonder what proportion of players/groups actually use DDB at all. I don't. For example, and several of my gamer friends had never even heard of it until I brought it up a few weeks ago.

There's still a value in the surveys, is what I'm getting at.

I have about 20 players among all my gaming groups, only one of them has an active DDB subscription.

My group is about 50/50 on using DDB, with me on the no side. I wouldn't be surprised if DDB users comprised no more than half of all D&D players, but it could easily be different.

We know from the purchase disclosures that Beyond has over 10 million active users, ompared to the 50 million D&D players WotC reported in 2021. A pretty hefty minority, major benefit over surveys is that they have factual data about usage and not self-reports.

 

[GreyLord]

we have to think WotC is bowing to some set of people that are at least loud enough to make it sound like they are the majority. In this case it worked out for me, I like the new rules. Last time that happend was the playtest and loseing 4e elements from fighter and I HATE that.

It's easy for me to assume that the current change I like is the majority but the changes I didn't like was just loud minority... but we have no way to ever tell. I can tell you there are posters here that like what I dislike and dislike what I like... so there are someone not happy no matter what.

Yes, that's why I'd be in favor of a much bigger outreach in regards to these and how people actually think about them.

That can be tough though.

The BIGGEST problem I see with some of the changes are some of these items are things they wanted to do originally with 5e, but the playtest showed that people did not actually want them. So they took them out. Now, they are putting them back in.

Which leaves the question of whether the tastes of gamers actually changed that much over the years with some demographics growing larger than others, or if it's creator's bias towards it that is weighting it that way.

I don't know. A lot of noise on the forums in both directions. Forums and social media are good for many things, but for a decision this big I'm not sure that they are big enough to really make a firm decision.

Rereleasing is already a big gamble (as MotM shows, people feel they already have the stuff so no reason to get it again, etc...etc...etc). I can see wanting some changes to convince people that there should be a reason to get the AE, but at the same time, you don't want to upset too many of them either. MotM can also be seen as an indicator with very mixed adoption of it, but that is also tricky as it was probably seen more as a re-release than seeing it as presenting the new options which are present in it. So...it's not a reliable measure in my book to know how well these changes are being accepted or not.

I feel it's a VERY NARROW tightrope to walk and balance. Do it right and the audience will give you a standing ovation. Do it wrong and you fall from the wire to your death. It's a risky gamble.

I'd almost say it would be easier to make an entirely new edition than to release AE as a continuation of 5e, but that's me. That method is not the current business plan for D&D presently...hopefully the AE is an astounding success.

 

[Mark Craddock]

Out of curiosity, what do you think was in 4E that's not in 5E that new players specifically want?

First, from my perspective 5E's goals and 2024's goals are very different. I think 5E embraced former players and the OSR (which has always been a very profitable part of the hobby) and emphasized rulings over rules and channeling the nostalgia of earlier editions as well as a Rosetta Stone for all editions. I think 2024 has to have different goals because there are literally millions of new players and they should be the priority.

As for what I liked about 4E that I think might serve those new players better Alignment was far looser and Creatures didn't have a fixed alignment. I personally like Per Encounter better than Short Rest but you can tweak it easily. I also think using movement in squares instead of feet would be helpful for new players.

Again, to me, 5E was about getting lapsed players back where 2024 is about growing more new players and giving the millions of new ones a streamlined experience.

 

[Stalker0]

My personal guess for this 2024 edition is less of a 5.5e and more a 5.1e....like polishing with sand paper rather than cutting with a saw.

From a player standpoint I'm really not expecting major changes. Some balance passes on feats and spells, maaaybe some adjustments to the least liked classes, maybe a little more rules clarification on the areas that often create the greatest amount of rules questions (like stealth). This will likely result from the results of the satisfaction surveys that went out, the areas that were rated on the bottom will get some sanding, but things that have general satisfaction will remain mostly untouched.

To me the biggest wildcard is on monster design. Since that is primarily experienced by DMs I think you have a bit more latitude there, as DMs are more rules focused and I think more open to changes than your wider and more casual player base. If there are going to be "big changes" I would expect to see them in monsters.

 

[Parmandur]

to be fair way back in the old days when I road a dinosaur to school, and I was introduced to 2e I could not for the life of me understand how a wizard would ever 'forget' his spells, and the level thing through me... "I'm a 3rd level fighter 2nd level wizard but I can only cast 1st level spells, when my wizard xp goes up and I hit 3rd level i will get 2nd level spells but at the rate my xp is going I might be a 4th level fighter by then..."

I don't know that ANYONE comes to D&D saying "I hope they are loosely based of dying earth by Jack Vance" and every edition WotC makes that a little more loose.

if 2e had a 5e wizard prep "prepare X# from spellbook only unprepare if you want to change out, and spells slots independent" I think it would have fit closer to what i imagined

then again there was an episode of buffy or angle where Wesley conjured this little ball of fire in thpalm of his hands and threw it... it really bugged me I couldn't do that as a wizard.

I think the Neo-Vancian casting of 5E does a very good job mirroring general genre assumptions about how Magic works. Notably, one of the major design precursors for the 5E approach was WotC own d20 Wheel of Time RPG.

 

[darjr]

If you understand that even WotC didn’t understand the unprecedented and ongoing and jump start of 5es sales then you can see that some of the things they’ve done is to try and find out what that really is. Yes even some of the things that seemed to upturn players and users. At least I think so.

Really a lot of what they’ve done are tiny changes. At this point I think they have confidence, to a large enough degree, to change things they want to change.

Just navel gazing.

 

[Parmandur]

I am wondering how popular those items actually ARE. There was a LOT of noise from a minority of individuals on forums, but I don't think a lot of research has been done to actually SEE how popular those items are.

The best reference may be from how well accepted MoTM is, but because of overlap of a bunch of other stuff, that may not actually be a good indicator.

WotC has researched the crap out of it, ao many UA and other surveys. Crawford said the Goblin and Kobold changes received overwhelmingly positive reception in UA form.