D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[mamba]

This thread alone has demonstrated that environment. Sorry I need to get ready for my "authoritarian table"

that authorian table was mine… I do not really care what some crusaders say in here (from either side), it has no impact on my perspective or decisions. Ultimately the table has to agree on something, and I can hold my ground when I feel strongly about something or compromise to a degree that works for me. All I have seen here is ‘why feel strongly about it, just let the player choose what they want’, but that cuts both ways, if that is your best argument, I am not impressed…

As far as I can tell you had that issue way before the 2024 rules, so I guess nothing is changing there either

 

[Maxperson]

I’d love for someone to explain it. Because it feels to me like something people do because it’s familiar, not because it’s better.

It's probable that no one can explain it to you. You have a different view of things and from your perspective it's better the way you see it. I doubt any explanation will alter your view of things, just as your explanations don't alter the view of those with the other view. That's the thing with "subjectivity" and "best."

I've found that it's better to just accept that we have different views and we can all play the game the way we like.

 

[Irlo]

This thread alone has demonstrated that environment. Sorry I need to get ready for my "authoritarian table" and wait for Alice to expect the option of using 2014 smite mechanics followed by Bob expecting the option of getting my most casual players to majority vote with him to allow stuff from some other edition since Alice simply did it.

It's difficult when the DM and some players want fundamentally different things from the game. If that devolves into hostility, well, there are problems there that won't be solved by rulebooks.

 

[Scott Christian]

I can answer this, having been in the business of selling D&D books since 1993. I didn't see the 1e-2e changeover, but I saw the 2e black books, the 3e books, the 3.5 books, the 4e books, the 4e Essentials books, and the 5e books, and now this. Is that enough to weigh in?

I mean, ultimately it IS marketing - but the difference is SMART marketing VS FOOLISH marketing. The big difference as I see it is: EVERY SINGLE previously published book was made obsolete by those "Edition Changes" and went out-of-print until a "compatible" replacement was made, or if it was never made, the book was just discarded. Worthless (until collectors came in many years later). When 3e came out, our 2e books were garbage. Blowout stock. When 3e came out, our 3.0 books were garbage, blowout. When 4e came out, our 3.5 books were garbage, blowout (until the 4e backlash that made them HIGHLY SOUGHT out-of-print collectibles selling on Ebay for BIG BUCKS!). 4E essentials did not harm 4e, because it was compatible (their first attempt at doing so) AND YET, the community wanted to call it "Four-Point-Five" (familiar?). When 5e came out, our 4e books were garbage. Blowout.

Now there are ~20 (I'd have to count them) 5e products IN PRINT that WotC DOES NOT WANT to ruin their chances of selling MORE of. They're happy to let the 3x 2014 core books go OOP for their new books. Replacements they ARE - that's why they have the same name! BUT - they don't want you to think that the other books are not compatible with them! They want you to be able to buy them! AND if you don't buy their new core (for example, because you don't want to buy new Core books, or you're happy with your 5e 2014 books, they want you to buy THE NEXT ADVENTURE in 2025, or whatever they have going forward after the core are out.

It's as simple as that.

Thank you. I appreciate the answer, especially from someone with your perspective. But, and I could be wrong, I remember them consistently stating that 3rd edition was compatible with 3.5. Am I remembering that wrong?

 

[SkidAce]

I know. I just got bored of the same weapons over and over and over. Occasionally I'd go rogue and take something like spear and scimitar.

I had a farm girl paladin whom Pelor told "Pick up your boar spear and go forth", so she did.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's difficult when the DM and some players want fundamentally different things from the game. If that devolves into hostility, well, there are problems there that won't be solved by rulebooks.

Indeed... We don't even have the rulebooks because wotc is still working on them as of a recent Crawford video and players are already being given the expectation that they can play cross edition at the table. Players feeling like the gm nerfed them or took away a thing they were entitled to is quite the setup for hostility

 

[Oofta]

I'm not entirely sure if your intention was to "trap" me or something, but yeah - it's about money. But more importantly, it's about not turning a whole pile of books into scrap. (To me, at least! To WotC it's probably both, and to Hasbro, it's just about the money and nothing else at all).

That said, there's no reason that the new Core Books won't make the game better. I am SURE that the designers intend to I am less sure that they will succeed, but I hold out hope that they will. We will have to see.

Why can't it be both about improving rules and making a profit? They've spent significant money on surveys and playtests. More, I think I can safely assume, than what a has ever spent on any other TTRPG. They have to pay the salaries somehow. It's how capitalism, warts and all, works.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why can't it be both about improving rules and making a profit? They've spent significant money on surveys and playtests. More, I think I can safely assume, than what a has ever spent on any other TTRPG. They have to pay the salaries somehow. It's how capitalism, warts and all, works.

Yup. They have to do this or they can't keep the lights on. They have no choice.

 

[Irlo]

Indeed... We don't even have the rulebooks because wotc is still working on them as of a recent Crawford video and players are already being given the expectation that they can play cross edition at the table. Players feeling like the gm nerfed them or took away a thing they were entitled to is quite the setup for hostility

I disagree. It's a set up for conversation, compromise, and reasonable decisions about how the game will be played. If in the end the DM and players don't agree to play the game, that's reasonable. If that turns to hostility, it's a reflection on the participants, not on the game rules or publisher's video commentary.

Why even try to give the DM the power to "force" the players to engage in a game that doesn't appeal to them, or to give the players the leverage to "force" a DM to run a game the DM doesn't want to run?

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree. It's a set up for conversation, compromise, and reasonable decisions about how the game will be played. If in the end the DM and players don't agree to play the game, that's reasonable. If that turns to hostility, it's a reflection on the participants, not on the game rules or publisher's video commentary.

Why even try to give the DM the power to "force" the players to engage in a game that doesn't appeal to them, or to give the players the leverage to "force" a DM to run a game the DM doesn't want to run?

Compromise on a binary yes/no? "Do we allow cross edition character" is a binary decision, not much room for"compromise" on yes/no. Compromise sounds very much like " the GM only denies Bob what he didn't want to use when engaging in cross edition play". It's also a bit late to say that it's a setup for discussion when wotc's marketing has already absolved. The players from feeling like they need to discuss anything about that nerf a gm might try to push on them. Discussion and compromise require some middle ground.