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

[FitzTheRuke]

Out of entirely idle curiosity...how are the 2014 core books moving the past couple years since they announced the new rules?

They seemed to slow down a bit initially and then went right back to moving along with decent sales. (Which I assume would generally be people who just want to get into D&D and don't know that there's new stuff on the horizon). When it gets closer, I'll start to have staff TELL them that they might want to wait. It seems foolish to do that this far out, though.

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.

Yes, I think I made it clear that I think it IS about both for WotC. It's just Hasbro that I feel doesn't care about anything other than next quarter's profits. Most of the people at WotC (that work on D&D) LOVE D&D and only are "forced" to make sure that it makes money - because that is their job!

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

Well... I mean, they CAN "keep the lights on" doing it differently, but this, like nearly all of their decisions (other than the OGL one - THAT was just some idiot who honestly didn't know what they were about and should have listened to cooler heads) when it comes to 5e, it's the "safe bet" for success. Ultimately I agree that the safe bet is smarter than a hail mary that might crash and burn, but might make more money... maybe. They shouldn't gamble with the future of the game right now.

 

[tetrasodium]

Page 4 of the 3.5e DMG says this...

"This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

with only minor adjustments was the critical detail. With 2024-2024 wotc has been acting like you can just do it like they are changing from American to UK style English. You wind up with people thinking that it's reasonable to expect the GM to do things like "find out what they like about the change and adopt part of it -- a different take on a class feature, a revised spell description, a new subclass -- that gets the player what they want and keeps things within acceptable tolerances for you. " When the thing someone liked about the 2014 element will often be "because it was kinda broken and needed to be fixed years ago but finally got an official fix"

@FitzTheRuke the post you quoted in 853 was almost entirely references to things said recently in this thread.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

with only minor adjustments was the critical detail. With 2024-2024 wotc has been acting like you can just do it like they are changing from American to UK style English. You wind up with people thinking that it's reasonable to expect the GM to do things like "find out what they like about the change and adopt part of it -- a different take on a class feature, a revised spell description, a new subclass -- that gets the player what they want and keeps things within acceptable tolerances for you. " When the thing someone liked about the 2014 element will often be "because it was kinda broken and needed to be fixed years ago but finally got an official fix"

We'll have to wait and see, but they've SAID that they plan to do an entire (something - article? sidebar? DMG chapter? exactly what is unclear) thing on how to mix the two things together. I'd like to take them at their word for that until I see otherwise - but I understand why they don't think that we need to see that yet. We're just playtesting, and I've not heard from anyone playtesting who finds it difficult, but for anyone who needs advice? AFAIK, official advice is coming.

Again I say: Before you worry too much about this, wait and see what the new DMG has to say. I'm sure it won't be "perfect" but I AM sure that it will be improved. It wouldn't take much.

@FitzTheRuke the post you quoted in 853 was almost entirely references to things said recently in this thread.

Sure, but they're not things that are actually happening or very likely to happen at any table in which the players and DM can effectively communicate with each other and... Play Nice With Others.

 

[Parmandur]

We'll have to wait and see, but they've SAID that they plan to do an entire (something - article? sidebar? DMG chapter? exactly what is unclear) thing on how to mix the two things together. I'd like to take them at their word for that until I see otherwise - but I understand why they don't think that we need to see that yet. We're just playtesting, and I've not heard from anyone playtesting who finds it difficult, but for anyone who needs advice? AFAIK, official advice is coming.

Again I say: Before you worry too much about this, wait and see what the new DMG has to say. I'm sure it won't be "perfect" but I AM sure that it will be improved. It wouldn't take much.


Sure, but they're not things that are actually happening or very likely to happen at any table in which the players and DM can effectively communicate with each other and... Play Nice With Others.

They did already have some sidebars as early as the first playtest (such as how to adjudicate Baclground ASIs with older Rave options)...and frankly those might just make it into the final book pretty much unchanged.

 

[Maxperson]

with only minor adjustments was the critical detail. With 2024-2024 wotc has been acting like you can just do it like they are changing from American to UK style English. You wind up with people thinking that it's reasonable to expect the GM to do things like "find out what they like about the change and adopt part of it -- a different take on a class feature, a revised spell description, a new subclass -- that gets the player what they want and keeps things within acceptable tolerances for you. " When the thing someone liked about the 2014 element will often be "because it was kinda broken and needed to be fixed years ago but finally got an official fix"

@FitzTheRuke the post you quoted in 853 was almost entirely references to things said recently in this thread.

Yeah. Minor adjustments will absolutely be required if you want the older stuff to use 2024 rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You're both right. They said that it was compatible, but all the books went out of print or were replaced with 3.5 versions in no time. We have a very, very different situation this time (including a massively larger market to worry about).

Did every one of them get converted? I thought a few didn't. The vast majority changed over very quickly, though, but you didn't have to buy the duplicate 3.5e stuff, because the older books were compatible. I never bought the 3.5e DMG, yet ran 3.5e all the way through 2019. I never felt that the 3.5e DMG changed enough to warrant the spending of money on it.

 

[wedgeski]

Not sure what this post is about, but apropos of nothing, the Ignore feature is amazing, and can work wonders!

Except it can render threads like this nonsensical, where those posters are posting heavily and triggering others to respond.

 

[Corinnguard]

If that turns to hostility, it's a reflection on the participants, not on the game rules or publisher's video commentary.

Very true, sometimes the players and/or DM have personalities that clash with one another to the point where a group of players just falls apart. This almost happened to the group I was playing with back in 2022. It ended up with one of the players being let go by the DM.

 

[TwoSix]

How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?

We have discussions like this:

"Hey, DM, I was working on a new character concept, I was using this particular set of rules to try out class X."

"OK, I see, what you're going for. I'm a little worried that class feature Y might cause friction with other player's character, and it overlaps with some NPCs I'm planning on using, and might weaken their impact if you have that ability too."

"That makes sense. Let me work on another concept then."

"No, wait, hold on. If we just adjust this class feature Y to work more like Z, I think we can make this work. Let me check something..."

Both parties are willing to accommodate the other person's ideas, and are willing to change their ideas if it might cause unneeded friction.

It does matter that much to some people, like it or not. I know this from long experience.

Simplest way IME and IMO is, when disagreements arise and heels get dug in, for the DM to lay down the rules as she wants them to be and let the players vote with their feet if they feel that strongly about it.

If people are actually digging in their heels about a certain game element, then the table is already way too contentious for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just wanted to point out - poll numbers are no longer near 2/3 adopting.