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

[mamba]

your own efforts to show a middle ground stating the player compromised by getting some of the ask as if simply accepting it is compromise

that is compromise, whether you acknowledge it or not. Neither side getting everything they wanted is basically the definition of a compromise...

 

[TwoSix]

Thing is, absent any houseruling the question of 2014 vs 2024 is either one big binary (wholesale use of one version or the other) or more likely a whole lot of small binaries as to which elements from which version will be used; and those conversations you speak of will be over which way each of those smaller binaries gets decided.

All the words we're typing here are also a just a whole lot of small binaries.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm so lost right now LOL.

Basically wotc is creating a situation where the gm looks unreasonable for saying no mixed edition stuff and the GM looks unreasonable if they want anything from a player getting an exception to ensure a player wanting an exception never tries to offer by how compatibility with PCs from different editions at the table has been talked up so much

 

[TwoSix]

Basically wotc is creating a situation where the gm looks unreasonable for saying no mixed edition stuff and the GM looks unreasonable if they want anything from a player getting an exception to ensure a player wanting an exception never tries to offer by how compatibility with PCs from different editions at the table has been talked up so much

Counterpoint: They don't look unreasonable.

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, absent any houseruling the question of 2014 vs 2024 is either one big binary (wholesale use of one version or the other) or more likely a whole lot of small binaries as to which elements from which version will be used; and those conversations you speak of will be over which way each of those smaller binaries gets decided.

A whole bunch of smaller binaries is the definition of compromise.

 

[Hussar]

Counterpoint: They don't look unreasonable.

Did you actually followed that? I read that four times and still can’t parse it

 

[Clint_L]

This thread has degenerated into "nuh-uh!" Time to move on.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread has degenerated into "nuh-uh!" Time to move on.

Nuh-uh! It's time to stay here!

 

[Older Beholder]

People have been agreeing to house rules since day dot.
I don’t see how a revised edition changes that.
If anything, session 0 is a far more common concept these days, which solves a lot of these issues.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed. It's fine to ask, the trouble is the expectation wotc is setting wrt compatibility causing players to expect it automatically your own efforts to show a middle ground stating the player compromised by getting some of the ask as if simply accepting it is compromise.

As I said to @TwoSix much earlier in the thread, I doubt WotC's position will be borne out by most gaming tables. I think most tables will stay with 5e or move on to 5.5e and not allow both to be mixed and matched.

Trouble is that those kind of exceptions lead to madness.... I believe I explained that to my reply to you back in 944. To which you responded questioning my ability to decide subjective elements as a GM.

No. I never did that. I questioned your incorrect assertion that it was capitulation. I told you that you could not decide what is or is not broken in a general sense, meaning you don't get to decide for everyone what is broken. Not once did I ever say or imply that you couldn't decide for your game what is or is not broken.