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

[mamba]

So the benefit is close to zero and the potential risk is higher than zero. It's simple corporate math

based on that logic we should never see a 3e in CC and WotC is just stringing us along instead of being open about it. I guess we will see in 2025

 

[mamba]

I'm confused, didn't it take 9 years before the SRD for 5e was into the CC? And wasn't the OGL for 5e released 2 years after?

yes, what is confusing you?

Creating an SRD from the books takes time. For 3e they already have an SRD, releasing that under CC would take a day or two, as was demonstrated with the 5e SRD.

 

[Sulicius]

Right, I didn't catch we were talking about 3e, thanks!

I'd personally get annoyed if its not out somewhere in 2025. But that is more because I want them to keep to their word, than I care anything about 3e.

 

[Oofta]

based on that logic we should never see a 3e in CC and WotC is just stringing us along instead of being open about it. I guess we will see in 2025

I think we see it in 2025. It's just going to be after 5E24 is done.

 

[Cadence]

yes, what is confusing you?

Creating an SRD from the books takes time. For 3e they already have an SRD, releasing that under CC would take a day or two, as was demonstrated with the 5e SRD.

I wonder if there are some things they might not want to set into the wild with CC (given that is less restrictive than OGL). Am I remembering right that there were a few in the 5e one they didn't want to let go? (Or maybe that rush put those few things into the wild already).

 

[mamba]

I wonder if there are some things they might not want to set into the wild with CC (given that is less restrictive than OGL). Am I remembering right that there were a few in the 5e one they didn't want to let go? (Or maybe that rush put those few things into the wild already).

the only thing I am aware of is the name Strahd, and clearly that had devastating consequences for WotC…

I assume they want to do more than slap a CC sticker on the SRD, but I have no idea about the extent of the intended review / changes

 

[Hriston]

I am mostly going off 2e, fine, so there is a slight chance then, that does not really change anything about my argument that it is far from guaranteed / highly unlikely that you know messengers.

How is this different from the situation normally faced by adventurers without the relevant background feature?

Not sure why you think this is important to point out, it changes nothing relevant.

Because "Ravenloft" has been referenced in this thread as if its existence as an RPG setting is some kind of monolithic refutation of the validity of the 2014 background features. When @Oofta brought it up as an example of a common play experience where the background features were simply unusable in his opinion, he was talking about playing a game of Curse of Strahd, if I remember correctly. When I've asked for clarification about what's going on in the game to make the features unworkable, I've been told I don't know anything about Ravenloft or I wouldn't be asking those questions, so I'll just have to trust you and other people in the thread who tell me "because Ravenloft" is a good enough answer. And yet when I look at the actual book, the things you're telling me, that there are no caravan masters or messengers in Ravenloft that I could possibly know, that the Vistani can absolutely only ever travel between the Domains of Dread and never into the Material Plane, aren't supported by, and in some case directly contradict, the text of the adventure. So what it changes is you can't continue to act as if referencing Ravenloft tells me everything I need to know. You have to tell me what's actually going on in the game that make background features unusable if you want to make the arguments you're making.

it isn’t, It is not about Ravenloft at all, Ravenloft is just an example…

Well it's a crap example that doesn't tell me anything about what it is you're trying to say.

 

[Hriston]

I disagree but I'm done.

I'm not sure what part of what I said you're disagreeing with, but okay.

 

[mamba]

How is this different from the situation normally faced by adventurers without the relevant background feature?

it isn’t, neither one knows messengers here. Personally I’d say the criminal is faster at making new contacts, but that is not in the background as written

Because "Ravenloft" has been referenced in this thread as if its existence as an RPG setting is some kind of monolithic refutation of the validity of the 2014 background features.

it was used as a good example, not as the only case

Well it's a crap example that doesn't tell me anything about what it is you're trying to say.

if after countless pages you are still unclear on this, then that says more about you than about the example. I am not going to rehash anything now either, that would then be a waste of time

 

[Micah Sweet]

When it comes to putting older stuff into CC, they have very little motivation. Many of the people that are upset because it's not there will likely just be upset about something else. I can't think of any nefarious reason they'd hold back the 3.x stuff and I have no idea how much getting TSR era stuff ready would take but I don't think it would be insignificant.

So the benefit is close to zero and the potential risk is higher than zero. It's simple corporate math, they don't want to spend money in the form of people's time to review for minimal benefit. Old grognards are the only ones who likely care at this point and they aren't the target audience for significant growth or income anyway.

So measurable cost for hypothetical profit being close to zero equals delay until people need a filler project here and there.

If you're right, then by saying they plan to do it after 5.2 comes out they are at least being intentionally disingenuous, if not outright lying to the public. Is that your claim?