OneDnD Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Micah Sweet]

So You agree it's not art, which was the point.

I agree they was describing marketing and not design.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If only I had Micah’s wisdom I wouldn’t be so easily manipulated into buying books I don’t need. Woe is me!

Mod Note:

Why the poke at Micah? Or anyone, for that matter? How about not doing that.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't need everything to cater to my tastes either. But D&D did a pretty good job for many years, and then rather abruptly stopped.

Cool. The D&D you like still exists, as do all the old books you may have.

I don't appreciate being insinuated to be selfish and not want other people to be happy. That's a label too, by the way.

I mean, it isn't a label, but whatever. I was describing my own attitude here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Cool. The D&D you like still exists, as do all the old books you may have.


I mean, it isn't a label, but whatever. I was describing my own attitude here.

You said your attitude was the opposite of mine. Your words. How did you expect me to take that?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think we're operating with very different ideas of what 'structure' means, then. Particularly with the 'describe what you're doing' vs. 'push a button' split: that is one of the very first rules in the PHB. It's foundational to the game's basic play loop.

It might be my fault for not making it clear; I'm talking about the structure of the system. While resolution approaches are not completely disconnected with that, its far more vulnerable to, from lack of a better term "local conditions"; no matter how a game describes how you're supposed to approach dealing with particular types of problems, people will use the core mechanics in other ways to do that. That comes up outside the D&D sphere too (dip into enough threads about PbtA games and its abundantly clear a non-trivial amount of GMs ignore the way they're told to use the system, sometimes in ways that seem kind of appalling to PbtA proponents, and PbtA games and related have always been far more rigid in that way than virtually any editions of D&D.)

As such, I don't think a lot of things that are theoretically part of a game loop don't seem particularly core to people because they've played in a lot, maybe all their games that don't follow it. But they've still probably played D&D with classes, levels, level elevating hit points and a couple other things. Its far more central to the overall D&D hobby than any specific playstyle (though there are certainly some styles that have been very common throughout its history).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Eh. I think there's been enough common elements from all the way back to OD&D that you can point at them, and a number of them are pretty rare (levels, classes, significant hit point advancement over time) outside of D&D and its clear offshoots that you can call them that. No one of them says D&D per se, but as a set that structure has been fairly consistent.

Defining D&D is like that of porn, you know it if you see.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

that fact that 20 pages in we see divide and we are still in playtest shows there will be... However this weekend at a store I ran into people who didn't even know 1D&D was a thing talking about it with the store owner and getting mad.

1 of the two players had JUST bought there PHB either beginning of this year or end of last and said they would be upset if the 2024 reprint was adopted by there group because they were not rebuying a book after only 2 years, and the other (younger) player said there parents warned them that D&D changed edition every few years and they didn't understand it until now... when the store owner told them it wasn't 'really' an edition change they both laughed. Both are new players, neither played any RPGs before 5e D&D and even THEY felt this was both unneeded and an edition change even if not called such.

When I tried to help by saying that if there group all agreeed to stay with older rules it would be fine the older of the two said he had heard stories about people staying with 3rd edition and loosing friends when 4th edition came out... and me and store owner had to admit that did happen.

edit: since said store owner is a friend, I will add they are PRO 1D&D in private, but have to put on a more conservative face at moments like this. Out of the two of us (me and store owner) I am MUCH less enthusiastic

 

[Olrox17]

that fact that 20 pages in we see divide and we are still in playtest shows there will be... However this weekend at a store I ran into people who didn't even know 1D&D was a thing talking about it with the store owner and getting mad.

1 of the two players had JUST bought there PHB either beginning of this year or end of last and said they would be upset if the 2024 reprint was adopted by there group because they were not rebuying a book after only 2 years, and the other (younger) player said there parents warned them that D&D changed edition every few years and they didn't understand it until now... when the store owner told them it wasn't 'really' an edition change they both laughed. Both are new players, neither played any RPGs before 5e D&D and even THEY felt this was both unneeded and an edition change even if not called such.

When I tried to help by saying that if there group all agreeed to stay with older rules it would be fine the older of the two said he had heard stories about people staying with 3rd edition and loosing friends when 4th edition came out... and me and store owner had to admit that did happen.

Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.

I think (and I may be way off I have not been young since the T rex went extinct) that we still sell the TTRPG as 'not video games'. I doubt either (although I don't really know them and only have seen 1 of the 2 of them before in passing) would be suprised at the new madien or assassins creed game coming out, but the idea that D&D could change so soon seemed to shock them.

in my own group we are all 3e or older players so I am not sure at all... my niece and nephew both stared playing around end of 4e along with 'no thankkyou evil' so they already know of the edition wheel spinning

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I like a few of the new possible rules and dislike some of the others.

My purchase of PHB is really going to come down to the art. If it’s cool I might just grab it and steal any new rules we like.

If not…probably will stick with 5e as is. My group is a group of friends and occasional kid tagalong. We are not being divided and will play group consensus. Frankly, there is such a big player base now I don’t think it will be hard to find 5e games for years to come.

 

[gorice]

It might be my fault for not making it clear; I'm talking about the structure of the system. While resolution approaches are not completely disconnected with that, its far more vulnerable to, from lack of a better term "local conditions"; no matter how a game describes how you're supposed to approach dealing with particular types of problems, people will use the core mechanics in other ways to do that. That comes up outside the D&D sphere too (dip into enough threads about PbtA games and its abundantly clear a non-trivial amount of GMs ignore the way they're told to use the system, sometimes in ways that seem kind of appalling to PbtA proponents, and PbtA games and related have always been far more rigid in that way than virtually any editions of D&D.)

As such, I don't think a lot of things that are theoretically part of a game loop don't seem particularly core to people because they've played in a lot, maybe all their games that don't follow it. But they've still probably played D&D with classes, levels, level elevating hit points and a couple other things. Its far more central to the overall D&D hobby than any specific playstyle (though there are certainly some styles that have been very common throughout its history).

Regarding your first paragraph: to what extent is a rule non-structural because some people don't follow the rule? No game designer can make players do things by the book. I think there's a difference between a game that people play 'wrong' in some instances, and a game that people play 'wrong' in most instances, or a game that doesn't have an obvious 'right'. This is all possibly a matter of degree, to be fair.

The more important question is: if everyone plays with classes, levels, and ascending HP, does that yield some kind of 'core' D&D experience? I would argue that it does not, and point the the incredible wealth of D&D-derived games (including video games) that all contain those same elements, and yet play very differently.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The more important question is: if everyone plays with classes, levels, and ascending HP, does that yield some kind of 'core' D&D experience?

at this level of abstraction 4e basic and 5e are all identical.

I would argue that it does not, and point the the incredible wealth of D&D-derived games (including video games) that all contain those same elements, and yet play very differently.

 

[SteveC]

I hate to give this answer, but really it's "it depends." If you think about it, and have read this thread, it already has to some degree.

But, it all depends on how much a change the new edition actually turns out to be. Yes, WotC is saying "you will be able to keep using your old books," but they have said similar things in the past. They have to say something like that if they don't want to have no one buying new PHBs of 5E for the next year plus.

Every time there's been a new edition, and I've experienced them since AD&D went to 2E, there is division and people have stayed with the new, for the most part. I think the closest thing we've ever seen to real division was 4E, and I say that as a 4E fan. The question is how big a change there is going to be, and if the changes are seen as a net positive by the fanbase.

I don't know how that's going to work out, but I do know that some of the people working on design are coming from Paizo, and my experience with Pathfinder2 has been excellent, so I am hopeful that the game will have design improvements.

I think the thing that people need to come to terms with is that D&D One 1D&D will be it's own thing, and yes, people will be buying new books for it if they're playing it. My 5E PHB will be 10 years old at that point, so I don't think that's going to be unreasonable to assume that I will need a new one (the horror! New book smell!) What's going to change the most are the classes and spells, and if you think about it, that's what you reference a PHB for most anyway. I don't expect a change in the core mechanic at this point (so my dream of a dice pool based D&D with D4s will remain just a dream), and I expect we'll still have AC and HP, so you will be able to play D&D One 1D&D without a new PHB if you already know the rules. You'll just need to know what your character can do now, and that's something I expect to change. That's the reason for a new PHB.

If you look at the Amazon ratings, people are still buying PHBs at a high rate today, and will that really change with a new edition? Methinks not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Tbh, the only thing that surprises me from your anecdote is younger people getting upset/surprised about this, in a game market where annual videogame releases have been the norm for a decade or so.

It really is different. Updates to the base game are generally free in video games, and hard to avoid, so everyone is basically on the same page. DLC is extra, but is more like an rpg supplement in that it's there if you want, but you have to opt in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Regarding your first paragraph: to what extent is a rule non-structural because some people don't follow the rule? No game designer can make players do things by the book. I think there's a difference between a game that people play 'wrong' in some instances, and a game that people play 'wrong' in most instances, or a game that doesn't have an obvious 'right'. This is all possibly a matter of degree, to be fair.

Absolutely. But that's kind of the point; things that have changed with every edition are going to not be viewed as core because they've changed with every edition. Consider something as simple as climbing a wall; go back through time and ask an OD&D GM, a AD&D2e GM and a D&D4e era GM how that's done and you'll get three different answers. Ask them how characters advance and you'll get fundamentally the same one. Levels and at least approximately what they mean has been a substrate of the game since its inception, and has only changed in ways that most people would consider trivial from that.

The more important question is: if everyone plays with classes, levels, and ascending HP, does that yield some kind of 'core' D&D experience? I would argue that it does not, and point the the incredible wealth of D&D-derived games (including video games) that all contain those same elements, and yet play very differently.

I'm afraid I can't follow you there, and the reason is, I've played and/or run OD&D, D&D3e, D&D4e and related family games like PF2e and SotDL, and they feel much more similar than a game like RuneQuest or Fantasy Hero. That doesn't mean there aren't some real differences, but they're still giving that fundamentally D&D-like experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

at this level of abstraction 4e basic and 5e are all identical.

Again, I've run OD&D and played D&D4e, and they still felt more similar than any fantasy game I played/ran outside the D&D sphere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It really is different. Updates to the base game are generally free in video games, and hard to avoid, so everyone is basically on the same page. DLC is extra, but is more like an rpg supplement in that it's there if you want, but you have to opt in.

There's also the issue that most non-online computer games are a basically solitary experience. If you didn't want to hop from XCOM1 to XCOM2, you didn't have to, and it would not impair your experience because you were not likely dependent on other people sticking with XCOM1 for your enjoyment.

 

[Clint_L]

If WotC does what they say they intend to do, this whole conversation will seem ridiculous in a few years. When you can walk into a store, grab an updated PHB when you feel like it, go home and still use it with your Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign you've been planning to run, and it works fine, folks will be like "eh." I'm sure you will get the occasional grognard insisting that only the 2014 PHB is real D&D, but most conversations will be something like: Player: "Are we using the updated Bardic inspiration rules?" DM: "Sure." I don't think we are gonna exactly get a Protestant/Catholic schism here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If WotC does what they say they intend to do, this whole conversation will seem ridiculous in a few years. When you can walk into a store, grab an updated PHB when you feel like it, go home and still use it with your Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign you've been planning to run, and it works fine, folks will be like "eh." I'm sure you will get the occasional grognard insisting that only the 2014 PHB is real D&D, but most conversations will be something like: Player: "Are we using the updated Bardic inspiration rules?" DM: "Sure." I don't think we are gonna exactly get a Protestant/Catholic schism here.

This is an area where I feel it is impossible to be objective. IMO, the more you as an individual like the new rules or at least don't think they're a big deal, the more likely you will believe that there won't be a schism or that it will be small. And of course the reverse is true.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is an area where I feel it is impossible to be objective. IMO, the more you as an individual like the new rules or at least don't think they're a big deal, the more likely you will believe that there won't be a schism or that it will be small. And of course the reverse is true.

And there's also the other facet, which is that even if there does end up being a schism... whether that actually matters or not?

There might very well be a schism amongst the player base on the whole... but if almost all individual tables are able to play the game they want (switching, not switching, staying with D&D, moving on from D&D), then the schism will have little impact on people. Heck, people are still playing AD&D right now happily and the fact that there are been multiple editions since then hasn't bothered them in the least.

Find people to play the game you want and to hell with anyone else playing something different. There are lots of different flavors of ice cream... we don't all have to enjoy the same one.