D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Cadence]

You think the majority of 5e players will just shell out another $150 to re-buy the core books, especially if the changes are all as minor as you claim? Even minor changes need to be accounted for if you intend to use them.

To the sadness of the LGSs, probably not. I can see a bunch of folks shelling out $77.82 for the set of three on Amazon if the changes are more than cosmetic (or especially $22.95 for the PHB). :-/

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You think the majority of 5e players will just shell out another $150 to re-buy the core books, especially if the changes are all as minor as you claim? Even minor changes need to be accounted for if you intend to use them.

Yes. Yes, I do.

Edit: I am speaking as a 30-year owner of a FLGS. I have sold (as they came out) every D&D book since the black-covered 2e revised core books. Core books are easy to sell. It's one of the reason that they like to do them. Internet controversy does not have much to do with sales. For example, 4e was widely loathed here on these boards, but the core books sold like crazy.

 

[Clint_L]

I think there has to be a democratic element to what is good design, if you are a publisher. In other words, I don't think it's a cop out to say that, objectively, good design is what the most people like. Because as many have pointed out, no design will please everyone. There is no perfect game. But you can get a pretty good sense of whether the design is broadly good or bad based on players reaction. From this perspective, 4e was clearly bad design - it was responsible for Pathfinder (i.e. D&D 3.5 continued) briefly becoming the market leader until 5e was rushed out to course correct.

5e was specifically designed and heavily play-tested to go back to the roots of D&D, simplified into the d20 system, and to not overcomplicate things so that the emphasis is more on story than rules. 5e is pretty much what I wanted back when I first started playing AD&D. I think WotC has pretty much solved what makes a great D&D game. And they think so too. That's why they don't want a new edition. They are recognizing that there are tweaks that will happen here and there as culture evolves and ideas from players and from other game systems slowly percolate, but they don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And WotC aren't idiots. They know that to the established D&D fan base, the word "edition" means one thing: you're expected to throw out the old books and buy new ones if you want to keep up. They don't want that, precisely because it will create a schism, exactly like what happened with 4e when they harpooned their own brand. They would rather sell you more books over many years than go for the quick money grab of the old editions model that always fed into a boom/bust cycle.

So many folks here are basically just being pedantic and arguing about what the word edition means as if that is objectively meaningful. It isn't. Words only have meaning in context, and in the context of the history of D&D the word "editions" has come to mean something that WotC doesn't want to do anymore. They want you to be able to keep using your 2014 PHB and still feel comfortable buying new sourcebooks and adventures. It's as simple as that. Yes, there will be an updated PHB for those who want it, but it is not going to change any of the fundamentals of 5e. You will be able to purchase the new PHB and still run the old "Lost Mines of Phandelver" if that's your thing, or you will be able to buy the upcoming Phandelver adventure book and run it with your 2014 PHB.

 

[overgeeked]

I think there has to be a democratic element to what is good design, if you are a publisher.

So you’re not a game designer, then. Got it.

ETA: Good game design is about making the game work to its mandate. You want a game of cat burglars, then you need to design a game that works to bring that fantasy to the table. The better the design achieves this the better the design. If you say your game is about personal horror yet the mechanics all point to superheroes with fangs, for example, that’s bad design. This is all completely unconnected to sales.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So you’re not a game designer, then. Got it.

Overdesigning and designing past the audience is also not making you a good designer.

 

[Olrox17]

Overdesigning and designing past the audience is also not making you a good designer.

Game designing and marketing are two different skills and fields, though. Making a commercially successful product involves both, but they are not the same thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's easier to assign bad intent to Wizards of the Coast for moving away from your preferences so that they become the "bad guy" and you have someone to blame... than it is to accept that your own personal preferences do not match most of the general D&D populace and you've become an outcast from that gaming society. That can be a tough pill to swallow. Thus you keep lashing out at WotC with bitter jibes at their efforts and intent in order to make yourself feel better for being ostracized from the D&D community through no efforts of your (or their) own. You just don't like D&D the same way that all the others now seem to do, and that makes you feel alone and sad.

Or lashing out at millions of players they've never met: "They just want everything without working for it." "They just want a video game." "They don't what good game design is." Etc. etc. etc.

There's some really weird psychology going on with all of this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Game designing and marketing are two different skills and fields, though. Making a commercially successful product involves both, but they are not the same thing.

I did not imply that.
I said exactly what I meant: "good design" is not always appealing to the audience.

The problem: if you want D&D, you are somewhat limited by the expectations of the game which has been there for nearly 50 years now. So you need to make sure the game has the right feel.

4e was good design. But it did not carry the feel correctly. I say, 3.5 did not carry the feel correctly. 5e, for me, is a lot closer to my expectations. And better designed than the editions before 4e.

So I expect one to be a bit more coherently designed (as shown in the playtest), but still carrying the correct feel (which seems to be somewhat off for the ranger at least, going from the reactions here).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From this perspective, 4e was clearly bad design - it was responsible for Pathfinder (i.e. D&D 3.5 continued) briefly becoming the market leader until 5e was rushed out to course correct.

They don't want that, precisely because it will create a schism, exactly like what happened with 4e when they harpooned their own brand.

okay baseless edition warring aside you have made a really weird argument

So many folks here are basically just being pedantic and arguing about what the word edition means as if that is objectively meaningful. It isn't. Words only have meaning in context, and in the context of the history of D&D the word "editions" has come to mean something that WotC doesn't want to do anymore.

yes and no... they want to have there cake and eat it too.

they want to make the changes that will help the game
they want to reprint the rules close enough that you can use DM side stuff but far enough apart that you have to rebuy PC side stuff.

They want you to be able to keep using your 2014 PHB and still feel comfortable buying new sourcebooks and adventures.

no, nothing has indicated the 2024 PHB and 2014PHB will play well togather... they are changeing even basic rules (status) they are changing what race means. they are changing the rogue that they said they had no complaints about (but even it gets some tweeks all be it small)
bards now prep spells
half orc and half elf are not separate races

I have no doubt that somewhere there will be tables that run a 2014 half orc bard with a 2024 ardling ranger... but they will be so few that as a statistic it will be close enough to call 0. (best case you could argue 1 to 2%)

Yes, there will be an updated PHB for those who want it, but it is not going to change any of the fundamentals of 5e.

except races, feats, classes, spells, status effects (how class and spells interact)
so you know all the player side stuff.

You will be able to purchase the new PHB and still run the old "Lost Mines of Phandelver" if that's your thing, or you will be able to buy the upcoming Phandelver adventure book and run it with your 2014 PHB.

I have no doubt the plan right now is this statement and this statement only... you can use 1 PHB (2014 or 2024) but not both and run and adventure book (pre2024 or post 2024)

I doubt they plan for same table to sit down with a 2014phb and a 2024phb.

Just like I CAN (and have) as a DM grabbed ideas and even full characters from 2e,3e,and 4e and used them in 5e...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So you’re not a game designer, then. Got it.

ETA: Good game design is about making the game work to its mandate. You want a game of cat burglars, then you need to design a game that works to bring that fantasy to the table. The better the design achieves this the better the design. If you say your game is about personal horror yet the mechanics all point to superheroes with fangs, for example, that’s bad design. This is all completely unconnected to sales.

a great example is the world of darkness setting/rules/themes

for years the theme was supposed to be an uncontrollable thirst or rage... a monster that you have to fight down every night. Some people played that way, but others made vampires into 'super heroes' with cool powers... cause the base rules made it work really easy.
A few years ago new vampire (5th edition ironically) came out and had a VERY different mechanic that meant every time you did almost anything you risked losing control... (the mechanic now not just the flavor) and it changed the whole way people play.