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

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Yes it is.

There's a pretty hefty amount of art sociology academia regarding the purpose, aim and results of design that points to the contrary.

But as always for the forum peace, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Scott Christian]

It is clear that I don't understand the current fandom.

Um, I bet you do, just maybe not this fandom. I mean, just think back to when we were young, and we craved new material. I'd imagine it'll be like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Um, I bet you do, just maybe not this fandom. I mean, just think back to when we were young, and we craved new material. I'd imagine it'll be like that.

Maybe, but I don't see new material and rewritten core books with just the right amount of changes to make a profit to be the same thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe, but I don't see new material and rewritten core books with just the right amount of changes to make a profit to be the same thing.

How does one distinguish between just the right amount of changes to make a profit, and just the right amount of changes period?

Or is that just in the eye (mind) of the beholder?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How does one distinguish between just the right amount of changes to make a profit, and just the right amount of changes period?

Or is that just in the eye (mind) of the beholder?

It's certainly subjective. I personally would have liked a bigger change for 2024's 6e, to more easily distinguish it from 2014's 5e in the minds of the fans. I don't agree with the half-measures they're currently pursuing, and the fact that they have sound financial reasons for doing so doesn't change my opinion.

 

[gorice]

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.

I guess the question is: how fundamental are these commonalities to the way the game is played, compared to the differences between edtions, or between tables? I think classes and levels are important commonalities, but you also have things like hit dice and attributes that are (IMO) pretty meaningless in 5e, but which people identify as part of 'D&D'.

On the other hand, you can't even get 5e players to agree on fundamental stuff like whether players should describe what their characters are doing, or whether you can say 'I roll arcana' (the PHB states the former, but the game doesn't force you to play that way). How does the DM apply time pressure or consequences? Are travel and exploration important parts of the game, or do we just handwave it on the way to the next encounter? Are people supposed to follow the DM's prepared story, or is the DM supposed to prepare a story based on the PCs' backstories, or is the story supposed to emerge organically in play?

At this point, no-one actually plays the game as written, to the extent such a thing is possible. Strangely, you also can't change anything without causing someone to have a meltdown.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess the question is: how fundamental are these commonalities to the way the game is played, compared to the differences between edtions, or between tables? I think classes and levels are important commonalities, but you also have things like hit dice and attributes that are (IMO) pretty meaningless in 5e, but which people identify as part of 'D&D'.

Note I was very cautious about what I picked in my example (but I'll note that attributes were relatively meaningless in OD&D too, but they still go all the way back then; being significant and being expected aren't identical sets).

On the other hand, you can't even get 5e players to agree on fundamental stuff like whether players should describe what their characters are doing, or whether you can say 'I roll arcana' (the PHB states the former, but the game doesn't force you to play that way). How does the DM apply time pressure or consequences? Are travel and exploration important parts of the game, or do we just handwave it on the way to the next encounter? Are people supposed to follow the DM's prepared story, or is the DM supposed to prepare a story based on the PCs' backstories, or is the story supposed to emerge organically in play?

Note those aren't strictly game structure elements though; they're playstyle/game culture elements. You can see those (or not) in games that otherwise have no resemblance to D&D in any mechanical sense.

 

[dave2008]

It is clear that I don't understand the current fandom.

Is it that you don't understand them, or that you have different interests / desires / viewpoints? I mean I understand your desire for consistent lore, etc.; I just don't have the same desires.

 

[dave2008]

Sounds like an excellent way to manipulate people into buying slightly updated corebooks over and over and over again.

Yes, it is the model almost all other products (and RPGs) use . I think it can be a good thing for D&D, it just depends on who is doing the updated and how well it is done!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sounds like an excellent way to manipulate people into buying slightly updated corebooks over and over and over again.

Yes, it is the model almost all other products use (and other RPGs). I think it can be a good thing for D&D, it just depends on who is doing the updated and how well it is done!

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

(Translation: it's kind of insulting to suggest that people who want 5.5 have been manipulated.)