Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9569833" data-attributes="member: 20323">Sorry for delay writing back to you all! Between health/insurance challenges and trying to help some folks being affected by recent changes in U.S., my time for games is being eaten up. Really good questions! I didn't expect so much response or to be so contentious, and I'll try to address main questions...Maybe it doesn't matter to you. "Design will be what it will be, and as a consumer I don't really need to know their reasons, I either will like or not" is a valid perspective. If that's your perspective, my post probably has nothing of value for you.I think it matters because the context is that WotC is talking a lot about the evolution of the game in the context of "lessons from play." For example, a common house rule during 2014 was "drink potions as bonus action", and that migrated into 2024 rules. Another example, many groups were not running 6-8 combats per adventuring day, and (as I understand it) the 2024 DMG abandons that language and changes the encounter design guidelines to reflect how the game is being played.My observation – not just based on this video, but in totality – is that the "evolving game" (or similar language) is being used during marketing in such a way that it's easy to conflate "evolving game by design directive" versus "evolving game by how it's being played." I think it matters when there's ambiguity in the messaging about the "evolving game." For example, in 5 years if that ambiguity persists, it would be very easy for a marketing person at WotC to say "Due to player support for goblins as fey, we transitioned them to the fey type and it has been wildly popular." That sort of language I noticed a lot in the 4e marketing – where it felt like WotC was telling fans what fans like... when really the truth was many of those lore changes were for internal corporate reasons that we only got to learn about waaaaay after the fact.Yeah, you're picking up what I was driving at. Sorry if I wasn't being clear. It's the... skirting close to that "we did this because it was what fans wanted" that troubles me – NOT the specifics of goblins being fey – rather it's the thought process, the marketing, and what that implies.I am not their target audience. 100%.But I'm also seeing changes that are inconsistent or contradictory to who they've described as their target audience (at least as best as I can assess that). For example, the treasure bit in the 2024 MM entries might say any/none/or refer to the DMG; for a newer audience requiring cross-referencing between books to determine treasure (like we did in AD&D) is – IMHO – a very clear contradiction.So...a design choice might be based on commerce...but that doesn't mean it is executed in a way that best serves the target audience. I think that's an important distinction. I'm not sure whether the goblin change is one that will serve their target audience or not.Oh, I had no idea they introduced Fey Type player species already! Cool! I haven't bought WotC books since Witchlight (2021), so I didn't know. It makes the designers' comments in the video a bit...confusing...since they made it sound as if "playing a non-humanoid type" was a new thing they were introducing. I get it, though, that's pretty common marketing speak they're using for the reboot books.Yes, that's right, if you watch the video closely and look for the language, yes they are saying that the change is coming from the design team. I didn't catch that right away though. It's the context that this marketing is happening within – like I mentioned above in my response to [USER=6706188]@MonsterEnvy[/USER] – that raises my eyebrows.Exactly what you're saying is what caught my eye – there's been a lot of discussion/marketing about the evolving game as something they've learned from players...but this was the first time where they were using similar language in reference to a different meaning of the evolving game. That's what struck me, that the designers were saying (paraphrasing) "the evolving game is what we decide it to be" rather than the context I was hearing in previous marketing "the evolving game is what players are doing with the game in the wild." I hope that clears it up!</blockquote>

Verification