Grognard view of One D&D?

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Yep. I have a feeling that the playtest will last 12-18 months, then it will be closed and WotC will do whatever they want regardless of feedback.
They've literally already changed things in the playtest according to feedback. In D&DNext's Playtest, the feedback they got shaped the 5e we got in 2014. I see no reason to come up with baseless conspiracy theories about how WotC is pretending to "playtest" these things among the community but will ignore them and do whatever they want.
If OneD&D is just fixes and tweaks to a half version from 5E to "5.5E" why even bother having a playtest? My bet is that we will see an entirely new edition based on the d20 chassis of 3,x and 5E, but thats just my opinion.
Have you not looked over any of the playtest documents yet? There are some pretty major changes being tested out (Class Groups, Feats becoming core, Half-Casters getting cantrips and spells at level 1, new crit and inspiration rules, etc).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I see no reason to come up with baseless conspiracy theories
From what I understand there was a lot of feedback in the 5E playtest that people liked but was removed, so I don't think its fair to say I'm coming up with baseless conspiracy theories
Have you not looked over any of the playtest documents yet? There are some pretty major changes being tested out
Yes I have looked them over, which is why I said I think that we will end up with new edition as opposed to a revision. My opinion is that regardless, the final product we get in 2024 will look different from the playtest.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
From what I understand there was a lot of feedback in the 5E playtest that people liked but was removed, so I don't think its fair to say I'm coming up with baseless conspiracy theories
Care to give a source?
Yes I have looked them over, which is why I said I think that we will end up with new edition as opposed to a revision. My opinion is that regardless, the final product we get in 2024 will look different from the playtest.
They have many, many reasons to try and prevent this "updated edition" from being widely called a "new edition" by the community (if they can). New editions scare people, especially newer players, which 5e has an abundance of. WotC pulling the rug out from under the feet of its millions of newer players would be a bad move, because it would lose them money and forever make them lose the trust of their fanbase.
 



kenada

Legend
Supporter
I don’t share the cynical take on the playtest. They’ve been doing the UA-survey cycle all throughout the life of 5e. It makes sense they would continue doing it for 6e, and it helps get people hyped about the new edition while assuaging any concerns regarding compatibility.

As for why I’m calling it 6e: I’m calling it 6e because I want it to be to 5e like 2e was to 1e. It may have been necessary eventually for a 3e-like break, but that shouldn’t be the standard approach for every subsequent edition. 6e should be (more or less) compatible with 5e, and that should be the expectation going forward (for 7e, etc).
 

GreyLord

Legend
For a couple of years following 4E's release, the D&D brand slipped so much that another game (Pathfinder) became the #1 RPG on the market. It was the first and only time that has ever happened.

If I recall, Pathfinder overtook D&D once D&D after it was announced it would end and stopped being printed in prep for the next edition of 5e.

There normally is a drastic decline anytime a new edition is announced, and stopping the outpouring of new material almost always is a good way for sales to decline.

That's a situation which makes it easier for another brand to outsell it for awhile...especially if materials are being printed for it while none are being produced for D&D. The fact that D&D didn't sink further is an attestation of how big D&D is on the market.

This doesn't mean that sales were lower than in earlier editions (my guess is that while 3.X had around 5 million, 4e had more like 2-3 million players, but that's a guess).

What I think was heard is that Hasbro set expectations for core brands to be selling at a minimum of 50 million dollars a year. Some thought core brands should be at 100 million a year. D&D wasn't making that much and Hasbro was a little disappointed in that aspect at the time. This probably caused some difficulties and reorganization of expectations and how the brand was presented.

I imagine the goal is still to somehow get the D&D brand (that's brand, not game) to attain a 50 - 100 million mark by various means and retain that each year. Whether they are suceeding or not is probably only known by those in charge of that, but it would no longer have been expected to meet it immediately upon 5e's release (or so I would think).

MTG is still the big money maker, and hence the bigger focus these days in any case. D&D has a large interest in it's following, but I imagine MtG is the one which has a bigger interest from Hasbro these days.
 

GreyLord

Legend
I don’t share the cynical take on the playtest. They’ve been doing the UA-survey cycle all throughout the life of 5e. It makes sense they would continue doing it for 6e, and it helps get people hyped about the new edition while assuaging any concerns regarding compatibility.

As for why I’m calling it 6e: I’m calling it 6e because I want it to be to 5e like 2e was to 1e. It may have been necessary eventually for a 3e-like break, but that shouldn’t be the standard approach for every subsequent edition. 6e should be (more or less) compatible with 5e, and that should be the expectation going forward (for 7e, etc).

This isn't 6e though, not that I have heard. It's an anniversary edition which is compatible with 5e, hence it is all D&D and One D&D under One Umbrella.

That's my understanding of it, though I could be wrong.
 

This isn't 6e though, not that I have heard. It's an anniversary edition which is compatible with 5e, hence it is all D&D and One D&D under One Umbrella.

That's my understanding of it, though I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure you are correct according to the video that was initially released announcing OneD&D. My gut tells me it will be backwards compatible, but I think they are going to give it an umbrella title to try and avoid calling it something that designates it as a new edition, but my feeling is that it will be different enough where fans may consider it new. Might come down to semantics and personal opinion whether it is or not.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
The latest UA suggests that 1D&D won't be confused for a lightly errated 5E, but won't have quite as many changes as 3.5 did. I think it will definitely be technically backwards compatible, but there will still be plenty of people upset that the 1D&D ranger doesn't suck as much as the 5E did.
 
Last edited:

kenada

Legend
Supporter
This isn't 6e though, not that I have heard. It's an anniversary edition which is compatible with 5e, hence it is all D&D and One D&D under One Umbrella.
Being compatible doesn’t preclude being a new edition. Many games retain compatibility in new editions. I’d like for D&D to be one of them again.

I'm pretty sure you are correct according to the video that was initially released announcing OneD&D. My gut tells me it will be backwards compatible, but I think they are going to give it an umbrella title to try and avoid calling it something that designates it as a new edition, but my feeling is that it will be different enough where fans may consider it new. Might come down to semantics and personal opinion whether it is or not.
I expect they’ll do it like they did D&D Next and refer to the game as “Dungeons & Dragons” while making no mention of edition except in the marketing text on the back.

As to which: I don’t think 5.5e is likely. It’s too technical-sounding. I think it will be either 6e or anniversary edition with the edge going to 6e for being more timeless.

Update: Actually, they refer to 5e in the playtest material by year (e.g., the 2014 Player’s Handbook). I think there’s a possibility they’ll just call the next PHB the 2024 Player’s Handbook and dispense with the edition moniker altogether. I wonder if the community and 3PP will follow suit or come up with an informal edition version. 🤔
 
Last edited:

haakon1

Adventurer
Many games retain compatibility in new editions. I’d like for D&D to be one of them again.
Agree.
I expect they’ll … refer to the game as “Dungeons & Dragons” while making no mention of edition except in the marketing text on the back.
For sure, if they say the edition on the front, it’ll be small. Which can confuse consumers. I remember long ago trying to help a mom in a bookstore trying to buy “D&D” and not knowing which edition was which - her kid told her the edition they wanted, but the trade dress was confusing.
 

Haplo781

Legend
I think it less displays a failure of marketing but a failure for designing for every major subcategory of D&D player.

D&D playstyles have more or less diverged into 4-5 different paths. WOTC's main struggle in 3e, 4e, and 5e is designing a D&D that is attractive every substype of D&D gamer. 4e sold a lot to 4e style gamers but the numbers Hasbro wanted required OS, 3e/PF, 4e, and the upcoming 5e players to all buy it.

5e was designed to snatch back the first 2 groups to hit projected numbers. However instead it pulled mostly 5e style players. What One D&D is shaping up is a strategy of being able to hit the numbers without the sales of the first wave of grognards and relying more of the coalition of post-2000 editions' fans.
Hasbro wanted $50 million a year.

5e has never hit that benchmark. It's barely broke $40-45 million, once.

5e would have been considered a "failure" if it were held the the same standard as 4e.
 

Longspeak

Adventurer
I guess technically speaking I'm a grognard. I never fully understood the appellation though. I'm old. I played D&D and AD&D1e when they were new. Does that automatically make me a Grognard?

D&D lost me in 2e. Part of this was the mess that was their core books. Part of this was all the kitchen sink stuff in the "Complete" books that, as a young gamer, I felt compelled to embrace. I ended up leaving for lighter games in the 90s. I peeked at 2e Revised, 3e, and 4e, but never came back. Then in 2018, I was introduced to 5e and it has since become my main game.

This is partly because I love role-playing more than I love spending six months trying to get critical mass on my out-of-the-mainstream games. I list a single opening in a D&D game and I have half a dozen application by morning.

It's also partly that I've grown over the years. 5e is even more kitchen sink than 2e was, especially with the free and open exchanges happening in homebrew and 3rd party realms. But I'm well able to pick and choose these days. Just because Tasha's Incomprehensible Mess of Atrocities lists something, I don't have to allow it. This was not a mindset I had back then, and that one change has made me a better DM, and a happier DM.

But 5e is also better organized and structured than 2e was (which isn't saying much. Seriously, it was a mess from an editing standpoint.)

But what does this mean for the next edition? I haven't a clue. I haven't been paying attention. From what I've seen...

Feats are not optional? Yes they are. I'm the DM. Everything is optional. Problem solved. (But also I like feats.)

Inspiration is mandatory? No it's not. I'm the DM, everything is optional. (But I personally love Inspiration and wish myu players would remember to use it more often so I can give them more of it!)

Ancestries are all open ended or something? Did I read that somewhere? No they're not. I'm the DM, everything is optional. And while I do love a lot of things I've seen regarding ancestry vs. culture vs. heritage, I will continue to say that elves all share a commonality, as do dwarves, orcs, etc. It's just that can easily fit within as framework that includes culture and heritage as separate components.

So... Am I a grognard? Is WotC catering to me? Meh. I don't care. If the book is pretty and has cool stuff in it, I'll buy it. If it doesn't, I won't.
 


With WOTC buying D&Dbeyond and looking at integrating its own VTT, my impression is they will put most of the tools behind a subscription paywall. Which, maybe, most Gragnards won't pay for because they're used to owning their own books rather than renting them with a subscription?

Or maybe WOTC isn't going that way...?
 



With WOTC buying D&Dbeyond and looking at integrating its own VTT, my impression is they will put most of the tools behind a subscription paywall. Which, maybe, most Gragnards won't pay for because they're used to owning their own books rather than renting them with a subscription?

Or maybe WOTC isn't going that way...?
I think WotC/Hasbro would be leaving a huge amount of good money on the table* if they were unwilling to continue to print out their game rules in dead-tree format. I don't see that changing unless some new and radical change to how people experience the written word sweeps through successfully**.
*the one thing I inherently trust them not to do.
**and while both decent enough successes in their own right, neither books-on-tape/soundfile nor e-readers actually did a good job of making people not buy books, showing good examples of attempts at such a thing that did not succeed.


Mind you, if 60%+ of gamers start using digital systems to engage with the game, that could influence the design decisions towards rules and mechanics which are easy to do on a computer interface but cumbersome or annoying with pencil an paper. I'm not overly scared of that for D&D, since 5e is honestly quite a bit less like that than previous editions of D&D* or many of the games of the 80s and 90s (where I guess the cumbersomeness was part of the challenge). The most I can imagine 5e or successive iterations derived from it doing along this trend would be having more and more 'Prof Bonus times per Long Rest' mechanics to be tracked, but even that really is 'notepad/sticky note tracking'-level complexity, not really 'cumbersome in a non-digital format.'
*3e, where suffering 3 points of temporary dexterity damage or running into an opponent with a brilliant energy weapon who catches you flat-footed will send you poring through your derived bonuses and checking the types on all your AC score components
**GURPS and the like mostly just work best with a spreadsheet during character creation/advancement, but something like Hero System, where END expenditures (for powers, or even swinging a fist) is based on Active cost of abilities which can be boosted or diminished greatly benefits from excel and a calculator during-play (to say nothing of any open-ended power frameworks or the like).
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top