D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[Micah Sweet]

Which bits?

I can't immediately see a single thing in the current list of changes which is "for the lawyers" (note: I work at a law firm and used to be a legal researcher, but am not a lawyer).

Who would be suing WotC on what basis?

I admit I was being a bit glib. I was thinking more in terms of non-legal liability, so the company can be seen as believing a certain way and promoting ideas that some folks want them to promote (and of course, not be seen to be promoting other ideas).

 

[TheSword]

My feeling is that as time moves forward we are going to see D&D transition more and more from written for an adult audience to written for a young adult audience.

Basically less Watchmen and more Avengers.

Barring a few intentionally dark supplements like Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Evil has D&D ever really been Watchmen? Dark Sun was in principle pretty bleak, but the reality was more Dr Who than Dr Manhattan.

Most D&D adventures are threat—> adventure —> happy ending. Rime was in principle bleak, but the reality was cuddly and fuzzy for the most part and not really horrific at all.

What makes D&D content dark and adult is actually the stuff that isn’t written, that’s adapted by the DM to suit the style of the table. I’m not really detecting a difference in the writing style in official products in the last 20 years. Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave or Gathering of Winds reads pretty similarly to Rime of the Frost Maiden or Descent into Avernus.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Barring a few intentionally dark supplements like Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Evil has D&D ever really been Watchmen? Dark Sun was in principle pretty bleak, but the reality was more Dr Who than Dr Manhattan.

I certainly haven't even seen D&D being like that, so I agree with you here.

And not like there's a shortage of RPGs which are like that compare them to. The vast majority of White Wolf RPGs (including the non-WoD lines) were absolutely aiming for "Watchmen not Avengers", whether they're Vampire, Exalted, or Aberrant.

D&D has, since 2E at least, always been aiming at a different, younger and less grim-oriented market. As you say, there have been the odd book that's a bit "edgy", but y'know, compare Book of Vile Darkness to, say Clanbook: Tzmische (sp?) and BoVD looks like pretty schoolboy stuff.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think rather than a "young" audience or "adult" audience, D&D has usually targeted a "universal" audience, in that both kids and adults can get a lot out of it.

 

[TheSword]

I certainly haven't even seen D&D being like that, so I agree with you here.

And not like there's a shortage of RPGs which are like that compare them to. The vast majority of White Wolf RPGs (including the non-WoD lines) were absolutely aiming for "Watchmen not Avengers", whether they're Vampire, Exalted, or Aberrant.

D&D has, since 2E at least, always been aiming at a different, younger and less grim-oriented market. As you say, there have been the odd book that's a bit "edgy", but y'know, compare Book of Vile Darkness to, say Clanbook: Tzmische (sp?) and BoVD looks like pretty schoolboy stuff.

Interestingly I don’t think it’s an age thing. I think it’s more that some people like angst and some people like heroism. I play with 40+ year olds for the most part and we largely like a heroic game with the occasional rare grimdark campaign to mix things up. Our 48 year old is the least likely to want a dark game.

He played a fair bit of WoD stuff when he was younger but doesn’t anymore. Preferring a lighter experience.

A lot of Young Adult stuff has friends dying, eternal curses, being fated to face the ultimate evil, not knowing who your parents are… then finding out they’re the villlain. Etc.

As a case in point The Hunger Games is one of the most successful pieces of young adult fiction! I don’t see D&D going that way to be honest!

 

[Argyle King]

I think that backwards compatibility will hinder the design process of the upcoming changes.

While I believe that 5E has a lot of good ideas which should be kept, I also believe that 5E implemented some of those good ideas very poorly in actual practice. As such, I believe that a better game should make more robust mechanical changes.

Keep in mind that "backwards compatibility" can be a vague statement. Technically, as long as there's a way to convert old products to the new stuff (3.0 ---> 3.5 ---> Pathfinder, as an example,) the claim of being backwards compatible still remains true even with a lot of changes to the system.

 

[TheSword]

I think that backwards compatibility will hinder the design process of the upcoming changes.

While I believe that 5E has a lot of good ideas which should be kept, I also believe that 5E implemented some of those good ideas very poorly in actual practice. As such, I believe that a better game should make more robust mechanical changes.

Keep in mind that "backwards compatibility" can be a vague statement. Technically, as long as there's a way to convert old products to the new stuff (3.0 ---> 3.5 ---> Pathfinder, as an example,) the claim of being backwards compatible still remains true even with a lot of changes to the system.

Do you have examples?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think that backwards compatibility will hinder the design process of the upcoming changes.

While I believe that 5E has a lot of good ideas which should be kept, I also believe that 5E implemented some of those good ideas very poorly in actual practice. As such, I believe that a better game should make more robust mechanical changes.

Keep in mind that "backwards compatibility" can be a vague statement. Technically, as long as there's a way to convert old products to the new stuff (3.0 ---> 3.5 ---> Pathfinder, as an example,) the claim of being backwards compatible still remains true even with a lot of changes to the system.

so we must put it in the wait and see category?

 

[Argyle King]

Do you have examples?

Of parts that I think are implemented poorly?

 

[TheSword]

Of parts that I think are implemented poorly?

Sure.