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

[Ruin Explorer]

I get what you're saying overall, but counterpoint: Eberron. The gods of Eberron's Sovereign Host and Dark Six have listed alignments, and they don't create the same sort of debates/controversy that the gods of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance do. This is due to the fact that the gods may or may not actually exist, but they don't create these kinds of discussions (not in the real world, at least. One of the core teachings of the Blood of Vol is that if there are any gods, they're all evil for allowing peoples' souls to be destroyed after death and preventing the apotheosis of the living).

Sure, but there's also the issue that the alignments assigned to the gods in Eberron tend to be much more in-line with what you'd expect from their teachings. Whereas that's not really the case with a lot of settings.

It definitely is a massive help with Eberron that the setting is agnostic on whether they actually exist. It allows religion to be more diverse in that setting too, in terms of how it operates.

I think what Eberron most particularly illustrates is how helpful it is to construct a cosmology all at once in a coherent and considered way, rather than to randomly add stuff in and accrue cruft and make retcons and so on as the FR has done repeatedly. Which has ended up with a place where Ed Greenwood doesn't seem to even agree about what the cosmology of the FR is with the actual FR writers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think you’re forgetting that these creation stories are told by unreliable narrators. Even given that the stories aren’t quite as simple as you make out. Though it is a good example of why this lore is good. You sound like a bitter drow matron, or surly duergar explaining to their flock why moradin and corellon are wicked.

I mean, for it to be "good lore" here, we have to assume Corellon and so on are absolutely as unreliable.

Which would be great. Except the game pretty clearly states that they aren't. If it was all unreliable narrators and conflicting stories and opinions and teachings and practices this could be awesome. But unfortunately we have stuff saying "Yo this guy is telling the truth and this guy is lying" and so on.

 

[S'mon]

I think that we are looking at as big a change in D&D "culture" as we saw in the fall of TSR and rise of WotC era. I'm confident we aren't like to see huge rules changes in 5.5 (I think backwards compatibility will be a thing, for example) but I think there are a lot of thing lining up for WotC to look at, and treat, D&D as a different thing in the very near future.

Now, just because I know some folks are going to make this argument: I don't think that was true of either the 4E or 5E transition.

4E was very much a mechanical sea change but the explicitly stated goal at the time was to "still play D&D." And 5E was a course correction, the exact opposite of a sea change. It drew heavily on GenX nostalgia and was working very hard to say "D&D is still D&D!"

I don't think that is true going forward. I think the intent is to very much alter the way the game is played (story first, etc..) and aimed at a new generation -- and that generation's values -- in a way it hasn't been since Basic and D&D cartoon days.

And just to be clear, this is not a rant by a grumpy old goat. I mean, I am an old goat, but I'm not grumpy. I don't actually care much. I play D&D in general and 5E in particular largely because it has an accessible player base. I mean, I like D&D and 5E, but I like other games more that don't put bottoms in chairs around a table the way D&D does.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Am I off my rocking chair? Is D&D changing again, or is this just 3.5 in a 5E skin?

Thanks!

@OP it's a bit early to say, but it does look as if WoTC is looking to narrow the player base going forward. They definitely don't seem interested in the kind of inclusive broad-church approach of 2014-17. How this works out will partly depend on how other publishers react. 5e currently has a lot of momentum. There isn't much to stop a third party publisher creating an 5e-SRD based game (just as Level Up is doing), but as this is basically a cultural/tonal rather than mechanical issue, I don't know if that is necessary. Currently you can equally well publish campaign settings using 5e rules, that have a very different feel from the Dragonheist-Strixhaven type material WoTC is focusing on. If that becomes harder in future I can imagine some big third party publishers looking at doing a Paizo/Pathfinder.

 

[S'mon]

The problem I see with this assertion is that this has already happened, and folks didn't seem to notice.

I thought there was a significant shift around 2018, which has accelerated since.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@OP it's a bit early to say, but it does look as if WoTC is looking to narrow the player base going forward. They definitely don't seem interested in the kind of inclusive broad-church approach of 2014-17.

LOL.

Pretty much every single change WotC have made makes D&D a "broader church" and it's literally not even possible to rationally argue that most of them do not. Removing stuff that was insensitive or potentially so never, ever makes D&D "less broad" as a church.

The issue is that some people turn their nose up at this broadening. But WotC have done literally nothing that stops them playing, nor anything which criticizes them. Claiming WotC is "looking to narrow" the player-base and being "less inclusive" when they're literally going out of their way to improve inclusiveness is 1984-style doublethink, frankly. It's like "Oh they took out stuff that might offend someone who wasn't me but didn't offend me, so even though it has absolutely on my game, I'm going to quit!".

If WotC wanted to "narrow the audience" in the way you're describing it would be extremely easy to do so, and they'd have gone a lot harder than they have.

Let's be clear, objectively, in a fact-based sense, D&D now is a broader church than D&D in 2014/15. That's not "merely an opinion". Literally removing stuff which is offensive to some people, but meaningless to others is never "narrowing the church".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If that becomes harder in future I can imagine some big third party publishers looking at doing a Paizo/Pathfinder.

Can you explain how it would "become harder"?

And what would this "big third party publisher" be?

And what would their product look like?

To me, this is implausible nonsense. I can't think of a single "big third party publisher" who would want to "Make their own D&D with hookers and blow" or in this case "Make their own D&D with hookers and always-evil Orcs and dark-skinned always-evil Drow". If you can, name 'em. Which "big third party publisher" would do that? And it's nigh-impossible to imagine the product being something you could spin any more positively an an OSR game - you'd basically be seen as making "Intentionally problematic D&D". Not like accidentally problematic D&D, but intentionally problematic.

Who would even buy that?

 

[Reynard]

@OP it's a bit early to say, but it does look as if WoTC is looking to narrow the player base going forward. They definitely don't seem interested in the kind of inclusive broad-church approach of 2014-17. How this works out will partly depend on how other publishers react. 5e currently has a lot of momentum. There isn't much to stop a third party publisher creating an 5e-SRD based game (just as Level Up is doing), but as this is basically a cultural/tonal rather than mechanical issue, I don't know if that is necessary. Currently you can equally well publish campaign settings using 5e rules, that have a very different feel from the Dragonheist-Strixhaven type material WoTC is focusing on. If that becomes harder in future I can imagine some big third party publishers looking at doing a Paizo/Pathfinder.

Why would WotC want to narrow the player base? That doesn't make any sense, either creatively or economically. They surely want to broaden the player base, particularly by reaching people they haven't before. In doing so it might cause some retraction in certain segments, but given how comparatively small those losses would be it's worth it.

 

[Minigiant]

@OP it's a bit early to say, but it does look as if WoTC is looking to narrow the player base going forward.

It's the opposite.

WOTC is widening the player base. The issue is the old audience who was used to getting targeted in 100% of products are being targeted for 50% of products. It's similar to how Games Workshop realized they milked most of their European Male market and is attempting to expand actively into American, Australian, Female, and Minority customers to take their money too.

It's all about the Benjamins baby
It's all about the Benjamins baby
Now, what y'all want to do
Want to be ballers, shot callers, brawlers
Who be dipping in the Benz with the spoilers
On the low from the Jake in the Taurus
Trying to get my hands on some Grants like Horace
Yeah living the raw deal, three course meals: spaghetti, fettuccine and veal
But still everything's real in the field
And what you can't have now, leave in your will

 

[jayoungr]

I think that we are looking at as big a change in D&D "culture" as we saw in the fall of TSR and rise of WotC era.

For what it's worth, I had a similar feeling last spring:

I do have an uneasy feeling that Tasha's represents a shift and that anything after this will someday be referred to as "late 5E." But I'm not sure I can put my finger on why I feel that way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For what it's worth, I had a similar feeling last spring:

I mean, to me it was pretty obvious with Tasha's, why people would feel it was "late 5E".

For the very simple reason that in every edition, all the way back to 1E, there's this "late" phase and the sign you're in that late phase is major mechanical experimentation well beyond what was going on previously.

1E had Unearthed Arcana in 1985. In 1989 we had 2nd edition.
2E had the Player's Option series, starting in 1995. In 2000 3rd edition.
3E had a lot going on, but the sort of "final harbinger" was Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords in 2006. In 2008 we had 4th edition.
4E had Essentials in 2010, and then in 2014 we had 5th edition.
5E had Tasha's in 2020, and it seems like we're getting a new edition or quasi-edition in 2024.

One can definitely argue which books were the most identifiable for this. Like for me with 4E, the risks taken with Heroes of Shadow (wow that really just straight up has Arthas from WoW on the cover huh? Damn) in 2011 was the real "final harbinger" that told me this edition was kind of on the way out. With 3E I think you could point to other books earlier than ToB:tBo9S, but I think that was the "yo this is over" book.