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

[Micah Sweet]

I think we are about to see a new market split. If the changes aren't enough to justify the new purchase, people won't buy in immediately. It will be a slow purchase because of compatibility. IF there are too many changes it will split because if the changes don't benefit the game or harm the backwards compatibility element, if they really try to advertise that, people won't buy in. They brilliantly marketed 3.5 enough to make it seem like it was really an upgrade to 3e, they were able to talk about the gaps in 3e and what they were doing to "patch" them while giving lip service to compatibility that really wasn't there. They are kind of in a weird space with this because its a different market and D&D is no longer really a part of the RPG market, being it's own thing with how it outclasses every other game. New fans might just gobble it up but they might also be very slow to pick it up. I don't really intend to as I am fine with 5e as is and if the changes are as small as they say, ehhh, maybe one day if my group insists.

No matter what changes they make, and what reason they're making them, they are still reissuing the core books again and hoping people will re-buy the rules. That's not an easy sell, so marketing will be important. They have to convince folks that it's worth spending another $150 again. I'm sure, for example, that they'll throw money at CR to get them on board.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

What's the source on that curiously imprecise figure?

I mean, unless it's a very good source, and includes digital sales, I would put approximately zero stock in it myself.

It was discussed on this board, based on the 800,000 sales of the 5e PHB up to 2017, and various other sources. It was in the latest thread about the record year of 2020 for WotC. The imprecision is mine, I don't remember how the final number got around 5m, not the original thread, because this figure might have included previous editions's PHBs.

 

[S'mon]

Definitely but I don't see any indications that any group of 5E players (whether 20-somethings or 40-somethings or whatever) particularly wants their D&D settings to be like that.

Otherwise darker settings would sell like hot cakes, wouldn't they? And in fact they don't. For your theory to work, there would have to be this unmet demand for that stuff. But the demand is absolutely met. Even beyond D&D, there are tons of "dark fantasy" RPGs, Shadow of the Demon Lord being an obvious one. Are they hideously successful? Not really. They do fine. It certainly looks like demand is met there.

So I would say that evidence suggests that the people who watch GoT and The Witcher, do not want to play out GoT or The Witcher in a TTRPG. YMMV.

I think the main demand is for generic/vanilla fantasy which is darker than the current WoTC direction, but pretty much in line with earlier WoTC campaign adventures. Less shades-of-grey than The Witcher but pretty much same ballpark.

OTOH if Strixhaven is an outlier then maybe there's nothing to be concerned about. I don't think most of the recent Sensitivity Reader stuff is a big deal for most people. IME even when the game was saying "It's OK to kill these guys, they're Always Chaotic Evil", most players would be very reluctant to attack on sight, and are inclined to seek assurance their PC actions are morally justified.

 

[Yora]

No matter what changes they make, and what reason they're making them, they are still reissuing the core books again and hoping people will re-buy the rules. That's not an easy sell, so marketing will be important. They have to convince folks that it's worth spending another $150 again. I'm sure, for example, that they'll throw money at CR to get them on board.

I really don't know where they would be going with a new major rules overhaul. 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition all addressed underlying mechanical aspects that many people were not really happy about.
What about 5th edition would need fixing, other than character option bloat?

 

[Yaarel]

Mechanically, I want 5e to fix the six abilities.

Make sure there is no overlap between one ability and an other. It should be unambiguous about when to use one ability and when to use an other.

Make sure each ability is equally useful and powerful, compared to each other. So investing in any ability is a reasonably beneficial choice.

If the solution is to reduce the number of abilities to four, or to increase them to eight, then allow these variant rules to be convenient and easy to implement during gameplay.

 

[HammerMan]

What about 5th edition would need fixing, other than character option bloat?

Uneven options between martial and caster
uneven ability spread among subclasses for the same class
race features all over the place
(all of the above can fall under balance)

Races getting an overhaul (see linages)
More options built into the classes themselves outside of subclass
Major spell changes (mostly I am thinking summoning spells look very different 7 years later)
Alignment and RP suggestions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mechanically, I want 5e to fix the six abilities.

Make sure there is no overlap between one ability and an other. It should be unambiguous about when to use one ability and when to use an other.

Make sure each ability is equally useful and powerful, compared to each other. So investing in any ability is a reasonably beneficial choice.

If the solution is to reduce the number of abilities to four, or to increase them to eight, then allow these variant rules to be convenient and easy to implement during gameplay.

Unfortunately, I feel very strongly that any significant change to what the ability scores do would be a bridge too far for WotC to consider, even with a 6e.

 

[jayoungr]

(World of Warcraft has been considering dropping the central, well, war, and allowing cross-faction stuff for years, it's so built-in that it's hard to do though).

Eh, it's a perennial rumor among the fanbase, but I don't believe anyone connected with the developers has ever officially stated that they were thinking about it. And after quieting down the central war for a while, they reignited it HARD in 2018 with the next-to-latest expansion, to the point where players have been at each others' throats in a not-fun way ever since.

 

[Oofta]

I really don't know where they would be going with a new major rules overhaul. 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition all addressed underlying mechanical aspects that many people were not really happy about.
What about 5th edition would need fixing, other than character option bloat?

Ask 5 different people on this forum and you will probably get 5 different answers, many of them conflicting.

Personally? A few spells could use tweaking and clarification. There's a bit of wording here and there, like half orcs living in slums that should probably go. I think the MM should go back to the percentage qualifier and clarify that the entries don't necessarily represent the entire population (it's there but buried now). I think dex is overpowered in this edition, but honestly I'm not sure how to fix it. I assume there will be some variation of flexible racial builds ala Tasha's, I hope they keep a default just for flavor.

No game is perfect but I'm not sure how much they can change without really pissing people off and causing a backlash.

 

[Malmuria]

If they were ambitious, they would add elements to make the game modular, since people want to adapt it for every style of rpg anyway. The "DMs workshop" section of the dmg could be expanded into a full book that provides optional rules for each pillar of play and also advice on slimming the game down into something more rules lite and deadly. They could also provide optional rules for adapting the game to different genres.