D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Velderan]

This is not just about adventures (unless you're WotC, apparently).

I asked earlier if there was a reason they're doing it this way that doesn't revolve around making more money. So far, the answer still appears to be "no".

Doing what? Releasing a new line of core books in 2024?

I'm sure an uptick of book sales is definitely a factor in their decision. They're a business after all. It's also the game's 50th anniversary so clearly they were going to do something so the timing is good. If 5e wasn't selling well, I'm sure an actual 6e for the anniversary would have been a consideration but since 5e is selling well by all accounts, 10 years in is a good point to launch a refresh line of books to clean up some of the rules, rebalance some of the classes, take a different approach on how the material is presented (DMG I'm looking at you..), and give new players a clean point to jump on.

In other words, the things they've been saying if you actually take the time to listen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC cannot hold every customer's hand. If (general) you are an existing 2014E D&D player and then see a new 'Player's Handbook' on the shelf in 2024 with a whole new cover, and a table of contents that re-arranges everything, and changes a chapter heading from 'Races' to 'Species', and a bunch of classes have their class charts different, and feats get moved up in the book, and the weapons table has a whole bunch of extra properties, and there's most likely several paragraphs written in the front of the book talking about how this book revises much of the old 2014 Player's Handbook and so on and so forth...

...and you don't take the time to actually process this and you the buy the book unthinkingly, believing it's exactly what you need for your 2014E game-- guess what? Caveat emptor.

WotC need not be spending all their time trying to save those people from themselves. At some point, each of us players needs to learn a little personal responsibility in what we purchase. And that means being a little discerning, and not expect or require WotC to emblazon across the covers of these new books "NOT THE 2014 PLAYER'S HANDBOOK! NEW HANDBOOK! REVISED! WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS! THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ORANGE ONE WITH THE FIRE GIANT ON THE COVER!"

But then again... maybe I just expect a little more from my fellow players that they not need to be spoon-fed every single thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doing what? Releasing a new line of core books in 2024?

I'm sure an uptick of book sales is definitely a factor in their decision. They're a business after all. It's also the game's 50th anniversary so clearly they were going to do something so the timing is good. If 5e wasn't selling well, I'm sure an actual 6e for the anniversary would have been a consideration but since 5e is selling well by all accounts, 10 years in is a good point to launch a refresh line of books to clean up some of the rules, rebalance some of the classes, take a different approach on how the material is presented (DMG I'm looking at you..), and give new players a clean point to jump on.

In other words, the things they've been saying if you actually take the time to listen.

And if they were replacing the old core books with revised versions they thought were better, I would agree with you (I still don't care for the changes, but that's personal). But they're not. They're insisting you can use either or both, creating a new version of all the same stuff from the 2014 PH and having both be valid choices in the same game. Doing it that way is not a good design choice, it's a good marketing choice designed to maintain their profit margins, and it compromises their design because a) there will be two versions of everything, preventing them from making any balance fixes because players will want to choose the more powerful option, and b) they can't make any big changes to the game because it would harm the backwards compatibility they keep talking about.

If they had marketed it similarly to 4e Essentials, as a new starting point for 5e that re-worked classic concepts and actually named them as new classes (which they are), a) would be eliminated and a lot of confusion would disappear. But instead, we get two equally PHs in the same edition, with two sets of classes with the same names, and I'm sorry but there's no way to do that without causing confusion and conflict.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the last two modifiers that could be applied to anyone posting on this forum would be "pliant" or "unquestioning."

Sure.

I'm not saying they are.

I'm saying I believe WotC is hoping people will be. Which you can see from the post in question (emphasis added):


There's a big difference between the two things.

Not really.

Edit: And if you've thought about it and genuinely don't believe there's a pretense there, you literally cannot possibly be someone I'm talking about. Because you've thought about it!

I don’t like the general D&D community being insulted, it ain’t about me.

And yes, it is pessimistic regarding the actions of a major corporation. Given WotC's moves over the past year, I don't think being pessimistic about a corporation's motives is even remotely unjustified. In fact, I think it's pretty damn warranted.

Pessimism isn’t cynicism.

 

[Umbran]

I asked earlier if there was a reason they're doing it this way that doesn't revolve around making more money.

Why should they do this in a way that doesn't largely revolve around making more money?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why should they do this in a way that doesn't largely revolve around making more money?

They care about making the best game they can? But no, that's silly.

 

[mamba]

They care about making the best game they can? But no, that's silly.

If you think an inferior game is selling better and that is why they intentionally ‘sabotage’ their design, I’d like to see some proof.

Until then it is simply a matter of the more popular game being the better game.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
We got a report that folks were making the discussion personal and insulting again.

Moderators have put red text up in this thread eight times already, and two people have already been banned from the discussion. More of same isn't going to improve matters. That leaves us in the place of upping the ante - either we start giving people temporary site bans, or we close the thread.

Thread closed.