D&D 5E MCDM to revisit the Illrigger.

[eyeheartawk]

For example, imagine that we split the D&D5E forums here into 5 different forums and you were only going to be a member of 1 or 2 of them. That would have a lot of impacts, right?

I doubt that would happen. I mean, if that were true,there would be hundreds of OSR subforums, but there aren't. If the new MCDM is not broadly compatible with 5e (which it may not be) then it would be its own thing anyway.

 

[aco175]

The new game is one of several that will be fighting with D&D in 2024. My biggest fear is that we will fracture the community with all of these new competitors to D&D coming out. Unlike board games, people tend to stick with one game they like to run ... and if people in a community disagree on which rule set to run, they may find gathering players harder, or finding rule knowledgeable players harder. As people struggle through unweaving the rule issues that come with new editions, we could see attrition. I liken the issue to a company that decides to use several different programing language when building the same product. It could be done if you can partition the elements correctly, but you lose out on cross expertise and often on the ability for people to support each other.

If the MCDM game is better nd people go there, then Wizards will need to make 6e better to bring them back. One of the joys of capitalism is that you get better things through competition. Hasbro might also just buy them out and shelve it like the jet packs we were all promised.

 

[DEFCON 1]

MCDM's game is an evolution of 4E's thematic mechanical design. So if you as a player/DM really liked the grid-based tactical miniatures game aspect of 4E's combat, the MCDM game will probably scratch that itch as well. If, however, you tend towards preferring much of the theater-of-the-mind aspects of D&D, even during combat... their game might not suit you.

But this is why there's probably not going to be any real break in the D&D marketplace when it comes out... because most of the people playing 5E are doing so because they enjoy 5E on its own merits, and are not playing it merely as a stopgap because they can't get a 4E table together. Thus most of the 5E audience will not be leaving and switching to the MCDM game when that comes out.

MCDM will get its audience... but that audience just isn't a huge chunk of current 5E players I don't believe-- at least not a huge enough chunk to make us all think "Uh oh! The audience has split!"

 

[haakon1]

Thanks for explaining it, folks.

I DM 3.5e, and I’m happy with it, so probably not the core audience for MCDM if it’s 5e fans who want more 4e DNA in their game. Or maybe their target is “people who are super into D&D but not that into what Hasbro is making”, in which case - ding ding, great market segmentation to find me.

As for a 2024 edition split, I suspect it will be OK. I mean a 5 way split of 5e, 2024, MCDM, Tales of the Valiant, and “everything else” would perhaps be less vitriolic than 2 way splits in the past?

And here, you can view the current edition discussing and Older Editions discussion etc. in one feed, I think. I check both. It gets a little weird when the streams cross and “there were editions before 5e!?” folks stumble into a discussion about 4e or whatever, but it’s mostly fine.

 

[mamba]

I DM 3.5e, and I’m happy with it, so probably not the core audience for MCDM if it’s 5e fans who want more 4e DNA in their game.

You need to look into it a bit beyond someone saying it is a bit more 4e added to 5e.

For starters it is its very own thing (which does not mean it has nothing in common with some games, there is not much new under the sun these days). It is not d20 based and ends at 10th level…

 

[haakon1]

ends at 10th level…

That part sounds good.

 

[Remathilis]

As for a 2024 edition split, I suspect it will be OK. I mean a 5 way split of 5e, 2024, MCDM, Tales of the Valiant, and “everything else” would perhaps be less vitriolic than 2 way splits in the past?.

I wouldn't be overly worried. Fantasy Heartbreakers have existed for a long time. None of the 5e clones I think will fracture the community and further than it already is and I don't imagine any of them will gain major traction outside its core audience.

 

[DEFCON 1]

None of the 5e clones I think will fracture the community and further than it already is and I don't imagine any of them will gain major traction outside its core audience.

And the phrase "fracturing the community" is such a misnomer anyways, as it implies that playing multiple, differing games is somehow wrong. No game is a monolith, and thus no person should ever think that some other player has "abandoned" things or "split off" from them if they are playing a different game.

 

[MNblockhead]

The videos that Matt Colville made over the years are phenomenal guidance for DMs. I agree with 95% of them - as does he. He contradicts his guidance here or there and is critical of earlier statements at times. But it is all worth a listen. It is something I listen to on the drive to work on occasion.

I haven't listened to his videos for quite a while, but I listened to him regularly in the past and concur with your assessment. I should really go back and listen to some of his newer stuff. It's just that my pod cast and YouTube follow lists have gotten out of hand.

The new game is one of several that will be fighting with D&D in 2024. My biggest fear is that we will fracture the community with all of these new competitors to D&D coming out.

I look at it more positively. I'm glad to see a diversification of the gaming community. I doubt that D&D is in any danger. The problem is usually trying to find people to play something other than D&D. If MCDM, Darrington Press, Kobold Press, etc. get people to branch out into new systems, I think that would be very healthy for the hobby overall.

Unlike board games, people tend to stick with one game they like to run ... and if people in a community disagree on which rule set to run, they may find gathering players harder, or finding rule knowledgeable players harder.

Not sure I agree with this. Many D&D players tend to stick with D&D and for many D&D = tabletop roleplaying. I find that once people try another system, if they enjoy it, they are much more likely to continue trying new systems. At least that's been my observation.

Further, online gaming has made it easier than ever to find people to play a system you enjoy. I'm stuck in a compound in a country without a large (or perhaps any) gaming community. Yet, I have no problem finding games for a wide variety of systems.

As people struggle through unweaving the rule issues that come with new editions, we could see attrition. I liken the issue to a company that decides to use several different programing language when building the same product. It could be done if you can partition the elements correctly, but you lose out on cross expertise and often on the ability for people to support each other.

For example, imagine that we split the D&D5E forums here into 5 different forums and you were only going to be a member of 1 or 2 of them. That would have a lot of impacts, right?

Nah, not really. The one thing I wish I would see more of in EN World is discussions of other systems. But there isn't enough discussion to warrant threads specific to non-D&D systems.

 

[Remathilis]

And the phrase "fracturing the community" is such a misnomer anyways, as it implies that playing multiple, differing games is somehow wrong. No game is a monolith, and thus no person should ever think that some other player has "abandoned" things or "split off" from them if they are playing a different game.

The only time fracturing is bad imho is when it forces you to buy different book lines that overlap. For example, if I invested heavily in 5e and then my DM said "we're going only TotV all in now, please buy the core rulebook" I'd be a little miffed. But otherwise, I agree.