D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Chaosmancer]

I literally just gave the same example, only you switched it to food. If everyone wants chocolate, so you bring both apples and chocolate (in this case you should have just dipped the apples in a chocolate coating ) to the party. You know everyone will choose brownies because they have chocolate. A real testament would be for you to say, "I brought two trays of brownies because that is what the majority are going to want." or "I brought brownies and chocolate covered apples because I know everyone wants chocolate." That is a choice.

Just like my example, it is clearly not a choice - even though it is. In my example, the DM might say, there is a chance you can sneak by the dragon and find something really interesting. That is an actual choice. But to present two champions, two assassins, two way of shadows knowing full well no one will choose the 2014 version is not a choice. Hence, this choice actually becomes a non-choice.

Except that before, no one was getting chocolate because no one was bringing it.

Again, their only promise was that you can keep using the stuff you had before. If no one likes that stuff, that isn't their problem and doesn't mean they mislead or misdirected or were not clear. You CAN use the old material, the same exact material that you are using right now. If you feel compelled to change? That doesn't mean that you were FORCED to change.

So, I never once, ever, in this entire thread called them liars. My position is, some people are upset because they wished they had been more forthcoming, which some deem as honesty. And some people wish their initial call-out of this choice being not really a choice, should be acknowledged.

People have been upset about this since before they announced the anniversary rules update. People have been consistently upset about made-up facts and made-up interpretations. One person was upset because you COULD use old material and therefore all the new material was worthless because if it was weaker, no one would use. Others are upset that it is stronger and now they have no reason to use the old material. Still other people are upset that they didn't call it a new edition, still other other people are upset that they didn't follow Microsoft Windows naming scheme.

The sheer number of people upset over things they have completely and willfully misinterpreted about what WotC claimed is staggering, and yet WoTC has never once actually changed their message on this. People just refused to believe them, so that they could be upset.

I never wrote that they said the bolded words. Those are fiction. Please re-read my post. Those quotes are what some people want out of a company. (And I said it will never happen.)

Look, they don't have to sell it to me. I am already sold. We are starting our new campaign, and to be truthful, I am a bit bummed that our DM doesn't want to use the new stuff. (He wants to wait until there is more published material for it, which is more than fair.)

Lastly, your player using the old paladin is a good example of what players want - stronger characters. Once someone finds some new combo where the paladin can multi-class with the sorcerer and they can now do more damage than the 2014 paladin, he'll probably go all in on the new paladin. (I mean, if his stance is he'll never play the new paladin because of the power level.) So, if you make 40 subclasses, and 38 of those are stronger, guess which way the wind will blow? And that is a good thing, except it might not be for many individual players and DMs. But they must move with the herd if they wish to keep playing with their group.

See, but I think moving to the 24 paladin would be stronger. But they see nova spike damage as the reason to play the paladin. And that specifically has been cut from a lot of the 24 material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And to add something:

Never forget this episode...
https://www.southpark.de/en/episodes/13y790/south-park-gnomes-season-2-ep-17

Only because something is popular does not mean it is bad.

Never said it was. Lots of people like WotC 5e and have fun. Doesn't mean it's the best version of the game, or that the changes they're making are the best changes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When you are as successful with your flagship products as WotC was at the time, it is a good opportunity to look into other priorities as a company rather than looking for ways to further monetize it. Diversification is a good example of something they could have chosen to do.

Ok. What do you mean with diversication?
Could also be a way to generate more money. Except if they try to do things that are non-profit. Like developing OSR things or try to compete with Pathfinder in their own niche.

 

[Hatmatter]

That is quite insulting. As if people can't think for themselves.

He has repeatedly used the term "the herd" to refer to those who see the 2024 revisions as an improvement and want to adopt them. He has also used the term "fall in line" to refer to that adoption.

Both of these terms are examples of emotive rhetoric and are pejorative in character and do in fact suggest a contempt that likely undermines his ability to objectively participate in the conversation.

That being said, to be fair to Micah, I am also not objective in that I tend to assume positive motivations for the game designers. I have been listening to Jeremy Crawford in interviews for well over a decade, as well as Mike Mearls, Rodney Thompson, and others. I find their interviews fascinating and I tend to assume they are communicating honestly. I find life more rewarding when I approach life like that.

Also, I do not necessarily think Micah has contempt for people wanting to adopt the revisions. Sometimes people casually use terms such as these without scrutinizing what they may connote.

"Encourage the good and remain silent about the bad" is, in general, a good approach to online discourse.

Love ya all! Enjoy your games and make good friends!

 

[mamba]

When you are as successful with your flagship products as WotC was at the time, it is a good opportunity to look into other priorities as a company rather than looking for ways to further monetize it. Diversification is a good example of something they could have chosen to do.

diversify into what? Usually you leverage what you have into adjacent fields, which is exactly what they are doing

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please elaborate. I have forgotten the exact timeline.

There are several ways, but both the OGL debacle and the ongoing VTT development, as well as Hasbro's purchase of DDB, were to my mind clearly intended to direct enhance the monetization of the D&D brand.

 

[mellored]

That just reads as prioritizing greed over making the best game they can. I have no reason to respect that philosophy.

Having the most popular game ever is a sign that they already made a great game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. What do you mean with diversication?
Could also be a way to generate more money. Except if they try to do things that are non-profit. Like developing OSR things or try to compete with Pathfinder in their own niche.

Like making other games. You know, like a lot of other companies do.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are several ways, but both the OGL debacle

I thought this was before.

and the ongoing VTT development,

Which is not dumb. Or very dumb. Depends on the quality. At least a big financial risk. Probably thw reason why the even did the stupid OGL rejuvination (as I prefer to call the outcome).

as well as Hasbro's purchase of DDB, were to my mind clearly intended to direct enhance the monetization of the D&D brand.

Which was not the worst idea. Many people probably did not know it was a licensed product. Bringing it in house means that they can more easily guarantee that it will be available as long as they wish. Not buying it would mwan that there could be a dispute about licensing somewhere in the future.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Having the most popular game ever is a sign that they already made a great game.

Popularity and quality are not synonyms. I'll die on this hill.