D&D (2024) One D&D is one D&D too much (-)

[dave2008]

If they were clear about what was and was not on the table for potential customer input, I would likely feel differently. But they aren't clear, so I have no reason to trust their marketing rhetoric.

OK, but it isn't about trusting them. Just trust what is in front of you and don't jump to conclusions. At least that would be my advice.

 

[Aldarc]

You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.

The alternative is having to admit that there is no grand conspiracy going on and that their opinions are in the minority or fringe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, but it isn't about trusting them. Just trust what is in front of you and don't jump to conclusions. At least that would be my advice.

That doesn't make sense to me in this context. They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them. How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?

 

[Morrus]

This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.

Yep!

They are playtesting small changes.

But based on the threads, you would think that they have announced that they are murdering puppies.

 

[wicked cool]

did they say the changes to races are official? why make these changes in the newest books and then backtrack out of them (dragonborn breath attack was recently changed is an example).

is there new leadership running this? related-watching a video on the new starter set and it doesnt build on the 2nd starter set. they had a great idea for sidekicks but if you didnt pick that set up you would have no idea.

it feels like pieces are being lost on the way with changes made

 

[CleverNickName]

This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.

It really has! Which is not entirely unexpected, I guess...we've seen this happen before.

For some folks, change is always a bad thing...it's either immediately bad, or it's a portent of bad things to come, or it's an indictment against things they enjoy, or some weird combination of the three.

But I must have gotten a lot older since 2008 and 2009. Or maybe the pandemic etc. has given me more perspective on such things? Not sure. I just can't get as engaged as WotC needs me to be. I've been trying to get excited about it, but all I've got are cartoon memes and jokes, or the occasional, unhelpful "doesn't Tasha's already do this?" It feels like just an extra-noisy Unearthed Arcana to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.

I mean that is an extreme... but thinking that this is more market testing and less playtesting isn't really that machiavellian is it?

 

[Umbran]

I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.

Given that the stuff seen in D&D Next changed significantly over the course of the playtest, from initial playtest materials to final version, this suspicion doesn't seem to be based in evidence.

 

[dave2008]

That doesn't make sense to me in this context. They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them. How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?

All of the rule changes presented are subject to customer input, why would you think otherwise? It will probably become more clear in the survey I guess, but why would you assume some of the changes are not up for customer input? I mean, how do you: "...know it isn't all of them."

For example, people where that Tasha's racial ability score revisions we definitely going to be the 2024 standard. No change, that was it. Yet, the changed it it in the very first playtest UA. It seems to me anything is up for grabs.

I bet they currently feel more confident about some changes more than others, but I am sure that if a change gets a really bad reaction it will be revised or dropped.