Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 8985785" data-attributes="member: 7040132">Here is how I see it. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Wizards is clearly telling us that they love the framework of the current edition of D&D and want to keep it. They are essentially asking the public to accept their new definition of "edition," in that refreshes/refinements of the rules on the same chassis is not an "edition change," especially when they assure us that using older content really shouldn't be a problem because it will be easy to kitbash, like books of previous decades.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They don't want to use the terms "5.5E" or "6E," because those are loaded terms. Rather they are acknowledging the differences between the books by calling them "the 2014 core books" and "the 2024 core books." I respect their intent and that is how I will differentiate these "versions" going forward. Not "5.1" or "5.5" or "6E", or "RD&D" and not even the project name "OneD&D." I am using the language they are using. Anyone not using the preferred language is still really struggling to make sense of it, or they think in a way that they need very specific labels (and as I am neurodivergent, I can totally see this being an honest need for someone), or is willfully fighting Wizards in their own way, or is maybe just straight up enjoying the edition war rhetoric and chaos. Yeah, some people are unhappy with Wizards or their direction and just want to fight it. But arguing over semantics of what it should be called is not helping the community. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I believe Wizards thinks that if they can get people to get on board with this new iterative process that the community can be an ally in the transition, using helpful language to educate new and returning players. (Of course it will only really work if the lion's share of the community like the refinements.) Here is one potential example of a supportive way to handle the transition into a new D&D campaign in 2024:</li> </ol> "Hey Barb! Thanks for your interest in joining our D&D game. To set the tone, As the DM, am choosing to use the new 2024 books as the baseline for this campaign. Will is excited about the Evoker Wizard and Steve is chomping at the bit to play the updated Champion Fighter (I think he wants to play with the new morningstar mastery. Something about a spiked club that he wants to twirl around in flourishes like a badass.) Frankly, I am looking forward to it as well as I really like what they've done with monsters, especially brain eating aberrations. I know you had questions or concerns about the new books, and that's ok. We're going to gather for a Session Zero to hammer out details and concepts next Saturday. I am baking a casserole if you are interested, but feel free to bring any food or snacks you want. Anyroad, we'll be happy to share the new books at the table, and DDB has the 2024 rules if you're interested in checking them out at home on your own time. The SRD is also available in the Creative Commons [here] if you like that layout. It's pretty much the same, with a few tweaks. I've already ran a campaign during the late playtest, so I found some proud nails that I'm going to clear up for everyone. I do recall Nancy saying that you really wanted to play the 2014 Circle of the Moon druid that you never got to play. While I'd encourage you to check out the 2024 Druid to see how the designers felt they could improve the play experience, as long as you are comfortable doing the research to have all the appropriate 2014 beast stat-blocks at hand, I don't have a problem with it. In the world, your character will just be from a slightly different Circle and essentially have a similar, though different subclass to some other druids. People don't assume all druids are exactly the same. Also, if you ever want to try something from the new books, let me know and we'll work it into the story. But if you wanted to play the 2014 Ranger, I am house-ruling to remove Primeval Awareness, as I personally don't like it. But I am happy letting you swap something in for it. Oh, did you want to use Level Up's Druid? I have to brush up on it to make sure there is nothing that breaks my campaign plans (like the 2014 Ranger's annoying Primeval Awareness), but if it looks good, I won't mind. And if we find small discrepancies between that ruleset and ours, we'll figure it out for our shared experience. It's just a storytelling game, we can smooth out any weirdness." Would that be so hard to do our best to provide feedback to make it the best D&D we can, and get on board if we're going in the same direction? And would it be so hard to stop raging against it if you decide it's not for you? Everyone here has their favorite version of "D&D" and I bet many are homebrewed enough to not match any edition's core rules anyway. Why not play what you want? Play PF or Black Flag or Level Up if you want to. Stop trying make the next D&D books into other already existing games if you know in your heart that you already prefer those games and aren't going to play Wizards' D&D. You already have what you want. And do we have to bag on 3rd party products for being different? It's good that they are different. More options are good! Also, is there any way we can we be the generation that took control to stop the edition wars?</blockquote>

Verification