D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And also, like… It’s entirely possible to recognize and be critical of problematic elements of something while still enjoying the thing. I do that with… Well, basically everything I like?

I also second this. I like a lot of media (D&D, Rick Riordan, Brandon Mull, Brandon Sanderson, etc), but I criticize all of it. Because, well, it isn't perfect, and none of it will ever be. However, criticizing the flaws in it can make the writers (and others that read the works) aware to these issues and avoid them in the future, can help avoid absorbing certain harmful tropes, and makes the broader genre better.

Constructive criticism is a good thing. It's not a personal attack, it's just the mere recognition of certain flaws in a piece of writing and helping others avoid and recognize those flaws.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But 45% are 30 and above, and the older you get in that cohort, the more likely they are to at least be veterans of 4E and 3E.

Most of my players are in their 30s, and they all started with 5e, via Critical Role, or by playing Warhammer. We really divide into two cohorts, those who started with 1st ed, and those who started with 5e. I guess 3e and 4e simply failed to attract many new players to the game, and the demographic reflects that.

 

[JEB]

I guess 3e and 4e simply failed to attract many new players to the game, and the demographic reflects that.

That's a really interesting theory, actually. I think only one person in my (on hiatus due to Covid) 5E group started with 3E, and I'm not even sure - the rest are 2E vets or 5E joinees.

This would be an interesting question for Wizards, as they'd be in a position to know - the polls generally seem to ask what edition respondents started with.

 

[JEB]

More new fans? Yep, 55% are under 30, definitely a majority. But 45% are 30 and above, and the older you get in that cohort, the more likely they are to at least be veterans of 4E and 3E. Even if you only count the 27% that are 35 and over (which are more likely to be vets), that's still one-fourth of the fanbase that grew up with a certain version of the game and are more likely to be uncomfortable with things that seem like fundamental changes.

Quoting myself because I just thought of another wrinkle. Just as there are veteran fans who like the changes, there are also likely new fans who dislike them, and were happy with the game as it stood in early 5E. I now recall someone on r/dndnext quipping that the latest changes are how you make "5e grognards"... We shouldn't assume it's just a veteran fan vs. new fan divide.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's a really interesting theory, actually. I think only one person in my (on hiatus due to Covid) 5E group started with 3E, and I'm not even sure - the rest are 2E vets or 5E joinees.

This would be an interesting question for Wizards, as they'd be in a position to know - the polls generally seem to ask what edition respondents started with.

I tried introducing new players to D&D during the 3rd edition era and it didn't stick. They found it far to complicated and slow. Basic, 1st, 2nd and 5e all have a pick up and play quality that lets you have fun before you learn all the rules.

But companies tend to be very reluctant to talk about their failures, even when the people who made them are no longer with the company. It's bad etiquette to slag off your predecessor. I'm sure they know though.

 

[Oofta]

Quoting myself because I just thought of another wrinkle. Just as there are veteran fans who like the changes, there are also likely new fans who dislike them, and were happy with the game as it stood in early 5E. I now recall someone on r/dndnext quipping that the latest changes are how you make "5e grognards"... We shouldn't assume it's just a veteran fan vs. new fan divide.

I agree. You don't get to be the best version of D&D ever by putting out content that only old hands like myself enjoy. If the game didn't appeal to people, it wouldn't sell.

A lot of things D&D are oversimplified by default. But for a lot of people, that oversimplification of reality is part of the appeal and always has been. Sometimes it's nice just to be the hero and knock some heads together because the real world is so messy and stressful. On the other hand if you want messy conflicts it's easy to layer that on top and many people do, it's far easier to do than simplifying something that's overly complex and cumbersome.

Some things should be changed. I just don't think they're going to do a massive revision, 5E is the golden goose that has been and continues to sell well. They aren't going to kill the the goose because they think they can get a new one that lays platinum eggs instead. The (potentially) billion dollar goose is mass media movies and TV shows, not the core game itself.

 

[Parmandur]

I tried introducing new players to D&D during the 3rd edition era and it didn't stick. They found it far to complicated and slow. Basic, 1st, 2nd and 5e all have a pick up and play quality that lets you have fun before you learn all the rules.

But companies tend to be very reluctant to talk about their failures, even when the people who made them are no longer with the company. It's bad etiquette to slag off your predecessor. I'm sure they know though.

You know, as someone who started with 3E, I think you may be right.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I found it interesting that he mentioned an Orc Settlement on the Swordcoast might be very different culturally then an Orc settlement on the other side of Faerun mostly because I'm shocked he remembered there is parts of Faerun outside the Swordcoast North and Chult .

I'm reading this as confirmation they do have another FR setting book in the works, partly with the goal to diversify "monster races" like Orcs and others.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I found it interesting that he mentioned an Orc Settlement on the Swordcoast might be very different culturally then an Orc settlement on the other side of Faerun mostly because I'm shocked he remembered there is parts of Faerun outside the Swordcoast North and Chult .

You know that might actually be significant...

I'm reading this as confirmation they do have another FR setting book in the works, partly with the goal to diversify "monster races" like Orcs and others.

I think the "diverse orcs" will mechanically be in Monsters of the Multiverse, and eventually orc will replace half orc as a core lineage. I would be surprised if we see a cultural write up for whoever the local orcs are in the next FR adventure though.

I think the new setting book for 5.5 will just be the Sword Coast again though, as the generic D&D setting.

 

[Parmandur]

eventually orc will replace half orc as a core lineage.

I think this is definitely the future.