D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Ruin Explorer]

Their digital strategy hasn't improved because their digital strategy hasn't changed. What changed is that they improved in selecting licensing partners. It's still the same strategy - by your own admission. Larian is a game developer with a license to make D&D games, just like BioWare, Obsidian, and Cryptic. DDB is owned jointly by a gaming site network (Curse/Twitch/Amazon). That's the exact same strategy (license the brand to digital partners), just with better results (so far).

And neither Tuque nor Archetype have released a single game. Sure, they could put out a great game. Or they could put out Kingdoms of Amalur. BG3 is a good start, but it's only in beta. Dark Alliance isn't even that far along, as it's being retooled completely.

This is an impossible thing to suggest. Buying a game studio and creating, from the ground up, another, is evidence of a massive and profound change in their digital strategy. It's a huge investment with big long-term consequences. Especially as both studios are explicitly AAA, so have a minimum per-game budget of tens of millions. And they're in-house, not third parties. Trying to frame that as "nothing has changed!" is just... counter-factual and really weird.

Whether the studios put out good stuff or not isn't really material to that. Additionally the anti-Midas deal is certainly over for choosing partners.

So we have two things:

1) A big change to digital strategy.

2) A change from largely dismal failure with obviously bad choices made over and over to one which is successful re: licencing.

This shows some pretty big difference in both what they're deciding to do, and the quality of those decisions.

So it hinges on making sure that 6E is completely different from 5E.

No. Did you even read my posts on what 6E might look like?

I ask because this sort of strawman which relies on me not knowing what's in my own posts is kind of weird and confusing.

A 1E to 2E-style change is more than sufficient.

The choices you outline are the same choices people at going from 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, and 4E to 5E. Why you either think they're novel or that the outcome will be different is a question only you can answer, and that you've not expanded upon. Are you going to explain?

I'm not sure what this "couple of years" stuff is about. I mean, I presume you're referring to 5E's lifespan? Or something? It seems like hyperbole either way. The 6E I'm looking at here would probably land somewhere between late 2022 and 2024, maybe even a year or two later. In 2022, 5E will have existed for eight years, so longer than 4E, and the same length as 3E. How long would it need to last for it to not be "a couple of years" in hyperbole-speak, are you thinking?

 

[Flamestrike]

Since at least 1979 they were (as they appear in the MM), with alignments defined as variations of evil

An alignment listed for a creature does not make it inherently evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.

Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

An alignment listed for a creature does not make it inherently evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.

Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.

Yup. I can literally remember having an argument in like 1990/1991 with DM who was insistent all orcs were inherently and unavoidably Evil (in the Forgotten Realms, to be specific, not a homebrew setting), and me giving him counter-examples that I had even back then (no memory of what they were, sadly).

Also the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, from 1993, explicitly and unarguably states alignments for most of these being (including Orcs) are merely tendencies (and specifically calls out that PC versions can be of any alignment or limits them only on the Law/Chaos axis - Ogre Magi must be LG/LN/LE for example - at least in all the entries I just flicked though). It's also kind of super-racist but the alignment thing was at least facing broadly in the right direction. In 1993.

 

[Sacrosanct]

An alignment listed for a creature does not make it inherently evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.

Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.

Semantics. The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil". And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.

But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes. And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Semantics. The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil". And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.

But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes. And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.

I'd agree it was semantics if it didn't come up so much as a real issue in actual games and so on. But it has, in my experience. Also, dude, you know what D&D players mean by inherent, too, so it doesn't matter what the "dictionary definition" is here. They mean innate and unalterable.

I agree that what they're doing here is a change, because they're basically ruling out the possibility of saying "Oh they're inherently evil", together with the extremely unfortunate implications (like "they're not worthy to live"/"genociding sapient beings is okay if their alignment code ends in E!" etc.). That's good for the game, for sure, though might make some of the more... unfortunate... adventures out there look bad. But they already looked bad. I knew it was wrong to genocide orcs when I was 12 in frickin' 1990. But clearly some people didn't, and from the boards we know some people still don't (and indeed, some 3PP adventures seem to have this issue from time to time).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

@Sacrosanct Your point about alignment is well taken and I largely agree. However, in many modules there are exceptions. There are certainly neutral drow in modules fairly early on and prominently.

I also believe that there are statements about exceptions and such. I will actually grab my dusty tomes From the vault of fun and take a look what EGG said!

not to derail the topic but just a quick aside: we always played exceptions going back to high school. We had good drow PCs. We had good half orcs...we definitely felt that there were exceptions.

I look at it this way: maybe not all Spartans were inherently warlike. But if we made a stat block of someone from their society, it would be probably fitting to note that focus.

I predict the new books which might be more like revisions than a new edition will have prominent disclaimers about this fact (I.e. this is the most commonly encountered example in adventuring settings but monsters may be of any alignment as individuals).

save perhaps those tied to the planes though I don’t even think that sacred cow will make the cut (repentant demons) fir too well with the newfound love/popularity of tieflings

 

[Ruin Explorer]

newfound love/popularity of tieflings

TFW when something that's been increasingly the case since 1994 gets called "newfound".

 

[Warpiglet-7]

TFW when something that's been increasingly the case since 1994 gets called "newfound".

Ok. So they are not more popular than before as PC options? That’s what I meant.

is there not a lot more fan art than before?

aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?

the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.

how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.

If I describe Jews as "lawful evil" in the rules, but then have one Jew who isn't evil in a book or module, that doesn't make it any less problematic or functionally different than saying that "Jews are inherently evil." Arguing the difference is semantic and ignoring the point of why labeling Jews as "lawful evil" is a bad thing to begin with, because when people read that stat entry, they assume that Jews as a default, and the vast majority, are evil.

edit Perhaps this analogy might work better. When a creature has a defined stat block feature, like being chaotic evil, then people will treat that trait as being inherent to that race. Having extremely rare exceptions doesn't change that. Just like it's an inherent trait that humans have two eyes even though some humans might not (birth defect, or other reason). If a DM doesn't want an orc to be evil, they have to intentionally make that exception to the stat block because it goes against the assigned characteristic. And that's the problem. People read the descriptions of orcs/goblins/whatever and see that as a default, they are evil unless the GM makes it a point to not make them evil. That's the problem. We don't say Nazis weren't inherently bad because John Rabe was a good fella. If someone is identified as a nazi, we make assumptions that they are not a good thing.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.

If I describe Jews as "lawful evil" in the rules, but then have one Jew who isn't evil in a book or module, that doesn't make it any less problematic or functionally different than saying that "Jews are inherently evil." Arguing the difference is semantic and ignoring the point of why labeling Jews as "lawful evil" is a bad thing to begin with.

Understood. I won’t rehash them whole species vs culture argument!

I am ok with there being generally evil creature personally.

however, the purpose of the thread is predictions. And you are correct, I think in that alignment for species will get softened or done away with.

Its really where things stand now and I think it will only get more emphasis.

part of it is the shift in the purpose of the game. Exploring and plundering a dungeon and focus on skill in doing so is waning. There is more focus in “telling your story” than ever before. Conveniences like clear barriers to objectives (e.g. clearly evil humanoids) is just less a need for some groups.

we play old school in that regard. We generally assume goblins are wicked unless proven otherwise. I understand why the game and many players want to move away from it.