D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[FrogReaver]

Well at this stage I’ve been gravitating toward calling it 2024 and 2014 respectively. 5e might be a term best left to third parties.

Though if everyone is calling it 2024 and 2014 then 5e won’t really be a good advertisement to the masses.

 

[CellarHeroes]

So I have seen this type of claim a bit (even from some well known Youtubers) and I am a bit confused.

When you say this, do you mean it will be like Baldur's Gate 3 or the D&D MMORPG. We have both now, so if that is WOTC's end game why put the resources to making the TTRPG end up like that. Why would they not just phase it out and put the money directly into the type of games that already exist?

This is not a gotcha question, I really want to understand what "They are turning D&D into a computer game" really means in the next 5-10 years.

My experience with this isn't so much what WotC is doing, but more about how the game is being played.

Ten years ago, my group's approach to playing 5e was just like how we did with AD&D. We created our 1st level characters who were just getting the "PC" stamped on their foreheads. There was no real concern with backstory...Grew up on a farm, wanted some adventure. Our characters evolved with what was going on in the campaign.

Fast forward 6 or 7 years, then I find people talking about their D&D character builds as if they were WoW characters. Players not understanding the rules, and very little knowledge of what the shiny buttons on their character sheets do. The nice man on YouTube or Reddit just told them to take these things at these levels.

To me, it's very much a case of "Don't hate the game, hate the players".

*Edit: I also acknowledge that there is a strong push for digital D&D with the addition of employees who make sure the rules translate well into a digital platform.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I call this the Great Digitization of the Game*. It's like crabification. Why do animals keep evolving into crabs.

From Balder's Gate to World of Warcraft, and Roll20 to project Sigil, Dungeons and Dragons keeps evolving into a computer game by inspiring those games and then shredding players to them.

At this point I must state, if a computer is required to play a game, that game is a computer game.

Furthermore, we gamers keep being reminded that Dungeons and Dragons is a fun and worthwhile activity as a tabletop game. Then we return to it in a "retro" movement.

At this moment I'm history we are waist deep into the Second Great Digitization of the Game*. This specifically involves the evolution of Virtual TableTops.

I think pproject Sigil is the future of the Game. You need a computer to use the VTT, therefore the future of the Game is a computer game. Especially when you use all the graphics, audio, sound effects, animations, AI Dungeon Masters, AI players, immersive headsets, and on and on and on.

I also expect well be reminded sometime in the future that Dungeons and Dragons is Fun and worthwhile Tabletop game.

(And now I've got to go to work. I'll try again tonight.)

* Help me out here, I'm trying to get something named after me on the Internet. (Hi Mom!)

 

[GMMichael]

. . . The changes were so extensive that they had to release the Player's Guide to FR to bring the FRCS in alignment with the 3.5 rules. . .

I played 3.5 with a 3.0 monster manual and DMG. They weren't that extensive. Sure, with a lot of small changes, a lot of notes might be necessary to make things official. But 3.5 was very backward-compatible.

I just looked at the updates list from WotC - only the "rules" section. There are almost as many new and "revised" rules as the entire rule set for Modos RPG. Since the "updates" go on to touch every other part of the game, I'll be calling it 6th ed. from here on out for two reasons. 1) 5th ed. elements look to be unplayable/unrecognizable in 6th ed, and 2) WotC has yet to admit that it is a new edition, and explicitly denied it.

It's a risky move, playing for fools a market that is largely composed of role-playing nerds. We tend to be more clever than the muggles.

 

[Remathilis]

My experience with this isn't so much what WotC is doing, but more about how the game is being played.

Ten years ago, my group's approach to playing 5e was just like how we did with AD&D. We created our 1st level characters who were just getting the "PC" stamped on their foreheads. There was no real concern with backstory...Grew up on a farm, wanted some adventure. Our characters evolved with what was going on in the campaign.

Fast forward 6 or 7 years, then I find people talking about their D&D character builds as if they were WoW characters. Players not understanding the rules, and very little knowledge of what the shiny buttons on their character sheets do. The nice man on YouTube or Reddit just told them to take these things at these levels.

To me, it's very much a case of "Don't hate the game, hate the players".

*Edit: I also acknowledge that there is a strong push for digital D&D with the addition of employees who make sure the rules translate well into a digital platform.

I think you are conflating two different issues (character optimization, which existed in AD&D, and player comprehension of the rules, which was also always a problem) and marrying them into a "kids these days" style rant.

 

[Remathilis]

I played 3.5 with a 3.0 monster manual and DMG. They weren't that extensive. Sure, with a lot of small changes, a lot of notes might be necessary to make things official. But 3.5 was very backward-compatible.

I just looked at the updates list from WotC - only the "rules" section. There are almost as many new and "revised" rules as the entire rule set for Modos RPG. Since the "updates" go on to touch every other part of the game, I'll be calling it 6th ed. from here on out for two reasons. 1) 5th ed. elements look to be unplayable/unrecognizable in 6th ed, and 2) WotC has yet to admit that it is a new edition, and explicitly denied it.

It's a risky move, playing for fools a market that is largely composed of role-playing nerds. We tend to be more clever than the muggles.

It's absolutely still backwards compatible. People want to make it incompatible because it suits their narratives and settles their bar bets. It's not 6e anymore than B/X, BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia were 1e, 2e, and 3e of Basic.

 

[CellarHeroes]

I think you are conflating two different issues (character optimization, which existed in AD&D, and player comprehension of the rules, which was also always a problem) and marrying them into a "kids these days" style rant.

Not so much a "kids these days" rant. More of "Huh" kind of realization.
It took seeing folks playing in this style...and it working...for me figure out how the current edition was designed. Which then made me appreciate WotC for what they were doing.

 

[lynnfredricks]

I played 3.5 with a 3.0 monster manual and DMG. They weren't that extensive. Sure, with a lot of small changes, a lot of notes might be necessary to make things official. But 3.5 was very backward-compatible.

I just looked at the updates list from WotC - only the "rules" section. There are almost as many new and "revised" rules as the entire rule set for Modos RPG. Since the "updates" go on to touch every other part of the game, I'll be calling it 6th ed. from here on out for two reasons. 1) 5th ed. elements look to be unplayable/unrecognizable in 6th ed, and 2) WotC has yet to admit that it is a new edition, and explicitly denied it.

It's a risky move, playing for fools a market that is largely composed of role-playing nerds. We tend to be more clever than the muggles.

As compared with the history of versioning (AD&D being 1e, and onward), it is a new edition.

The OneD&D pseudo-brand though, was critically important to protect their sales and distribution. When people hear 'there's a new version coming...' then inclination is to stop buying until the new version is out. That means any product out there in the world becomes a problem, and retail will want to stock rotate the old for the new. 2024/2014 is just a convenient way of packaging the change. Plus the added bonus is that "5e" has become extremely recognizable.
The thing about 2024 / 2014 is that it worked.

The problem I see is that compatibility isn't perfect, but that's ultimately going to work itself out. People that want to stick with 2014 are fine. People that want to start a new game and they've bought 2024, will just start fresh. It looks like if you don't try to do anything other than use the new spell descriptions, putting a 2014 character in a 2024 game isn't going to be a huge leap. Putting 2024 stuff into a 2014 game looks more problematic but, that's not the direction that WotC wants you to go, anyway.

 

[Shardstone]

I call it 5R. Easy

 

[mamba]

I'll be calling it 6th ed. from here on out for two reasons. 1) 5th ed. elements look to be unplayable/unrecognizable in 6th ed, and 2) WotC has yet to admit that it is a new edition, and explicitly denied it.

so you are calling it 6e because WotC explicitly said that it is not a new edition… I can understand the rationale for 1) even though I do not agree with it, but 2) is just plain weird as a reason