D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the point is there are folks that want an overhaul in a myriad of directions from what 5E is now. The hope is that this time D&D will go "my" way.

True that. And, of course, some want it "My Way" like Sinatra, and some want it "My Way" like Sid Vicious.

 

[payn]

I don't know about flawed, but past evidence shows that people will often get bored of a particular rules system, and then a company will want to juice the numbers by releasing a new rules system.

However, I think that this might be different this time. Because of the pivot to video ... ahem, the VTT push. To the extent that D&D is moving heavily toward that model, WoTC and Hasbro are likely looking to stabilize the base, and just deal with incremental updates. In other words, an Evergreen model of a sort, that is refined over time.

The more interesting issue is whether there is a divide over time between the published versions of the game and what is on-line (through DDB and the VTT system). But if I was Nostradamus, my sports wagers would be doing a lot better.

This. Folks thinking that WotC is going to overhaul their very expensive VTT every 2,5, even 10 years are kidding themselves.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know about flawed, but past evidence shows that people will often get bored of a particular rules system, and then a company will want to juice the numbers by releasing a new rules system.

However, I think that this might be different this time. Because of the pivot to video ... ahem, the VTT push. To the extent that D&D is moving heavily toward that model, WoTC and Hasbro are likely looking to stabilize the base, and just deal with incremental updates. In other words, an Evergreen model of a sort, that is refined over time.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a 2034 revision. Before that? Who knows.

The more interesting issue is whether there is a divide over time between the published versions of the game and what is on-line (through DDB and the VTT system). But if I was Nostradamus, my sports wagers would be doing a lot better.

Nah. I don't think we'll ever see that kind of split. At least not in the foreseeable future. Most of the cost of the books is in the development of the rules and basic formatting stuff they need to do anyway. They've been consistently selling tens of thousands of PHBs per year on Amazon alone for nearly a decade, that long tail doesn't bring in the big bucks like MtG, but it's still a consistent income stream.

But the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Nah. I don't think we'll ever see that kind of split. At least not in the foreseeable future. Most of the cost of the books is in the development of the rules and basic formatting stuff they need to do anyway. They've been consistently selling tens of thousands of PHBs per year on Amazon alone for nearly a decade, that long tail doesn't bring in the big bucks like MtG, but it's still a consistent income stream.

But the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet.

I will briefly elaborate.

When DBB and the VTT are really going, it will be easy for them to push incremental changes. So I expect that we will see that.

Meanwhile, the book publishing will be on the same model. Sure, the very core rules will be the same, but people playing on-line will have differences, IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

This. Folks thinking that WotC is going to overhaul their very expensive VTT every 2,5, even 10 years are kidding themselves.

They don't need to overhaul the whole thing. Just the game mechanics.

The visuals will be the same but species, classes, and some calculations would be different.

Like the current weapons and armor ain't lasting 10 more years.

 

[Oofta]

I will briefly elaborate.

When DBB and the VTT are really going, it will be easy for them to push incremental changes. So I expect that we will see that.

Meanwhile, the book publishing will be on the same model. Sure, the very core rules will be the same, but people playing on-line will have differences, IMO.

I understand, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. While DDB may or may not be used by the majority of players, the number of people who rely exclusively on DDB will likely never be a majority. At least not a significant enough majority in order to have two sets of rules. I think it would lead to significant backlash.

Or not. Who knows.

 

[payn]

They don't need to overhaul the whole thing. Just the game mechanics.

The visuals will be the same but species, classes, and some calculations would be different.

Like the current weapons and armor ain't lasting 10 more years.

Just the mechanics is still a lot of work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The question is whether a revised edition is a part of the old edition or new edition.

And I fall, narrowly, on the side of "yes" if I am absolutely forced into a binary.

If I were allowed a more nuanced answer, which the poll does not permit, I would have said "sort of." It is sort of a new edition, a new "version" as I would prefer to call it, but it is not completely a new "version."

That's the main reason the poll is so narrowly tied. The actual answer is "kind of, but not entirely" or "kind of, but not really", and those two get forced into being "yes" and "no" when you have an enforced black and white binary.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Inherently and deeply flawed.

--

Most of the mechanics are liked.
Its compatible with older material.
Friends like it.
Its actively supported.
Its popular.

--

Just how inherent and deep are these flaws then, really? I'm not a 5e cheer leader, and I'm even less a 5.5 (new edition) cheer leader, but what are these objective systemic flaws that have somehow been accounted for for a decade.

3e sustained, in one form or another, more than 15 years of being a popular and widely played game. No one denies today that it is a game with serious, deep, inherent flaws. Some like it despite that. Some fix it (see DSP's Spheres). Etc. But the flaws are there and despite many denying their existence for so long, now they're openly admitted.

5.0 stans denied for years and years that there was anything wrong with its DMG. Then the switch suddenly flipped about three or four years ago, and it became "yes yes yes we know the DMG is crap, can you please stop talking about it." Which is one of the reasons I won't, by the way; I refuse to be shoved into the position of having been told I was a fool to distrust and then told I'm not allowed to point out the problems because everyone agrees now.

I think you'll find that, once the edition is at least partially in the rear view mirror, people begin to be a lot more honest about its flaws than they were when it was the new hotness.

 

[Oofta]

3e sustained, in one form or another, more than 15 years of being a popular and widely played game. No one denies today that it is a game without serious, deep, inherent flaws. Some like it despite that. Some fix it (see DSP's Spheres). Etc. But the flaws are there and despite many denying their existence for so long, now they're openly admitted.

5.0 stans denied for years and years that there was anything wrong with its DMG. Then the switch suddenly flipped about three or four years ago, and it became "yes yes yes we know the DMG is crap, can you please stop talking about it." Which is one of the reasons I won't, by the way; I refuse to be shoved into the position of having been told I was a fool to distrust and then told I'm not allowed to point out the problems because everyone agrees now.

I think you'll find that, once the edition is at least partially in the rear view mirror, people begin to be a lot more honest about its flaws than they were when it was the new hotness.

I don't remember anyone ever saying the DMG or any of the other books were without flaw. It's always been poorly organized. I wouldn't say it was worthless, there's interesting stuff in there, but it's always needed redoing. Nothing is ever perfect, there's a vast gulf between "it's deeply flawed" and "it's perfect". I like the game, I think it's been better balanced and holds together at all of it's target levels than any previous version. That doesn't make it without flaw.

A person can enjoy a game without being a "5.0 stan"