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

[EzekielRaiden]

You know, this is strangely reaffirming that the errors already found in D&D 2024 aren't as bad as they could have been...

Hey, if anything positive can come out of the Prone Shooter debacle (note, it has since been errata'd to actually do something, so it isn't a completely wasted feat...just a mostly wasted feat), I'm all for it.

But yeah, if you ever get the chance, check out a Shadowrun 5th edition book--core or otherwise. The editing mistakes can be...pretty egregious.

Which will of course result in a lot of players feeling "left behind", and switching to other games and not moving to 6E. But I don't expect any of this to occur until way past the VTT having been released and at least several years of seeing how the VTT gets used, who uses it, what their expectations are with it, and what the pain points are between using 5E rules and its game engine. At that point-- and once Jeremy's salary becomes too high for WotC to hold onto and he "moves on" from WotC and someone like Makenzie De Armas becomes the head of the D&D tabletop division-- will a true 6E get designed and released.

That strongly depends on three key assumptions:

1. The future playerbase of D&D looks more like the playerbase that existed before 4e.
2. The creators don't learn any lessons from 4e, e.g. hard-wiring creative reinterpretation into the rules for things that aren't combat.
3. Whatever VTT is used is not considered an industry leader, something else is.

I don't think any of these assumptions are warranted. We can already see that there are major demographic shifts with the playerbase cultivated during 5e. A game actually designed for that new base, rather than being designed specifically (and almost exclusively) to court lapsed players will, necessarily, look VERY different, mechanically, thematically, and aesthetically. It also seems...pretty obvious to me that if they DO try to follow in 4e's footsteps, they will specifically target the known faults of 4e, from all sorts of angles--presentation is essential, thematics must be a core concern, people have some pretty big hangups about the precise kinds of mechanical diversity in classes, etc.--and attempt to address them. Finally, between D&D Beyond and its other stuff, it seems pretty damned likely to me that WotC will have a mature, effective, and (most importantly) already integrated VTT ready for folks to use, which would be a huge benefit for people. My current 5e DM (the indomitable Hussar) has had to wrestle with more than one mechanic to get Fantasy Grounds to work as desired; having all of the rules already implemented and tested officially would be a pretty nice perk for him, I'm sure.

So...yeah. I'm not saying your argument is necessarily wrong; rather, for it to really hold water, you're relying on multiple assumptions that are anywhere between "up in the air" and "somewhat unlikely."

 

[mamba]

You're looking at it in isolation. Nine Swords was Orcus 1 which it explicitly says was the direction they wanted to go with 4e.

not sure, they said they translated Orcus I mechanics to 3e, not sure how close to the original they ended up

Then in phase 2 they determined that rather than just go with reusable abilities in the way Nine Swords presented it, they altered it a bit to be AEDU. […]

Following that chain of information, Nine Swords was effectively a playtest for 4e which didn't pan out exactly as presented in the 3e book and so was changed to AEDU.

except that they changed direction because of their internal Orcus II playtest, not because of feedback from the book, making the book not a playtest

 

[Maxperson]

not sure, they said they translated Orcus I mechanics to 3e, not sure how close to the original they ended up


except that they changed direction because of their internal Orcus II playtest, not because of feedback from the book, making the book not a playtest

First, just because you don't use the information from a playtest, doesn't make it not a playtest. Second, they went on to make Orcus II based on the Nine Swords playtest and then changed direction based on the internal playtest, but didn't change direction completely. That means that the Nine Swords information was used even after Orcus II, even if it was only part of the foundation upon which to build other things.

That's what I meant by you're looking at things in isolation and not the sequence of events as a whole. The sequence is as follows.

Nine Swords playtest/Orcus I ---> Orcus II using information provided by Nine Swords playtest/Orcus I ---> slight change in direction, building AEDU off of Orcus II(which used Nine Swords playtest)

 

[mamba]

First, just because you don't use the information from a playtest, doesn't make it not a playtest.

that would be true if you had approached it like a playtest and systematically gathered information, what they did is release a book.

Second, they went on to make Orcus II based on the Nine Swords playtest and then changed direction based on the internal playtest, but didn't change direction completely.

that is not what the article says, they used O1 for the book, did an O2 playtest and based on that changed direction

Nine Swords playtest/Orcus I ---> Orcus II using information provided by Nine Swords playtest/Orcus I ---> slight change in direction, building AEDU off of Orcus II(which used Nine Swords playtest)

that is not the order the article presents, it has B9S and O1 more or less in parallel, with O1 last minute resulting in changes to B9S. O2 then was its own thing with B9S in the rearview mirror and the O2 playtest resulted in the conclusion of using ADEU going forward

“From February to March 2006, they work on “Orcus Phase 2”, but here Heinsoo writes that after playtesting, they thought that Orcus was not going in the direction that they wanted.”

“The next section of the timeline seals it: from May to September 2006, Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, David Noonan and Jesse Decker work on a different document, codenamed “Flywheel” which “move closer to 3.5 by dealing properly with powers and resources that could be used at-will, once per encounter, or once per day”.

After that, it’s an almost straight line from Flywheel into the development of the main [4e] Player’s Handbook that starts in October 2006.”

 

[Orius]

I'm going to call it 6e just to stick a finger in the eye of corporate branding, corporations hate when consumers won't use the "proper" terminology. And I'm still irritated with WotC over things they did and said last year, so my inner rebel feels a need to stick it to the man.

 

[Older Beholder]

I'm going to call it 6e just to stick a finger in the eye of corporate branding, corporations hate when consumers won't use the "proper" terminology. And I'm still irritated with WotC over things they did and said last year, so my inner rebel feels a need to stick it to the man.

That'll show'em.
What's that old saying? Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I still say it depends on the definition of 'edition' we're using.

Are we using the definition of edition used by TSR and most other RPG companies--"revise the rules, fix the trouble spots, and require some level of conversion or rebuilding"--or the definition of edition adopted by WotC--"Scrap all prior stock, condemn the immediately previous edition to damnatio memoriae for at least 4 years and possibly all eternity, fire the existing fans, make grandiose promises about how it's even more the same game than before, and take further steps down the road to perdition"?

 

[GreyLord]

That'll show'em.
What's that old saying? Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick.

Is that the type of Wrath of Khan Grudge which is like that...or is more like the Count of Monte Cristo which is like that...

Because I'm pretty sure the Counts grudge didn't eventually just get the other person sick...they died.

I suppose it depends on how far one is willing to go with the grudge that really counts...

Most of the time it's more like an Oscar the Grouch type of grudge, which makes someone prickly but doesn't go anywhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So...yeah. I'm not saying your argument is necessarily wrong; rather, for it to really hold water, you're relying on multiple assumptions that are anywhere between "up in the air" and "somewhat unlikely."

Absolutely. A guesstimation of mine that goes five to eight years out from now needs a lot of dominoes to fall the right way for me to be at all correct. But I'm more confident in some guesstimates than others...

- If the revised books do not sustain 5E's numbers and we see a precipitous drop-off in incoming money that requires a larger set of layoffs... Jeremy Crawford would probably be one of the first one's hit (as we have seen in the past multiple times that the designers of the most recent edition move on or are let go if layoffs happen.)

- But so long as Jeremy and Chris remains in place and the WotC higher-ups do not force a complete game shift... they will most likely remain with their stated idea that the 5E engine is "evergreen" and only make revisions to the rules over the years, rather than completely revamp the foundation of the game.

- Thus D&D will never be called '6E' by the designers in charge at WotC until a completely new set of lead designers / producers come in to replace laid-off workers and they do do a completely revamp of the game's foundational engine.

I'm fairly confident in these assumptions myself. But (general) your mileage may vary.