D&D General Some Thoughts on Historical Edition Changes, and What that Portends for OneD&D

[Clint_L]

Okay, so we're just going to start by rejecting the entire premise of OneD&D. Like what WotC is proposing is a logical impossibility. Seems productive.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well they're going with more complicated making feats non optional for example.

That's moving away from what made 5E successful in the first place. Times have changed though.

None of us can predict what's gonna be happen in terms of it's reception. Might be a big hit might crash and burn or anywhere in between.

Change doesn't mean it's automatically bad. Doesn't mean it's gonna be automatically good or successful either. Might even be good and well recieved online and crash and burn in the wild or vice versa.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I seriously doubt that the simplicity was the main part of the popularity instead of like, the tsunami of free advertising from other wildly popular things and the overall geek chic movement writ large.

 

[Zardnaar]

I seriously doubt that the simplicity was the main part of the popularity instead of like, the tsunami of free advertising from other wildly popular things and the overall geek chic movement writ large.

Notice two of the biggest selling D&D products of all time are also the simple ones? Starter set and Red box.

There's a reason for that (I prefer something a bit more complicated myself).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Notice two of the biggest selling D&D products of all time are also the simple ones? Starter set and Red box.

There's a reason for that (I prefer something a bit more complicated myself).

You... don't think the starter set of a high selling product wouldn't have sold highly otherwise?

Like how the second volume of the best selling trilogy sells more than the first one if it's better?

 

[overgeeked]

Yea, but most barely have anything. We've only really had 2.5 supplements that were really crunch oriented, in Xanathar's, Tasha's, and (sort of) SCAG, which got overwritten in large part anyway.

Eberron, Theros, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Fizban's, Monsters of the Multiverse, and the rest would like a word. Adding classes, races, feats, backgrounds, and subclasses are all crunch. Sure, there's more crunch for players in Xanathar's and Tasha's than MotM or Spelljammer or Fizban's, but that kinda proves the point. Every book WotC puts out has some crunch for players. Even the modules.

I mean, there's no comparison compared to the 3e and 4e days.

Right. And I said as much.

It's hard to imagine them changing their publishing strategy to the degree they have without it being mindful.

Yes, they're fully aware what sells books, that's why they put crunch for players in every book they publish...even when the book doesn't need it and the crunch is silly. Here's two backgrounds and a few trinkets. Gee, thanks.

 

[Zardnaar]

You... don't think the starter set of a high selling product wouldn't have sold highly otherwise?

Like how the second volume of the best selling trilogy sells more than the first one if it's better?

Well even the phb was less complicated relatively than 3E and 4E.

The new races, feats and classes are more complicated than the 2014.

That appeals to me but might nitvappeal to the casuals in the same numbers is all I'm saying. Feats are no longer optional.

Not a prediction but the risk is there is all I'm saying. Nuke my the -5/+10 feats is a good idea for example IMHO

BUT they're the bread and butter of a lot of builds on YouTube for example. That might blow up in their face.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, they're fully aware what sells books, that's why they put crunch for players in every book they publish...even when the book doesn't need it and the crunch is silly. Here's two backgrounds and a few trinkets. Gee, thanks.

I mean, it sounds like you're against. Personally, I'm pro-crunch, but I'm not going to buy a big adventure or setting book that only has like 2 races just for that. But it seems to work for some people! My personal preference would be a Tasha's type book every year or so, with a lot more experimental mechanics, but I know I'm not going to get that.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, it sounds like you're against.

Against crunch? Generally, yes. It gets in the way more than it's helpful. WotC's strategy of forcing crunch into every book regardless? Absolutely, yes. It makes for terrible design.

Personally, I'm pro-crunch, but I'm not going to buy a big adventure or setting book that only has like 2 races just for that.

Sure, and with D&D Beyond you don't need to. You can drop $2 for the character stuff and never look at the module. And people think microtransactions aren't already part of D&D. Ha.

But it seems to work for some people! My personal preference would be a Tasha's type book every year or so, with a lot more experimental mechanics, but I know I'm not going to get that.

Absolutely. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences. No one's right, no one's wrong. It's all pineapple.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I'm a major critic of 5e and that's exactly what I've said we should expect, other than the 4e-to-Essentials jump because, as I have to say every friggin' time, Essentials WAS NOT AN EDITION CHANGE. It was not a "revision." It was not, in any way whatsoever, different from just publishing a new splatbook that has new options for existing classes.

Which would be on-the-surface equivalent to what was in theory supposed to happen in 1e when Unearthed Arcana came out. It too was positioned as an add-on or expansion....and yet after its release 1e was never the same. What UA added (and in a few cases changed) made such a difference that, while everything was still completely on-paper compatible either way, in practice it might as well have been a ".5" edition.

It seems some see Essentials the same way - with "some" not including me as I've never looked at it.