D&D General The Double-Edged Sword: Is The New D&D Edition a Cash Grab in Disguise?

[TwoSix]

I mean just a few months ago WotC was trying to end the OGL and has had issue with AI art, lets not pretend WotC's heart is in the right place.

Im sure some of the creative absolutely want whats best for the game and players but they have bosses over their heads who don't care and just want $.

Or like most things in life, there's no particular moral weight to its creation. It's made by a lot of people, who have both commercial and artistic/creative goals. Whether you buy it or not says absolutely nothing about you as a person.

 

[Oofta]

I mean just a few months ago WotC was trying to end the OGL

Ending the OGL was likely something pushed by someone in higher level management, not anyone on the development staff. Which, once again, was ultimately rejected.

and has had issue with AI art,

An artist tried to sell them art that had been "enhanced" by AI so they came out with a clear policy saying that AI art was not allowed. How is that a problem with WotC? Most companies that are in creative industries are struggling with how to handle AI.

lets not pretend WotC's heart is in the right place.

Im sure some of the creative absolutely want whats best for the game and players but they have bosses over their heads who don't care and just want $.

No company of any size will pass a purity test if it means no one in the company cares about money. Well, not any company that stays in business for long.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

"I don't actually play 5th Edition D&D, never have, but here's a hot take on everything that's wrong with it. Also, you're playing the wrong game. And WotC is evil, and---wait, where are you going? Why do you hate the truth?"

I gave some folks a lot of space but finally had to use the app for that…

 

[Mercurius]

The TL;DR is thst they are pretty robustly shifting around optional components (like Classes, Spells or Monsters), albeit fairly conservatively, but the core rules are staying pretty much the same. So lots of reports of people running mixed parties with PCs using 2014 amd 2024 rules without issue, because the engine is the same.

More radical changes to book layout than rules, apparently they used UX consultants to help rearrange where things are located within the books.

Thanks!

So you're saying it is basically "5.2," but on the off chance that it is 5.3, let's freak out!

 

[Kurotowa]

No company of any size will pass a purity test if it means no one in the company cares about money. Well, not any company that stays in business for long.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You have to disengage almost entirely from modern life to do no business with any company that's engaged in any questionable practice. Maybe some people have the good fortune to be able to cultivate a lifestyle that is 100% homegrown or ethically sourced everything. I don't have the privilege of that option, because it's not cheap. And I'm certainly not going to switch to only independent small press releases for my entertainment, not when most of them are hopelessly amateurish.

 

[Parmandur]

Thanks!

So you're saying it is basically "5.2," but on the off chance that it is 5.3, let's freak out!

Eh, I don't think that "point X" language clarifies anything. We have seen people mix and match the new rules with the old at the same table, but they are also at the same time clearly revisions and not errata.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, sure, but that's how playtesting works..?

This is probably a topic for a separate thread.

On one hand, I share Teos’ criticisms of HOW the playtest was conducted. In other words…not all playtests are equally effective.

On the other hand, I don’t need to be their target audience, and I’m content hacking my own stuff.

Anecdotally, I’ve mentored many (maybe 25-30) new GMs who are very confused about how to run exploration, who then go through disappointment at the 5e handling of it once I walk them through it, and then realize the type of work the GM needs to do to make it fun for their table. This is in spite of 5e’s rules and presentation both. So maybe the folks I’ve mentored aren’t representative? I have no way of knowing. But from what I’ve observed there’s a serious mismatch there.

 

[Parmandur]

Anecdotally, I’ve mentored many (maybe 25-30) new GMs who are very confused about how to run exploration, who then go through disappointment at the 5e handling of it once I walk them through it, and then realize the type of work the GM needs to do to make it fun for their table. This is in spite of 5e’s rules and presentation both. So maybe the folks I’ve mentored aren’t representative? I have no way of knowing. But from what I’ve observed there’s a serious mismatch there.

But then the question is, do more concrete rules improve the situation, and for how many people...?

 

[Mercurius]

Eh, I don't think that "point X" language clarifies anything. We have seen people mix and match the new rules with the old at the same table, but they are also at the same time clearly revisions and not errata.

I jest. But...

A few years ago, around the time there were at least speculations and rumors of the 50th but before official announcement, I made a poll here asking where the likely 50th anniversary edition would land on the ".x" scale. I think I described them like so:

5.1: Errata and new art, covers, and formatting, but no actual rules changes.
5.2: As above, but more significant re-formatting, minor rules adjustments and clarifications, maybe a few new options.
5.3: As above, but moderate rules adjustments and new options, but still mostly backwards compatible.
5.4: As above, but more significant adjustments, and probably the need to replace the old with the new in some cases.
5.5: As above, but with some major rules adjustments and options, if with the same basic chassis.
6.x: Actual new edition (e.g. 3.5E to 4E or 4E to 5E).

Or something like that. It sounds like 5.2 is most likely, with 5.3 being possible - but definitely more than 5.1 and probably less than 5.5.

 

[Oofta]

But then the question is, do more concrete rules improve the situation, and for how many people...?

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the DMG can be improved. That doesn't mean complex, concrete, spelled out exploration rules would be better for the game.