D&D (2024) The future of edition changes and revisions

I would bet we will see a 2024 campaign around 'no humanoid is dominated by there race of birth'
I cannot possibly imagine that explicitly baiting fantasy race arguments will be Hasbro's marketing strategy of choice. If anything they've shown they just want to bury anything that might invite such controversy and pretend it doesn't exist. That must have been one of the factors motivating them to replace per-existing books with a new, highly abridged one.
So if, as WotC keep imply, 5.5E is basically a 1E to 2E or thereabouts level of change, I don't think we're going to see much turmoil.
I believe that the amount of player turnover will have more to do with the perception of WotC as a company than D&D as a ruleset. If WotC regularly turns out PR blunders they can expect to lose more and more players during the edition change/update period. If anything this is what contributed to the 4e fiasco the most - the perception that WotC was out of touch with what their customers wanted and was trying to get rid of them in favor of a new audience to milk. We will see if WotC has learned their lesson or not in a few years.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

New D&D players: "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"

Old D&D players: "My sweet summer child" stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books Whispers "Ill never let you go."
Older than OLD D&D players. Waving cane around, "Nurs65e change my diaper. Dr DM74 will be coming on the TV SCREEN in fifteen minutes. And it is the yellow button to roll dice. "

Nurse65E, "No patient 127-721. The yellow button flushes your waste. The red button rolls the dice. It is a flat screen monitor not whatever a TV Screen is. And all editions you own have be inserted into your brain chip."
 

They absolutely did exist.

Literally one of my first experiences with RPGs was being told that I'd made a serious error in buying 2E, even though 1E was no longer in print, and real AD&D players only played 1E. This was in 1989. And when I got on the pre-internet and internet in 1992/1993 there was still no shortage of people declaring 2E to be inferior to 1E, and a lot of grudging stuff about only playing 2E because they'd been forced to. That continued to at least the mid-'90s, at which point I think because people were wondering if D&D would even survive, the negativity went down a lot.
That's kind of funny, at least in hindsight. I never experienced any of that, but I also didn't really range widely in terms of gaming in those years, and just played with a few high school friends - none of whom, if I remember correctly, even played 1E. So for them, 2E was D&D.
But as late as the early ENworld days we got people saying they'd gone from 1E to 3E and skipped 2E because it sucked.

3E was largely welcomed because it was perceived that it might bring an end to the D&D-is-dying-out era that TSR had presided over. A self-fulfilling prophecy in a good way for D&D. 3.5E was not received as positively as you suggest, I'd say, but most naysayers were pretty annoyed with 3E period by that point - I know I was - so tended to be moving away from D&D.

4E was pre-ruined by WotC's completely demented marketing campaign, insanely ill-advised statements from the WotC person in charge of D&D (who wasn't the lead designer), a meme that it was "basically WoW", which itself was the direct result of the extremely ill-advised statements, the incredibly dumb change from OGL to GSL (and accompanying basic lock-out of 3PPs), and completely mishandled but widely discussed attempts at a VTT. It's like if you planned a campaign to derail the launch of an edition, this is basically what you'd do. It's honestly a tribute to 4E that it did as well as it did.

5E was an apology edition, and very well-received by those it was an apology to, less well by those who it wasn't an apology to. But then it luckily caught a cultural zeitgeist in like 2016 (which had nothing to do with it being 5E, frankly, and everything to do with it being "the current edition of D&D in 2016) and now we have way more people who've never played any other edition playing than those who have, as you say.
Good stuff. All of this reminds me of politics, and how much of it is perception, association, and imprinting. D&D is to an individual whatever edition/version they first started playing with. Some adapt from that, some don't.

Furthermore, it is hard to separate out the intangible influences--marketing, impressions, hearsay, reputation, label, etc--from the thing itself. People--as in politics--have a knee-jerk and instant reaction to an idea, depending upon what "tribe" they associate it coming from, regardless of what the actual thing itself is.
There will inevitably be a contraction at some point, it's just a matter of when.

But in the short-term, an edition change is potentially a smaller deal, you've illustrated it's less of an issue with product, but also the new people playing are very tech-savvy and virtually all of them have played videogames, many of them have played MMOs or MMO-like games, so they're used to new versions of things replacing the old, to things being updated/changed, and so on. They're likely less scared/angry about it than earlier generations too.
This reminds me of when my 13-year old daughter shows me a TikTok video she thinks is funny, I am struck by two things: One, I feel out of touch with the references and associations of younger "kids these days," and two, I can barely process the information - the format and editing is so weird and disjointed, at least to my almost-half-a-century-old brain. I feel like my 80-year old father when I try explaining to him how to use On Demand on his TV (no matter how many times I try to explain it to him, he just can't get it...the cup runneth overfull, I guess).
So if, as WotC keep imply, 5.5E is basically a 1E to 2E or thereabouts level of change, I don't think we're going to see much turmoil. I particularly don't think we'll see even the 1E/2E level of break, because a lot of the 1E fans clearly liked that 1E was "edgy" and weird, and roughly-made, but 5E is slick and modern, and 5.5E/6E will likely also be slick and modern, so there will be no real point of differentiation there. You'll inevitably get some grogs mad about some ridiculous nonsense, like maybe they hate Feats as an article of faith or whatever, but they're not likely to be a major deal.
Someone else mentioned 1E/2E for the 50th, and that makes sense to me - but really, 2E was more of a 1.5E, at least in my view of things. But even so, some will be upset about that, just as some were upset about 3.5. But reasons you and I have both stated, my speculation is that the newer cohort won't be as bothered.

That said, one way I could see them screwing things up if they lean too hard into the "We're older folks, but we're cool and hip and get you, youngsters!" I tease my 13-year old daughter about such things because I like to see her roll her eyes and say, "OK, Boomer", but she knows I do so jokingly, just as I know she knows that Boomers and Gen-Xers aren't synonymous.
 

I would bet we will see a 2024 campaign around 'no humanoid is dominated by there race of birth' (I am NOT a copy ad writer but something like that) even though we had good tribes of orcs and good cults of drow as far back as I go (2e mid 90s)
I also expect it to be some how BOTH 'not your fathers D&D' AND 'the same classic game'

Yes, that makes sense to me - and is a good way to address the various "problematic controversies" in a way that is creatively fruitful and not coming from a moralistic standpoint. Meaning, rather than saying "This is how orcs or drow are now, and if you do it differently you're a bad person," they could say, "Check out this new approach to orcs/drow/gnolls, which is an example of how the game can be infinitely customized and still rather cool."

Of course some will view it as a personal attack on their own stylistic preferences, and others will say WotC didn't go far enough...but I'm not sure there's anyway around that.
 

That said, one way I could see them screwing things up if they lean too hard into the "We're older folks, but we're cool and hip and get you, youngsters!" I tease my 13-year old daughter about such things because I like to see her roll her eyes and say, "OK, Boomer", but she knows I do so jokingly, just as I know she knows that Boomers and Gen-Xers aren't synonymous.
Actually, if you look at the D&D Studio recent hires, they are doing pretty well on the young, hip, and diverse counts.
 

Until recently, I thought we'd probably seen the last of big edition changes - that the 2024 version would be basically the same as the 2014 but with a handful of tweaks and fixes, then another revision in 203x with another batch of small changes, and so on.

Recent events have changed that somewhat, in that the need to rethink the races, in particular, means we're needing a bigger revision than expected. That being the case, I suspect WotC may be rather more extensive in the changes this time than they otherwise would have been (might as well get it all done now...). But thereafter it might well stabilize.
 

I have to say 2e (IME) was WAY more house ruled then 5e. I remember a dozen diffrent DMs that had made whole classes up.

in 3e I saw less of that but I did see 'this feat chain' or 'these three prestige classes'

4e and 5e I have seen less then that. Even just me, when I home brew I find myself updating a 3e or 4e class/prestige class/ feat half the time
My point was that 5e is the easiest to houserule and homebrew.

A lot of the splat books of 1e, 2e, 3e,and 4e were built around the sheer work and headache to translate a concept to the ruleset and the space allowed.
This is because:

The older editions has mechanics that were all over the place, not uniform, and had sorta hidden elements.
The newer editions had mechanics that were linked to each other and thus you couldn't touch one thing without touching or redoing another.

Whereas 5e was designed with space for homebrew and houserule in mind. For example people say the weapons system in 5e is too simple and barebones. However the space made for it is also so simple that you can rip out and replace it with 10 minutes of work and most players/DMs can learn, analyze, and fix in in quarter of that time. So while a new weapon system may be wanted, there is no pressure for a splatbook for weapons nor a new edition to "fix" 5e's weapons combat for a looooooooooooong time.
 

How many years ago was that again? Sure, 5E had a fairly small staff at the start since WotC wasn't sure if it would be successful or not, but they've hired tons of people since then.
To be honest, I no longer remember and am not quite sure how to check. I want to say it took 2-3 years for them to publish the conversion document, so that would have been 2016-2017?

Regardless, as I was given to understand, WotC has not been hiring a bunch of new people in the intervening years. I haven't been paying close attention, though, so I could be simply wrong. Do you have any links as to how their staff has changed?
 


New D&D players: "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"

Old D&D players: "My sweet summer child" stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books Whispers "Ill never let you go."

"Mostly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. A number of the X & Y splatbook PrCs and feats got redone (and improved) and eventually the convoluted mess that was 3.0 Psionics was replaced by the infinitely better Expanded Psionics, but I use plenty of 3.0 material quite late into 3.5. I also ran huge swaths of Basic and 1e modules in 2e (modded 2e at that) with little problem. The only times I couldn't do straight conversion is when the underlying system changed so radically I couldn't without rewriting the material (IE, fireball changing from Save vs. Spells to Reflex save to Int Attack vs. Reflex Defense to Dexterity Save).
 

Remove ads

Top