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

[JEB]

But... you've just gotten told that this wasn't true by someone who has spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this isn't true.

From 1e to 2e, the approach to monster updates was quite lazy, with much copied flavour text, sometimes even when the underlying mechanics no longer reflected that flavour.

 

[Hussar]

You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.

Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).

People quibbled. There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.

I guess I should have been more clear. Sure, some people care. Again, "many threads"? What many threads. You mean that once in a while thread you see talking about a couple of the changes like orcs or drow? Because I don't recall a whole lot of threads talking about the other 99% of the monsters that got rewritten.

What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care. It makes zero difference to how the game is played. Does not impact any of the previous 5e adventures. Sure, it updates a couple of books. Again, who cares? It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game.

Are you actually going to try to tell me that your players would hate D&D because it now says, "Goblin Medium Humanoid (fae)" (or whatever the text is)? Are you trying to tell me that your players could actually tell you, right now, without looking it up, what monster type a goblin is and how that matters in the game?

Is the number of people who care zero? No, obviously not. Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day? Yuppers.

 

[JEB]

People quibbled. There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.

Is the number of people who care zero? No, obviously not. Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day? Yuppers.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."

 

[Echohawk]

What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care.

If anyone has claimed either that the majority of D&D players do, in fact, care deeply about the changes, or that the majority of D&D players should care deeply about the changes, I missed that. I see a few people who are saying that this is a major issue for them. And that's okay. It's fine for people to be passionate about or protective of D&D lore, especially on forums dedicated to the discussion of all things D&D.

 

[Parmandur]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."

Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...

 

[JEB]

Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...

How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.

 

[Parmandur]

How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.

But it bears precisely on how much significance can be read into to a batch of kvetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.

 

[JEB]

But it bears precisely onbiw much significance can be given to a batch of kbetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.

So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.

 

[Parmandur]

So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.

Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.

 

[JEB]

Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.

If the pushback is respectful, and intended to further discussion and understanding, rather than an attempt to shut down a line of discussion altogether? Sure.