D&D General The New York Times on D&D

[Lakesidefantasy]

Consider this.

The Bible says humans were created by God and all are descendants of the first humans Adam and Eve. (And later, the offspring of Noah). Putting aside evolution for a minute and viewing this from the "Moradin created the dwarves" lens we can say per the Bible that humanity was created by one creator and all are blood related to one another if to go enough (and in some cases thousands) generations back.

That's our framework for the next part.

Would it then be fair to describe the sum and total of humanity (all that have and will walk the Earth) as a single race, species, ancestry, heritage or lineage? Which word connects, you, I and everyone that has ever been or will be?

When you decide what word describes us, you have your word to describe elves, gnomes and goblins.

Creature Type.

 

[haakon1]

I guess we'll never really know the depth of the naysayers, but when the new books sold more than anything else ever has it is an indicator that the 2024 release was well received.

I suspect a larger factor is there were more CURRENT players at the release of 5e 2024 than had been the case at the release of any prior edition. E.g., the initial sales of 2e reflected how many people were playing AD&D at the time, more than they reflected how much people liked 2e (which by definition they didn’t know), and on down the line with each new PHB.

Some people didn't upgrade for a variety of reasons, from wanting to finish an existing campaign to not thinking the rule changes justified the cost of new books to not liking the general direction the changes to classes and feats are taking.

Interesting that your assumption is that new editions are automatically an “upgrade” and that the default is everyone getting the latest.

Disagree with the “upgrade” terminology, as I think some new editions were worse than their predecessor.

But the assumption that most 5e 2014 tables will (eventually) switch to 5e 2024 I would guess is correct.

Part of it is a large majority of 5e players never experienced an edition change, so they were not burned by a past one. Part of it is marketing that it’s an “upgrade” and not a change. Part of it is D&D Beyond. And part of it is the perception that you need to keep up with the latest.

Actual content I suspect is a very minor factor in 2014 to 2024 change or don’t change decisions.

For the 5e group I am player in (as opposed to 3.5e I DM), the DM decided on 2014 for now because some PC’s aren’t supported in the new rules.

For the new group starting next weekend, the first time DM has played 3.5e (with me) and 5e 2014 (at school), and was trying to decide between 3.5e, 2014, and 2024. She choose 3.5e for preference over 5e reasons, but also just because 5e is in transition with changes coming, so it seemed simpler to go with a fully baked unchanging rule set - 3.5e original 3 core books.

So I think the people who reject it because it talks about having a session 0 and discuss basics of how the game will be run or because they changed a label? It's probable that it's a minority.

Agree.

 

[haakon1]

I remember people playing 2E and griping about the changes from 1E like the removal of the Assassin or Monk).

I’m still mad about that! My half-orc assassin was disallowed by the rule change.

I disagreed with most of the changes, but I still bought the new books.

Same, but when it was my turn to DM, I used OA AD&D, 1e, and various non-TSR RPG. I only came back to buying new D&D in the WotC era with 3e. A ton of people I knew came back because of 3e.

 

[haakon1]

I'm going to mention the Cod Wars here just to cause confusion.

The only war between two NATO members … so far.

 

[haakon1]

Wotc has made a lot of miscalculations in the last 2 years+

Ain’t that the truth.

 

[haakon1]

If you still want your orcs to be inherently evil

Must have been a 4e or 5e thing.

In 3x, the distinction between “usually CG” for things like elves and “always CE” for things like demons was clearly called out.

Fixing mistakes in 5e for 2024 is probably a good thing.

 

[AlViking]

Must have been a 4e or 5e thing.

In 3x, the distinction between “usually CG” for things like elves and “always CE” for things like demons was clearly called out.

Fixing mistakes in 5e for 2024 is probably a good thing.

The 2014 MM had a note in the intro that alignment was always just a suggestion. Even though the orc label says CE you were supposed to make them any alignment that made sense. Using "frequently" or something similar is better.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I suspect a larger factor is there were more CURRENT players at the release of 5e 2024 than had been the case at the release of any prior edition. E.g., the initial sales of 2e reflected how many people were playing AD&D at the time, more than they reflected how much people liked 2e (which by definition they didn’t know), and on down the line with each new PHB.



Interesting that your assumption is that new editions are automatically an “upgrade” and that the default is everyone getting the latest.

Disagree with the “upgrade” terminology, as I think some new editions were worse than their predecessor.

But the assumption that most 5e 2014 tables will (eventually) switch to 5e 2024 I would guess is correct.

Part of it is a large majority of 5e players never experienced an edition change, so they were not burned by a past one. Part of it is marketing that it’s an “upgrade” and not a change. Part of it is D&D Beyond. And part of it is the perception that you need to keep up with the latest.

Actual content I suspect is a very minor factor in 2014 to 2024 change or don’t change decisions.

For the 5e group I am player in (as opposed to 3.5e I DM), the DM decided on 2014 for now because some PC’s aren’t supported in the new rules.

For the new group starting next weekend, the first time DM has played 3.5e (with me) and 5e 2014 (at school), and was trying to decide between 3.5e, 2014, and 2024. She choose 3.5e for preference over 5e reasons, but also just because 5e is in transition with changes coming, so it seemed simpler to go with a fully baked unchanging rule set - 3.5e original 3 core books.



Agree.

I would add that there is a big 50 on the the new books. A lot of people probably bought the books simply for that reason.

 

[haakon1]

I would add that there is a big 50 on the the new books. A lot of people probably bought the books simply for that reason.

You mean didn’t buy because of the cost?

Oh, probably mean bought because of 50th anniversary?

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I think it's possible that a proportion of the sales come from people who bought the books simply because it's the 50th anniversary edition. Heck, some may not even play Dungeons and Dragons anymore.