D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[FitzTheRuke]

I infamously made this same sort of prediction when 4e was announced.

Please trust me when I say there is no benefit to this sort of declaration. If you're right, it will be meaningless. If you're wrong, it will be repeated for years.

While I don't predict 5e2024 will fail, it's possible it will fail. It is possible a meaningfully large number of people who previously bought 5e2014 won't buy 5e2024, and that it doesn't gain enough traction with new players.

So consider this a warning from the future you - leave room for doubt.

Oh, I ALWAYS leave room for doubt, but keep in mind - I have successfully predicted the sales of every D&D product since 1993. I'm not claiming 100% accuracy, of course, but close enough to always turn a decent profit. Sure, there's been a few books that I sell out of early (or late) and some unfathomable oddities (like how my store hasn't turned over even a single copy of Curse of Strahd Revamped in the past year - who could accurately predict THAT!?) But generally? My track record is very good.

My gut says that D&D2024 will not quite reach the highs of 5e (at least, not in Print Sales, and certainly not in its shocking sustained growth) but it WILL do great out the gate (so did 4e) and everything else depends on exactly how good it is, which I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised about, but that's definitely more nebulous a prediction. I mean, I predicted the SALES of Spelljammer successfully, but I really expected it to be better, for example. Go figure.

But I take your well-meant suggestion. I'm always happy to admit when I'm wrong. We'll have to see.

 

[Maxperson]

Ahhh! You made me go double check. Hasbro is calling the books "revised", but not the game.

I mean, if you're revising the books of the game and the game is entirely books...

 

[Chaosmancer]

I foresee plenty of problems when the DM and players have different ideas about what the rules do depending on what book they've read. But I usually play with people who try to learn the rules. If everyone just goes with what the DM says, you don't need a rulebook at all, regardless of edition.

And I don't see this being a problem for more than two minutes at any functional table.

People will be capable of realizing they are using different printings of the rules, and that those rules may conflict. Heck, just today we were sitting at lunch and a guy hesitantly asked a future DM if he could switch his fighting style on a potential character for story reasons. He'd forgotten that was in the rules. We weren't unable to overcome that confusion.

 

[payn]

Okay

Given that 90% of the people I see in my local game store are too young to drink….yes?

90% of the players I dont see at all because they are online.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And, catching back up on the thread, I once more stand by my observation.

The majority of people I see who want to use 5.5 also hold the position that WoTC is lying/deceiving/obfuscating/using deceptive marketing tactics/cowardly/trying to have their cake and eat it to/downplaying/ ect ect ect ect the changes in the books, and that the only true, objective, and correct thing is to recognize the new books as a half edition change, exactly like they did before when they were floundering and in trouble.

For those of us who like what we have seen, and want the books to succeed, we don't want this negativity and baggage. This isn't a position we want to invigorate, because who is going to want to books that are labeled with lies and deceptive marketing to make them more appealing to save a dying edition (most of which I feel is untrue)? So, those of us who are going to be pushing the books and the new rules as something we want to use... we aren't going to use that terminology. It will cause nothing but short-term harm.

And if the people advocating for the changes aren't using the term, then that isn't the term that will spread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

90% of the players I dont see at all because they are online.

Okay.

Yet there are stores selling physical books all over, and many kids prefer physical books for a lot of uses, and digital and physical aren’t mutually exclusive, so….still yes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For those of us who like what we have seen, and want the books to succeed,

I find it humorous that you think I hate 5.5e and want it to fail.

It is an improvement. I want it to succeed, because that at least offers the tiniest, minutest glimmer of hope that maybe someday, things I actually like in gaming will get official support in D&D again, rather than being actively mocked by the designers while they're designing the game.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yet there are stores selling physical books all over, and many kids prefer physical books for a lot of uses, and digital and physical aren’t mutually exclusive, so….still yes.

Tangent: I run an afterschool D&D club for middle-schoolers. Out of about 20 kids, I was only able to get ONE of them to use D&D Beyond. The rest prefer to use the physical books, even though we don't have enough to go round . . .

For this reason, as a club, we are NOT moving forward to the 2024 rules. Although since they will be fully compatible, if a kid brings their own PHB 2024, that's fine.

 

[Dire Bare]

I find it humorous that you think I hate 5.5e and want it to fail.

It is an improvement. I want it to succeed, because that at least offers the tiniest, minutest glimmer of hope that maybe someday, things I actually like in gaming will get official support in D&D again, rather than being actively mocked by the designers while they're designing the game.

You are being excluded and your preferences actively mocked by the designers? I think we live in different realities within the multiverse. This just isn't behavior I've observed . . . ever . . . from the D&D team at WotC.

Granted, any given rules-set isn't going to align with everyone's preferences. If you don't care for aspects of the current rules, or the 2024 rules, that's understandable. But excluded and mocked?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are being excluded and your preferences actively mocked by the designers? I think we live in different realities within the multiverse. This just isn't behavior I've observed . . . ever . . . from the D&D team at WotC.

They literally used edition-war rhetoric, in dev podcasts, during the D&D Next playtest. It was active and intentional. They also had a blog post crapping on 4e races (dragonborn in particular), with a constant "I'm just joshing, you can have your weirdo preferences if you want them!" refrain.

This was not some hidden agenda. It was literally up-front.

Granted, any given rules-set isn't going to align with everyone's preferences. If you don't care for aspects of the current rules, or the 2024 rules, that's understandable. But excluded and mocked?

What else am I supposed to interpret "But he [William Wallace] wasn't shouting hands back on" as? It's outright mockery. If it had been said by a user on these forums, they'd have been infracted for it.