MonsterEnvy
Legend
That’s the point.I haven't paid anything yet.
That’s the point.I haven't paid anything yet.
This sort of thing isn't without precedent...I mean, "New Coke" was a thing that happened. But it would have to be a royal flop, on the same magnitude as New Coke. Unlikely, but possible I suppose.What would you do if you were WotC?
What do you think WotC would do?
It just struck me, what if WotC revises the core books but the originals continue to sell like they do now? What happens if they outperform the new core books? What happens if they out preform them a lot?
I think they will acknowledge it is 6E, but barely in the fine print and just keep on calling the game "Dungeons & Dragons" without qualifier. I think we have seen most of the actual changes in print already, though Classes are a bit of a wildcard.Some people speculate it will be a full-on 6e edition change. Maybe most expect some kind of 5.5e. Personally, I am skeptical it would even qualify as "5.5" update.
Your question seems a bit insistent here. That is, people are suggesting that your formulation of the question is a bit flawed (as it assumes some things that are either impossible, deeply unwise, or extremely unlikely), and your response seems to have been "okay but what if these things happened anyway?"Sure yea. But what if the new core tanks? Regardless?
That’s because that is what I’m interested in? What would you do? What do you think WotC would?Your question seems a bit insistent here. That is, people are suggesting that your formulation of the question is a bit flawed (as it assumes some things that are either impossible, deeply unwise, or extremely unlikely), and your response seems to have been "okay but what if these things happened anyway?"
So...if WotC is so unwise as to leave large numbers of "unrevised" books in circulation, and the new books somehow tank really really hard and are rejected by the player base, AND the market almost exclusively turns to 3PP or even other games (like PF2e), then they'll probably notice after a year or two, their profits will drop, and they'll pack it in and start working on 6e.
Like... you're basically saying, "What if 5.5e just fails?" And the answer is almost surely, "then we'll get 6e." Hasbro has seen that D&D can make money, perhaps even a lot of money. They won't let that golden goose just keel over.
But, again, all of this is extremely unlikely. Core books always sell well. Doesn't matter the edition. People want to try the new hotness. And, as I noted in another thread, I think 5e has finally gotten completely past the honeymoon/"puppy love" infatuation phase, and people are starting to be more critical than effusive. That doesn't mean they hate it, but it does mean the overall tone seems to be one ready for change (though there are major holdouts constantly complaining, as is always the case with change.)
It's a bit like asking "what if the JWST fails to deploy?", getting told all the safeguards and tests etc. done to prevent that possibility, and then asking "okay but what if it fails anyway?" The answer is in the question: it fails, so we probably try again with something different.
I think the more general definition of fad is that it's a short but intense popularity for something. I'm not sure how short, short might be though. But enough of me being a pedant, the salient point here is that your argument is sound. While I don't think the popularity of D&D can be sustained, I don't think it's a fad.So, out of curiosity, I looked upmwhat defines a "fad" exactly, and it turns out that D&D right now doesn't qualify as a fad at all. It has been growing too hard for too long now to fit under the rubric, though it can vary between fields.
Then we will get Classic* PHB, DMG, and MM.What if the new books tank then? I wonder if they'll just be called the PHB DMG and MM?
So far, what we have seen is still 5.0e.I think they will acknowledge it is 6E, but barely in the fine print and just keep on calling the game "Dungeons & Dragons" without qualifier. I think we have seen most of the actual changes in print already, though Classes are a bit of a wildcard.
It really seems to depend on the field: it seems to be best defined in clothing fashion, where a "fad" is anything that is popular for only 1-3 months and doesn't stick around, whereas a "trend" can be way broader, ranging from a popular color combo that people are only into for 9 months to blue jeans being common everyday wear from the 1950's to now. So, even the early 80's D&D boom might be more than a fad by that definition, though business circles seem to think longer term than fashion when considering fads versus trends, but even by business standards D&D is past fad territory by now.I think the more general definition of fad is that it's a short but intense popularity for something. I'm not sure how short, short might be though. But enough of me being a pedant, the salient point here is that your argument is sound. While I don't think the popularity of D&D can be sustained, I don't think it's a fad.
I mean, there is no objective definition of what constitutes an "Edition." By normal publishing practice, the 1E cover refreshes would generally be called a second edition, or the 2E black covers.So far, what we have seen is still 5.0e.
But I agree, the classes are a wildcard.
If they just swap around which classes and subclasses are in the Players Handbook, then it will be still be normal 5.0e.
Even the background feat is already something that exists now in 5.0e.
But if they do structural updates, like every class chooses its archetype at level 1, then can quickly become a defacto 5.5e.
Heh, and if they increase the number of abilities from six to eight, it will be 6e.
There is a pragmatic definition of an edition change.I mean, there is no objective definition of what constitutes an "Edition." By normal publishing practice, the 1E cover refreshes would generally be called a second edition, or the 2E black covers.
I think we are looking at a 6E, but more like Call of cthulu 7E to 6E.
Interesting.There is a pragmatic definition of an edition change.
If at the same table, one player uses the 2014 Players Handbook and an other player uses the 2024 Players Handbook, and things go smoothly, then it is 5.0.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 are awkward but doable, then it is 5.5.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 cause imbalance or other disruptive incompatability, then it is 6.0.
Exactly.Interesting.
So AD&D and AD&D 2 are “awkward but doable”?
But we can have Scenario A with "Sixth Edition of the World's First Role-Playing Game" on the back cover.There is a pragmatic definition of an edition change.
If at the same table, one player uses the 2014 Players Handbook and an other player uses the 2024 Players Handbook, and things go smoothly, then it is 5.0.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 are awkward but doable, then it is 5.5.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 cause imbalance or other disruptive incompatability, then it is 6.0.
That is probably the best description of what constitutes an edition change that I have read.There is a pragmatic definition of an edition change.
If at the same table, one player uses the 2014 Players Handbook and an other player uses the 2024 Players Handbook, and things go smoothly, then it is 5.0.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 are awkward but doable, then it is 5.5.
If at the same table, 2014 and 2024 cause imbalance or other disruptive incompatability, then it is 6.0.
We could, but I believe that is much less likely than people calling it 6e, even if it doesn't warrant that description, IMO.But we can have Scenario A with "Sixth Edition of the World's First Role-Playing Game" on the back cover.