D&D 5E (2024) What Improvements Would You Want with 6E?

[FrogReaver]

In both cases, it was money. It's always money. 3.5 happened after 3.0 sales started crashing hard, and 4.0 happened after E
3.5 cratered.

But why would they believe the risk vs reward of a new edition would make them more money instead of less.

Reasons include and are likely not limited to:

1. The current edition is failing
2. A grand new idea that has a lot of monetary upside (I think this was 4e's reason for being created)

I don't think the decision making process has ever been - let's make a new edition so the same people will rebuy books again. So when you say money and imply it's for this reason I fundamentally disagree.

 

[Parmandur]

But why would they believe the risk vs reward of a new edition would make them more money instead of less.

Reasons include and are likely not limited to:

1. The current edition is failing
2. A grand new idea that has a lot of monetary upside (I think this was 4e's reason for being created)

I don't think the decision making process has ever been - let's make a new edition so the same people will rebuy books again.

I've seen WotC folks explicitly stated that as their goal with new editions, yes. Core books sell well, it's an "easy" sales boost.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've seen WotC folks explicitly stated that as their goal with new editions, yes. Core books sell well, it's an "easy" sales boost.

Talking about some side effects of a decision to change editions doesn't imply that's the reason for the change of edition.

 

[Parmandur]

Talking about some side effects of a decision to change editions doesn't imply that's the reason for the change of edition.

I'm quite certain that the sales boost was given as a primary factor in these decisions: 3.0 particularly was tanking after a year or so, as the initial rush wire off.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All fantasy settings are - or at least those that feature humans in any way.

A fantasy set in the real world - wether historical, contemporary, or speculative future - could be said to combine the real world with fantastical elements. Or, it might be a fantastical world that merely resembles our own, coincidentally or by design, thus combing elements, or at least appearances, of the real world with a fantastical one.

But the mere presence of "humans?" No, not unless, perhaps, it establishes they evolved on Earth or something (And that they are somehow exempt from the fantastic attributes of their transplanted setting).
If some deity made them or something, they're merely humanoids native to a fantasy setting.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm quite certain that the sales boost was given as a primary factor in these decisions: 3.0 particularly was tanking after a year or so, as the initial rush wire off.

If the edition was tanking then doesn't that go along with my number 1 point - one of the most common times you get a new edition when an edition is failing?

 

[FrogReaver]

A fantasy set anywhere other than the real world - wether historical, contemporary, or speculative future - might be said to combine the real world with fantastical elements. Or, it might be a fantastical world that merely resembles our own, coincidentally or by design.

But the mere presence of "humans?" No, not unless, perhaps, it establishes they evolved on Earth or something (And that they are somehow exempt from the fantastic attributes of their transplanted setting).
If some deity made them or something, they're merely humanoids native to a fantasy setting.

Disagree.
1. A fantastical world that resembles our own is precisely the kind of real worldism that i'm talkin about. If you have a fantasy world that resmembles our own then that supports my position not yours.

2. Humans are called humans because in general they resemble us and our capabilities.

 

[Parmandur]

If the edition was tanking then doesn't that go along with my number 1 point - one of the most common times you get a new edition when an edition is failing?

Yes, it's basically the only reason.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you have a fantasy world that resmembles our own then that supports my position not yours.

For instance, the world inside the matrix resembled our own, by design, but it's laws were only simulating those of the real world.

2. Humans are called humans because in general they resemble us and our capabilities.

Sure, but that resemblance needn't be to real-world humans as we understand them today, but to humans of myth/legend/genre, who do implausible thing constantly.

Mind you, I'm fine with urban fantasy taking the real-world aspects to the level if hard sci-fi - but, I'd expect a similar level of rigour in integrating the fantasy-like elements.

D&D, specifically, does not have a setting/genre that ties back to the real world much, at all, except with the occasional bad pun or pop culture reference.

 

[FrogReaver]

For instance, the world inside the matrix resembled our own, by design, but it's laws were only simulating those of the real world.

Sure, but that resemblance needn't be to real-world humans as we understand them today, but to humans of myth/legend/genre, who do implausible thing constantly.

Mind you, I'm fine with urban fantasy taking the real-world aspects to the level if hard sci-fi - but, I'd expect a similar level of rigour in integrating the fantasy-like elements.

D&D, specifically, does not have a setting/genre that ties back to the real world much, at all, except with the occasional bad pun or pop culture reference.

In all of those examples there's far more similarities to the real world than differences.