D&D (2024) What is positive?

[DEFCON 1]

Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D? Heh heh. That's funny!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D? Heh heh. That's funny!

i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.

 

[Umbran]

Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D? Heh heh. That's funny!

Mod Note:
Please take the insulting threadcrapping to some other venue.

 

[Clint_L]

i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.

To the contrary, I am not mad when people say it. I am just impressed at the degree to which paradigms inform how we see the world. WotC: "We need a new paradigm; editions aren't working because XYZ." Response: "Not possible."

That said, I am slightly resentful of your assertion that, in effect, I am lying when I state that I don't think this is a new edition, and I think what WotC is attempting is, in fact, possible. Let me be clear: I do not "know" that this is a "edition (or half edition)." I really, truly, disagree with you and that does not make me a liar. I think that a new edition, in any form, is exactly the opposite of what WotC is trying to achieve (they have explicitly stated as much), though whether they succeed remains an open question.

Again, I refer folks to about 1:20 into the OneD&D announcement when Chris Perkins addresses this issue directly. I have no reason to believe that he is not being truthful, or that he is an idiot who doesn't understand what the word "editions" means in the context of D&D. Ergo, my conclusion is that WotC fully understand what the "editions" paradigm has meant in the context of D&D, and that they are being honest and forthright about why they are trying to move past it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To the contrary, I am not mad when people say it. I am just impressed at the degree to which paradigms inform how we see the world. WotC: "We need a new paradigm; editions aren't working because XYZ." Response: "Not possible."

the problem is they say they don't like the paradigm of new editions... then go on to state there plan as what we would call a new edition. Call it a version, maybe that will help with it being a slightly different word... this shows (so far) to be on the player side a new version of the game.

That said, I am slightly resentful of your assertion that, in effect, I am lying when I state that I don't think this is a new edition, and I think what WotC is attempting is, in fact, possible.

You don't have to be lying. You may be and you jumping to that instead of thinking we disagree does make me question it though.

Let me be clear: I do not "know" that this is a "edition (or half edition)." I really, truly, disagree with you and that does not make me a liar.

the only person using liar is you.

i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.

I think that a new edition, in any form, is exactly the opposite of what WotC is trying to achieve (they have explicitly stated as much), though whether they succeed remains an open question.

except again, they have said they don't want to have this be a new edition, and yet changed classes races feats statuses... basicly making it so you need the new PHB to replace the old OR stay behind with the old 2014 PHB or house rule some amalgam of the two.
so yea it's a new version

Again, I refer folks to about 1:20 into the OneD&D announcement when Chris Perkins addresses this issue directly. I have no reason to believe that he is not being truthful, or that he is an idiot who doesn't understand what the word "editions" means in the context of D&D.

then what makes 1e different then 2e?
what makes 3e different then 3.5?

see because by the old paradigm they are editions (or versions if you prefer)

Ergo, my conclusion is that WotC fully understand what the "editions" paradigm has meant in the context of D&D, and that they are being honest and forthright about why they are trying to move past it.

then why rewrite bard and cleric? Why the new status effects? have you seen any reason to think this is just errata for something that didn't work for the last 8 years?

 

[Clint_L]

the problem is they say they don't like the paradigm of new editions... then go on to state there plan as what we would call a new edition. Call it a version, maybe that will help with it being a slightly different word... this shows (so far) to be on the player side a new version of the game.

You don't have to be lying. You may be and you jumping to that instead of thinking we disagree does make me question it though.

the only person using liar is you.

When you assert that I "know" something yet persist in denying it, the clear implication seems to be that I am not being truthful. I see no other way to interpret your statement that "we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it."

I will take you at your word that you were not intentionally accusing me of lying. Thank you for clearing that up. Might I suggest that if you did not assert what other people know or do not know, there would be less likelihood of miscommunication. I am sure that I myself have made this error as well, and will try to be more careful in my own language.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When you assert that I "know" something yet persist in denying it, the clear implication seems to be that I am not being truthful.

the only thing I am accusing you about being untruthful about is that I called you a liarer... I did no such thing. The comment I made wasn't in response to you it wasn't quoting you or tagin you and at no point did I call ANYONE a liar until you put words in my mouth and I am asking you to stop.

Do not continue to claim I called you a liarer about anything OTHER then me being called out as having called you a liar.

I see no other way to interpret your statement that "we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it."

You may interpret it as you see fit, but I am not going to be brought into your private conversation with nobody.

I will take you at your word that you were not intentionally accusing me of lying. Thank you for clearing that up. Might I suggest that if you did not assert what other people know or do not know, there would be less likelihood of miscommunication. I am sure that I myself have made this error as well, and will try to be more careful in my own language.

 

[gban007]

i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.

I will say - I don't know it is a new edition or half edition - so I don't think saying 'we all know it's a new edition' is correct. Will further elaborate my thoughts in reply to one of your other posts.

 

[gban007]

then why rewrite bard and cleric? Why the new status effects? have you seen any reason to think this is just errata for something that didn't work for the last 8 years?

I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind. So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.

I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen. If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.

To my mind it is much like how various MMOs go through a lot of updates, such that what WoW or LOTRO look like today, even outside of the expanded areas, are very different to when they first launched in terms of mechanics, how classes work, class skills etc - but is still considered the same game.

On that note, I do think that realistically 1e to 2e could have been similar, just tweaks to the game but still essentially same game, except that I think it likely TSR at the time did try to encourage everyone to buy the latest edition, and helped set the long term expectation that WOTC is trying to tackle now - that ideally only 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e were in their mind genuine edition changes, with 3.5 being quite borderline in that regard, and ones that require people to buy new books.

I think they would like to keep the old adventurers in print, and reprint as needed like with Tyranny of Dragons, post 2024, which hasn't occurred with previous editions without having to revise them to match the new rules (I'm unsure what happened between 1e and 2e, a little bit before I came in, I was only playing from 2e onwards).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind. So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.

I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen. If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.

To my mind it is much like how various MMOs go through a lot of updates, such that what WoW or LOTRO look like today, even outside of the expanded areas, are very different to when they first launched in terms of mechanics, how classes work, class skills etc - but is still considered the same game.

On that note, I do think that realistically 1e to 2e could have been similar, just tweaks to the game but still essentially same game, except that I think it likely TSR at the time did try to encourage everyone to buy the latest edition, and helped set the long term expectation that WOTC is trying to tackle now - that ideally only 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e were in their mind genuine edition changes, with 3.5 being quite borderline in that regard, and ones that require people to buy new books.

I think they would like to keep the old adventurers in print, and reprint as needed like with Tyranny of Dragons, post 2024, which hasn't occurred with previous editions without having to revise them to match the new rules (I'm unsure what happened between 1e and 2e, a little bit before I came in, I was only playing from 2e onwards).

I don't accept that argument. You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.

Let's look at 5e as it stands now. It is currently enjoying an unprecedented surge of financial and popular success, for a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into here. What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?