D&D (2024) What is positive?

[gban007]

Yes, but why would they believe that? Where is the evidence that justifies that expense? Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?

I don't know, I don't know what evidence they may be using, a lot of this may be going into prisoner's dilemna sort of such, where it may just be fear of what others may do that drive it.

Why has Cluedo / Clue changed names of characters / locations over time?

Why has Monopoly changed it's playing pieces over time?

Beforehand, was there evidence they needed to? Or did they have their own internal market research indicating that if they didn't, there would be a problem?

Tunnels and Trolls had 5th edition from 1979 to 2005 - did it maintain consistent sales numbers throughout, or change? I don't know answer to that myself, perhaps it did hold steady - but there are potentially other games / systems even in other industries that they could perhaps have looked at, to see that ones that didn't change may have eventually been left behind. I can't think of any off hand, but then ones that may have faded into obscurity aren't ones that would necessarily be front of mind

 

[codo]

Yes, but why would they believe that? Where is the evidence that justifies that expense? Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?

Peoples tastes and sensibilities change over time, and between generations. The audience for 1D&D is not the same as it was for 5E. Fifth edition was literally targeted at their Grandparents! Leaving aside the term race, and all of the associated baggage for now. People tastes in fantasy change over time. What each new generation is consuming and are inspired by changes. I don't think it is unreasonable, that after a decade the designers decide to refresh the game to also appeal to the next generation of gamers. Let the kids have their Ardling/Furries.

I love 5E, my favorite rpg ever, but after playing for close to a decade I can't deny there aren't a few rough edges. The great thing is that it really seems that what 1D&D is doing is just refining 5E and sanding down some of the rough spots, not making any major changes to the game. They also seem to be making changes to open up new design space and make adding new classes easier in the future.

What major changes has 1D&D made to the game so far? (Lets skip the race changes for now, that's it's own issue, unrelated to the strictly mechanical gameplay changes.)

• They have added a level 1 feat, providing individuality and a distinction between lvl 1 PC's of the same class, a common complaint.
• They are unifying the levels classes get their subclass abilities. Opens up design space for subclasses to be shared between classes.
• 2 weapon fighting doesn't use a bonus action. 2 weapon fighting was universally regarded as the worst designed option in the game.
• They nerfed the "must have" feats. The -5/+10 parts of the feats are gone. They want a PC's power to come from their class, not feats.
• All casters are prepared casters (That we have seen so far. Mages may be different, Different, unique spellcasting is kind of their Schtick) A common complaint is that the non-prepared 5e casters don't know enough spells
• Prepared spells are set by known spells by level. From my limited experience I think this does a lot more to balance the caster/martial divide than I think a lot of people realize. High level spells being limited to just 1 know per level means cast have to choose between power or utility. Casters have to chose at the start of each day if the want to nuke encounters or do cool utility spell stuff, they no longer get to decide on the fly each day.
• The switch to unified spell list. The stated reason for the change is to make it easier to add new classes in the future.

The changes mostly just seem like minor balance and quality of life changes. As well as changes to make new options and changes in the future. Overall its mostly the same game with some balance tweaks and a new coat of paint.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Peoples tastes and sensibilities change over time, and between generations. The audience for 1D&D is not the same as it was for 5E. Fifth edition was literally targeted at their Grandparents! Leaving aside the term race, and all of the associated baggage for now. People tastes in fantasy change over time. What each new generation is consuming and are inspired by changes. I don't think it is unreasonable, that after a decade the designers decide to refresh the game to also appeal to the next generation of gamers. Let the kids have their Ardling/Furries.

I love 5E, my favorite rpg ever, but after playing for close to a decade I can't deny there aren't a few rough edges. The great thing is that it really seems that what 1D&D is doing is just refining 5E and sanding down some of the rough spots, not making any major changes to the game. They also seem to be making changes to open up new design space and make adding new classes easier in the future.

What major changes has 1D&D made to the game so far? (Lets skip the race changes for now, that's it's own issue, unrelated to the strictly mechanical gameplay changes.)

• They have added a level 1 feat, providing individuality and a distinction between lvl 1 PC's of the same class, a common complaint.
• They are unifying the levels classes get their subclass abilities. Opens up design space for subclasses to be shared between classes.
• 2 weapon fighting doesn't use a bonus action. 2 weapon fighting was universally regarded as the worst designed option in the game.
• They nerfed the "must have" feats. The -5/+10 parts of the feats are gone. They want a PC's power to come from their class, not feats.
• All casters are prepared casters (That we have seen so far. Mages may be different, Different, unique spellcasting is kind of their Schtick) A common complaint is that the non-prepared 5e casters don't know enough spells
• Prepared spells are set by known spells by level. From my limited experience I think this does a lot more to balance the caster/martial divide than I think a lot of people realize. High level spells being limited to just 1 know per level means cast have to choose between power or utility. Casters have to chose at the start of each day if the want to nuke encounters or do cool utility spell stuff, they no longer get to decide on the fly each day.
• The switch to unified spell list. The stated reason for the change is to make it easier to add new classes in the future.

The changes mostly just seem like minor balance and quality of life changes. As well as changes to make new options and changes in the future. Overall its mostly the same game with some balance tweaks and a new coat of paint.

There is a strong difference of opinion on how significant these changes actually are. Declaring them as "minor balance and quality of life changes" is an opinion; no more, no less.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would say the only fear would be if they came out and called it a new edition of the game... but they can't hide it is at least an updated new version of the game. There will be people left behind, and there will be edition waring.

Probably they just like their fans to be up in arms, so they change editions once in a while...

... no seriously, you should update while you are going strong or leave it be until it is not sustainable anymore.

The second choice would now mean that they stop producing a lot of stuff and go in to maintenance mode. I don't think they would sell another xanathar's or tasha's... of everything. I would think twice about buying another of those books.