D&D (2024) You're not planning on getting 2024 D&D? Why is that?

[el-remmen]

You either die a GM, or live long enough to see yourself become a designer.

I did the same for 3/3.5E back in the early 00s. 5E is the closest to RAW I have ever run a D&D game (not that I believe there is a real such thing as RAW - everything is an interpretation and anyone who doesn't think so is fooling themselves).

 

[tetrasodium]

Most of the poll options ring true on some level. They all add up to significant strikes against 2024 for me, but none of them take the crown.

Ultimately there seems to have been no effort placed into anyone acting as an advocate for the GM & the GM's needs. Likewise there was a lack of work done to address GM "pain points" (or even acknowledge their existence). There is a great thread where new problems are compiled over here & frankly too much of 2024 feels like the kinds of totally predictable problems invited by bad homebrew & totally borked d20 supplement stuff from the 3.x days.

Ultimately wotc was clear that they felt it was ok to design & brag about stuff intended to "frustrate Dungeon Masters". I have a difficult time believing that wotc can reverse course on ignoring the GM enough to match the high bar being set by stuff like MCDM & draw steel without yet another edition.

Even if wotc does put out errata as @FitzTheRuke noted, this is the same company that only recently admitted that they realized "very early on" that one of the base classes was too powerful & why after a decade of hear no evil see no evil while not even admitting it as something that GM's should consider addressing so players could expect their GM to do so instead of fighting their GM's efforts. Even when wotc did things in the 2014 edition like the xge78 "going without a long rest" section that should have unquestionably ended coffeelock efforts from players, they did it with the pg56 aspect of the moon poison pill to provide enough uncertainty that I kept seeing efforts at coffeelocks at my AL tables for years. Trust in possible hypothetical errata addressing very predictable issues is not in any way earned by what we've seen over the past decade when wotc's not even talking about errata yet.

 

[pemerton]

There are some strange loopholes that I almost feel like Crawford is trying to Punk people who don't take the fiction seriously before they take the rules seriously, as opposed to the other-way-around.

None of it is much of a problem when everyone is playing in good faith, which is, as you say "actual play" - but it's pretty strange for an update that is somewhat more rules-tight than 5e to have some glaring holes.

Whether it's strange is something I won't pass judgement on. But I do think it's interesting to see how many of the rules complaints/confusions seem to be focused on stuff that is purely mechanical (like action economy, retries of rolls, how the number and timing of saves/damage relates to arbitrary break-points in the framework of cyclical initiative, etc) rather than on the manner in which, and degree to which, the rules will generate good or bad fiction in play.

 

[Daztur]

They're cutting back on the whole "rules not rulings" ethos and moving back towards 4e's "a wall between fluff and crunch made out of tigers with tigers on top" ethos without also bringing back the aspects of 4e that I liked. A good example of this is how Command has been utterly gutted.

This isn't a big difference but:
1. Why pay for something that moves away from the aspect of D&D I like best? Even if the move is small I'm not going to pay for something I like less.
2. This points at the future direction of D&D, especially as the later years of 5e have already been trending in this direction.

 

[mamba]

Whether it's strange is something I won't pass judgement on. But I do think it's interesting to see how many of the rules complaints/confusions seem to be focused on stuff that is purely mechanical (like action economy, retries of rolls, how the number and timing of saves/damage relates to arbitrary break-points in the framework of cyclical initiative, etc) rather than on the manner in which, and degree to which, the rules will generate good or bad fiction in play.

that can go hand in hand though, like loading a crossbow with no free hand. Since the rules concern themselves with small details, the impact on fiction also is only in the small details

 

[Raith5]

For me it is in a strange space. Too many finicky changes to update my current 5e campaign and not enough change to be attractive to starting a new 5.5e campaign. I dont see the value add of 5.5 or how really that many new ideas can be explored via this revamped system. It needed so much more than fresh coat of paint.

 

[pemerton]

that can go hand in hand though, like loading a crossbow with no free hand. Since the rules concern themselves with small details, the impact on fiction also is only in the small details

I guess if the most interesting or salient thing about the fiction is how crossbow reloading occurs, that's a sign of something in itself.

 

[Greg K]

1. While there are a few things that I like about 5.24, I dislike the changes to backgrounds, many of the changes to species, several of the origin feats, several of the changes to classes, the new subclasses (with the possible exception of Circle of the Sea), most of the new spells.
2. If I want official D&D, I have Moldvay/Cook B/X , D&D 3e (to level 10 and using third party supplements), D&D 5e 2014 (to level 10 and using third party supplements)
3. Other "D&D" options I can go for include: Swords & Wizardry White Box, White Box, Hero's Journey (1e & 2e), Beyond the Wall, Through the Sunken Lands, Shadowdark,
4. The following OSR games (or OSR adjacent depending on one's definition) have my current interest/attention: Barbarians of Lemuria, Honor + Intrigue (with Intriguing Options), By This Axe I Hack, There and Hack Again, Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells
5. Finally, I also have my various go to fantasy rpgs: Savage Worlds and Fantasy Hero with Barbarians of Lemuria, Honor + Intrigue, and, possibly, BASH Fantasy Legends of Steel being recent additions to the list.

In short, I have more than enough fantasy rpg options.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They're cutting back on the whole "rules not rulings" ethos and moving back towards 4e's "a wall between fluff and crunch made out of tigers with tigers on top" ethos without also bringing back the aspects of 4e that I liked. A good example of this is how Command has been utterly gutted.

This isn't a big difference but:
1. Why pay for something that moves away from the aspect of D&D I like best? Even if the move is small I'm not going to pay for something I like less.
2. This points at the future direction of D&D, especially as the later years of 5e have already been trending in this direction.

This is why I moved on to Level Up when it came out. WotC 5e was already heading in a direction I didn't like at the time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You have left "cost of buying new books" off the list. And space to store them. Those are the only factors that apply to me.