Obviously this is early days, but I wanted to make my own request clear that I'd prefer a clear delineation between 5e and "One D&D" (6e darnit!). I'm very likely to return as a Master Tier Subscriber and will not likely invest in One D&D unless the design philosophy changes from where it appears to be heading. DDB has never truly supported multiple editions I feel and I'm unsure how WotC really feels about this change, but I don't want to have my Sourcebook and Adventure sections filled with material that is more accurately One D&D (despite comments on it as an emerging evolution). I'm also concerned with how support will work on the tools (especially the Character Builder).
I may expand this post later, but I feel that what's here contains the crux of my concern.
DDB currently does not support OneD&D in its tools as it's considered UA. There is no need to separate it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.
There is no delineation (at this time) between D&D fifth edition and One D&D, the latter is an evolution of the former.
Yes, but some of us may not wish to "evolve" with where WotC seems to be taking D&D, thus the request for some kind of delineation. By example I *hate* MordenkainenPresents: MonstersoftheMultiverse, and feel it's a nerfing and dilution of both the pre-existing Monsters and the general design / balance.
And I am making my opinion known on what I think of directions I am concerned WotC may be taking the game. Am I not allowed to say such? It seems like a legitimate concern and the site a good place to post such as it may both attract agreement or at least serve as some kind of bellweather. I am not aware of breaking any rules with this post or the OP.
And I am making my opinion known on what I think of directions I am concerned WotC may be taking the game. Am I not allowed to say such? It seems like a legitimate concern and the site a good place to post such as it may both attract agreement or at least serve as some kind of bellweather. I am not aware of breaking any rules with this post or the OP.
You are not being moderated. Davyd’s sig makes this clear - he is speaking to you as one D&D (lulz) fan to another.
Reading between the lines I felt I was being coldly told that my opinion meant nothing. In regards to Davyd posting as mod/not, I'm aware of the mod hat on or off thing but I would have thought the user name/Nick would be black or such if posting as as mod off. Either way, my reply wasn't really a rebuke of any sort of moderation.
Edit: there might be some level of misunderstanding as like I said, I wasn't really replying under the basis of moderation. And my brain locked up on Mod On/Off as I somehow forgot that post text could be orange as well.
Maybe an extension of the OP. What is the best way to reach WotC with my opinion here, without using Twitter while still being able to hope they'd actually read if? I felt that since DDB was owned by WotC, posting here made as much senze as anywhere else, especially as DDB-s digital content was where I was invested.
There isn't any functionality within the forum backend to toggle profile appearance. That is why many of the mod team, myself included, use text formatting to indicate when a thread is being issued direct moderation instruction and when a moderator is just participating in a thread and providing information and answers.
You are not being moderated. You are not being told not to discuss things or have opinions. I was simply providing information that might help contextualise the likelihood of your request.
Totally fair, I was just concerned with the tone I possibly misinterpreted in your own reply. :)
Edit: like we're all normally aware, reading tone into text when it's not there is a real thing, but I hope it's fair to say sometimes you should pay attention to tone while understandably moderating our own. Personally I've recognized I'm a pretty excitable text user, so I do try as much as I can without spending 5 minutes on every word.
But with all seriousness, my concern is genuine so if you do have a place I can take my worries and hope it would be listeneD to, id appreciate it. I understand WotC is paying attention to One D&D playtest feedback but I don't know of anywhere other than here to list my own concern in regards digital content adjudication or however it may be called. I'm keeping my eyes out, but for however little I may be listened to here, I'm even less enthusiastic about sending an e-mail to WotC.
Despite all the talk of backward compatibility, evolution vs. edition change, etc., our group is also considering where the 5e we like to play will leave off and the next iteration will begin. While that line may be different for everybody (and you cannot please everyone), I think there is a point where some of us will no longer be playing the game we want to. I think it would be good to be able to support the game we want to play using these online tools (filtering sources, etc.).
I fully recognize that such a change would be non-trivial and may not exist today, but on the other hand, I worry about the money I've spent on this platform and the dependence we've developed on it. Surely there must be others beyond the OP and my group who feel this way.
This is an important issue. When the new core books come out in 2024 not all users are going to buy them and many won't buy them the day the books are released. The character app will have to support new and legacy characters at the same time or the transition will fail. Easiest solution would be a choice at character creation between new and legacy characters.
If the transition is too difficult, DMs may decide it's easier to move to another platform such as Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds.
This is more than just user convenience, it's about WotC losing money if they don't get it right.
A character in a friends game which is the current 5E version.
A character in another friends game which is One D&D
I might be running a current 5E version campaign
I might also be running another game which is One D&D
So it is a legitimate question from the OP.
It is early days for One D&D but the different versions should be planned for a transition period. I also accept that new books most likely be One D&D compatible only and the cost of supporting a previous version of 5E is an issue.
While a more complete filtering system could (should?) be put in place there is already a way...dont buy any of the D&Done (or what everthey finally call it) products. You specified Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse if you dont buy it, you cant use it. I also own the older material it "replaces" and I can look through that and still use it. Its pretty clear in the character builder which is which for me. I suspect they would keep it at that level at the very least.
I would like to see a better filtering system where you could select from all your purchases and basically say, for this creation or search use only these source materials.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- The WyvernSpirit Started Playing: 1988 Editions Played: AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e/3.5e, 5e
Just necro-ing this thread to ask if there has been any official statement (or even recent speculation) about what is going to happen to "old school" 5e on DDB when One D&D ships in 2024. I would like to think I will love the new edition / evolution, but I think our group will keep on playing 5e. While there is talk of backward compatibility, I can see where new mechanics could be developed that make it hard to play 5e using DDB tools / content.
At a certain point I need to stop paying for DDB content if it will be useless to me in a year or so. I did a quick search around the forums and did not see this as a recent topic of discussion, although I may have failed my investigation check...
DDB and WOTC haven't said anything about it, but then again they haven't said anything about anything the past 6 months.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
Obviously this is early days, but I wanted to make my own request clear that I'd prefer a clear delineation between 5e and "One D&D" (6e darnit!). I'm very likely to return as a Master Tier Subscriber and will not likely invest in One D&D unless the design philosophy changes from where it appears to be heading. DDB has never truly supported multiple editions I feel and I'm unsure how WotC really feels about this change, but I don't want to have my Sourcebook and Adventure sections filled with material that is more accurately One D&D (despite comments on it as an emerging evolution). I'm also concerned with how support will work on the tools (especially the Character Builder).
I may expand this post later, but I feel that what's here contains the crux of my concern.
DDB currently does not support OneD&D in its tools as it's considered UA. There is no need to separate it.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
As stated in the One D&D FAQ
There is no delineation (at this time) between D&D fifth edition and One D&D, the latter is an evolution of the former.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yes, but some of us may not wish to "evolve" with where WotC seems to be taking D&D, thus the request for some kind of delineation. By example I *hate* Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse, and feel it's a nerfing and dilution of both the pre-existing Monsters and the general design / balance.
D&D Beyond is owned by Wizards of the Coast and will reflect whatever direction they take D&D in
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
And I am making my opinion known on what I think of directions I am concerned WotC may be taking the game. Am I not allowed to say such? It seems like a legitimate concern and the site a good place to post such as it may both attract agreement or at least serve as some kind of bellweather. I am not aware of breaking any rules with this post or the OP.
You are not being moderated. Davyd’s sig makes this clear - he is speaking to you as one D&D (lulz) fan to another.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Reading between the lines I felt I was being coldly told that my opinion meant nothing. In regards to Davyd posting as mod/not, I'm aware of the mod hat on or off thing but I would have thought the user name/Nick would be black or such if posting as as mod off. Either way, my reply wasn't really a rebuke of any sort of moderation.
Edit: there might be some level of misunderstanding as like I said, I wasn't really replying under the basis of moderation. And my brain locked up on Mod On/Off as I somehow forgot that post text could be orange as well.
Maybe an extension of the OP. What is the best way to reach WotC with my opinion here, without using Twitter while still being able to hope they'd actually read if? I felt that since DDB was owned by WotC, posting here made as much senze as anywhere else, especially as DDB-s digital content was where I was invested.
There isn't any functionality within the forum backend to toggle profile appearance. That is why many of the mod team, myself included, use text formatting to indicate when a thread is being issued direct moderation instruction and when a moderator is just participating in a thread and providing information and answers.
You are not being moderated. You are not being told not to discuss things or have opinions. I was simply providing information that might help contextualise the likelihood of your request.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Totally fair, I was just concerned with the tone I possibly misinterpreted in your own reply. :)
Edit: like we're all normally aware, reading tone into text when it's not there is a real thing, but I hope it's fair to say sometimes you should pay attention to tone while understandably moderating our own. Personally I've recognized I'm a pretty excitable text user, so I do try as much as I can without spending 5 minutes on every word.
S'all good, glad to have been able to clarify
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
But with all seriousness, my concern is genuine so if you do have a place I can take my worries and hope it would be listeneD to, id appreciate it. I understand WotC is paying attention to One D&D playtest feedback but I don't know of anywhere other than here to list my own concern in regards digital content adjudication or however it may be called. I'm keeping my eyes out, but for however little I may be listened to here, I'm even less enthusiastic about sending an e-mail to WotC.
Despite all the talk of backward compatibility, evolution vs. edition change, etc., our group is also considering where the 5e we like to play will leave off and the next iteration will begin. While that line may be different for everybody (and you cannot please everyone), I think there is a point where some of us will no longer be playing the game we want to. I think it would be good to be able to support the game we want to play using these online tools (filtering sources, etc.).
I fully recognize that such a change would be non-trivial and may not exist today, but on the other hand, I worry about the money I've spent on this platform and the dependence we've developed on it. Surely there must be others beyond the OP and my group who feel this way.
This is an important issue. When the new core books come out in 2024 not all users are going to buy them and many won't buy them the day the books are released. The character app will have to support new and legacy characters at the same time or the transition will fail. Easiest solution would be a choice at character creation between new and legacy characters.
If the transition is too difficult, DMs may decide it's easier to move to another platform such as Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds.
This is more than just user convenience, it's about WotC losing money if they don't get it right.
For me - I could have:
So it is a legitimate question from the OP.
It is early days for One D&D but the different versions should be planned for a transition period. I also accept that new books most likely be One D&D compatible only and the cost of supporting a previous version of 5E is an issue.
Some are born to move the world,
To live their fantasies.
But most of us just dream about,
The things we'd like to be.
- Rush
While a more complete filtering system could (should?) be put in place there is already a way...dont buy any of the D&Done (or what everthey finally call it) products. You specified Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse if you dont buy it, you cant use it. I also own the older material it "replaces" and I can look through that and still use it. Its pretty clear in the character builder which is which for me. I suspect they would keep it at that level at the very least.
I would like to see a better filtering system where you could select from all your purchases and basically say, for this creation or search use only these source materials.
Just necro-ing this thread to ask if there has been any official statement (or even recent speculation) about what is going to happen to "old school" 5e on DDB when One D&D ships in 2024. I would like to think I will love the new edition / evolution, but I think our group will keep on playing 5e. While there is talk of backward compatibility, I can see where new mechanics could be developed that make it hard to play 5e using DDB tools / content.
At a certain point I need to stop paying for DDB content if it will be useless to me in a year or so. I did a quick search around the forums and did not see this as a recent topic of discussion, although I may have failed my investigation check...
DDB and WOTC haven't said anything about it, but then again they haven't said anything about anything the past 6 months.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB