An appeal to popularity. Something being popular or unpopular is not an actual indication of its quality. Have you tried to use social media?
A company has an incentive to promote their product. That is not forcing you to use it. Care to try again on how you are being forced to use it?
You seem confused about what it means to be 'unwarranted'. The 2014 rules were in desperate need of cleanup. There were more holes, ambiguity, and outright exploitable RAW elements that warranted a revision. I will grant you that some people with little control of their own emotions have been pounding away at their keyboards about how they didn't want it though.
Yes, again, a company is incentivized to promote their product and the very thing you say they are banking on is consumer decision, which, according to you, is an indication of its quality. This is a bit of a mixed message, as you are saying it is unwanted and therefore is bad. If more people move to the new rules, something they have 100% control over, then it is either curiosity or preference that made the player do so and suggests that they are better than the 2014 rules. Will you admit to the 2024 rules superiority once it is played more often than 2014 rules? If this is your argument, you are obligated to.
Anyone who wants to avoid being 'left out' are also making the decision to join those people, which, to be clear, they 100% do not have to do. People still play 3.5.
Yes, many people have seen many new editions. I am not sure what this has to do with either 4e being garbage or the 2024 rules being forced down people's throats. Please focus and come back to my question.
As revisions are given for 2014 to update them for 2024 rules, it is true that those 2014 options will no longer be options for those playing 2024 rules. Those who insist on playing 2014 rules will continue to be able to do so. Again, this fails to demonstrate how 2024 is being forced down your throat. Rather, it is a projection that 2024 rules will have more options in the near future, which, well... no kidding.
Why would old rules be the default? This is the official site for D&D. Obviously the default will be the most current rules available and that has literally always been the case for the entire life of this site. Every time errata has come out, it has been updated here immediately before the books even finished printing. You still have the option to use old rules however. That is the exception and it was done to accommodate those spewing hate all over the forums demanding 2014 5e like a feral raccoon would its pile of garbage.
How you feel about the 2024 rules in no way addresses my question...
I don't need to change the minds of the haters on this site. Just like every other mindless rampage that has happened here over the years, they will come, crap all over the forums, and be gone in a few months. But quietly, there will be a shift to using the 2024 rules and a year from now, people will forget that they ever cared so much about 2014 rules. Just like when Tasha's came out, just like when Monsters of the Multiverse came out, just like when Strixhaven came out. Just like Wild Beyond the Witchlight came out... and many others I can't remember. You guys can't maintain your own momentum. You never do.
Whole lot of nothing in this reply, as per usual.
This is as far as I got before stopping and adding you to the ignore list. Every single point I made is substantive and was far more than your argument deserved and now, because of your bad faith, blowhard response, you will never get to enjoy me reading whatever blustering you posted after this sentence. It was a waste of your time only, not mine.
I remember the firs WOTC books coming out, when the first new WOTC PHB hit and the groups that I played with read them and we stopped playing D&D. After that we played various other RPGs but this is why I left D&D in the 90's. 5e was fine the way it was, if you want to play 6e, that's great, but it is a different game and 5e should have a chance to die out on its own. If 6e really is better, let it stand side by side with 5e for a while and let people migrate on their own. Especially since the new books are not entirely out, no 2024 DMG= incomplete system, and I will not buy into a new addition that does not have its own DMG.
I guess you weren't playing between 77 and 80, when we DID play D&D with NO DM Guide. You don't need a complete set to play, and this isn't a completely new edition. It's like 3.5 after 3.0. You can mingle the two, albeit that is easier to do at a table top setting then on Beyond, where some of my players are remaking their characters from scratch as 2024 while others are keeping them as 2014.
I remember the firs WOTC books coming out, when the first new WOTC PHB hit and the groups that I played with read them and we stopped playing D&D. After that we played various other RPGs but this is why I left D&D in the 90's. 5e was fine the way it was, if you want to play 6e, that's great, but it is a different game and 5e should have a chance to die out on its own. If 6e really is better, let it stand side by side with 5e for a while and let people migrate on their own. Especially since the new books are not entirely out, no 2024 DMG= incomplete system, and I will not buy into a new addition that does not have its own DMG.
I guess you weren't playing between 77 and 80, when we DID play D&D with NO DM Guide. You don't need a complete set to play, and this isn't a completely new edition. It's like 3.5 after 3.0. You can mingle the two, albeit that is easier to do at a table top setting then on Beyond, where some of my players are remaking their characters from scratch as 2024 while others are keeping them as 2014.
There was no "WotC" in 77-80, they got involved in the late 90's 97 i believe. As for it not being a new edition, I will say nothing in D&D history has broken the game as bad as this roll out has. So much doesn't work as it should, and the stuff that does work requires too much effort. The old stuff is muddied and the new is incomplete at best. In the interim we are left with "just make it work" until February, and then if you're lucky we will have something usable for you. Just keep giving us money until we are happy and maybe we will get things sorted so you are too.
This is as far as I got before stopping and adding you to the ignore list. Every single point I made is substantive and was far more than your argument deserved and now, because of your bad faith, blowhard response, you will never get to enjoy me reading whatever blustering you posted after this sentence. It was a waste of your time only, not mine.
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
I guess you weren't playing between 77 and 80, when we DID play D&D with NO DM Guide. You don't need a complete set to play, and this isn't a completely new edition. It's like 3.5 after 3.0. You can mingle the two, albeit that is easier to do at a table top setting then on Beyond, where some of my players are remaking their characters from scratch as 2024 while others are keeping them as 2014.
There was no "WotC" in 77-80, they got involved in the late 90's 97 i believe. As for it not being a new edition, I will say nothing in D&D history has broken the game as bad as this roll out has. So much doesn't work as it should, and the stuff that does work requires too much effort. The old stuff is muddied and the new is incomplete at best. In the interim we are left with "just make it work" until February, and then if you're lucky we will have something usable for you. Just keep giving us money until we are happy and maybe we will get things sorted so you are too.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.