I have seen lots of comments about the UA rules and mechanics but no one seems to have looked at the name given to the improved system.
I like it, it indicates Wizards are moving away from a versioning approach to more of a living system. Games Workshop did this a while back and it has vastly improved the system and allowed them to quickly move to change and improve issues with the rules that crop up creating a better balance. It also helps us all feel that all we own isn’t going to be thrown out and redone
I also like the idea that it binds all DnD together, every campaign going on, published, homebrew and everything else is all part of the same multiverse.
so yea just my thoughts (and no doubt another thing for some people to start complaining about lol)
I think it's dumb, eventually they're going to ship of theseus this thing into a completely different game. I also think the Xbox's are named stupidly, I like my names to have a simple numbered progression
It really depends on what the future holds. If it goes as they seem to envision it, then it's great. If it goes like Windows 10 - supposed to have been the last iteration and then just continual updates, but became just another version - then I'll hate it. I'd have much preferred it be called 6e. I hate the XBoxOne name because it leads to too much confusion because they've named it what the I'd naturally call the original XBox, so it causes confusion - at least in verbal speech.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No matter what Wizards calls it, it will eventually be popularly known as either 5.5e or 6e. They tried to call D&D 5e just "D&D" for years but relented when the popular opinion overruled them.
I don’t mind it as a name for the big push that incorporates not just the rules changes and new books, but also the digital tabletop and etc. I feel that the 2024 set of core rule books should still be called 6e.
I find it almost insulting when companies will avoid going into larger numbers, and instead decide to reorder existing numbers or just skip the numbers and go back to their original titles.
Final fantasy does it well - simple numerical order, and we know what we're getting.
Xbox, then xbox 360, then xbox one (not to be confused with the first xbox, which could be called "xbox 1"). This was bad.
Movies have done it too. Predator, Predator 2 (so far so good), Predators (ok, going a little sideways now), The Predator (ok seriously what's wrong with the number 4?)
I know there are ones which got so far then just went back to their first title. can't think of them offhand.
At any rate, if this is to be the next edition of D&D, then I would much rather see it called "D&D 6th Edition" than "One D&D".
because what happens when they inevitably decide to sell more books? One D&D 2e? Two D&D? One D&D 6e?
And if it does become One D&D 2e, and then people start saying "looking for a good 2e adventure", and then things get muddled. Because numbers exist to unmuddle these things, and "One" is a number, already being used; D&D 1e, or "AD&D".
"One D&D" is just like "D&D Next" - their term for the playtesting project. In official messages they even call it the "project code name."
So after 2024, I seriously doubt it will be called "One D&D" anymore. When it comes out, I'm sure it will likely just be called "D&D" like all of the past editions and updates (other than 2e which was the only one to actually have an edition designation in the logo). So, even though I like the term "One D&D" for the catch all of books + D&D Beyond + VTT, I don't expect it to last beyond playtesting. It's just a temporary nickname to separate "playtest D&D" from currently official D&D.
Two precedents, the only TTRPG titles out there as long lived and continuously lived as D&D are Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. One doesn't I believe put a lot of emphasis on the version of Traveller. I believe what Mongoose puts out is just Traveller, might be wrong. Call of Cthulhu is proudly proclaiming its CoC 7th edition.
D&D has a history of editions and WotC is trying (again, as they did try this with 5th "it's just dungeons and dragons") to do some sort of "year zero" revolution of this being "just dungeons and dragons" but also being obligated to all the traditions of D&D that's come before ... that's actually not the best way to do a year zero revolution.
So I think One D&D is stupid as a name, maybe fine for a laboratory heading but not for the product line. They call it One D&D even though the texts of the rules clearly point out there are many "other" products outside this "one" line with which you can inform your game, it's right there in the discussion of character races. It has a sort of "worked in the presentation to the board" vibe to it.
There's also the myth of stability in "One D&D" which is recycling the same nonsense in the early period of 5e. D&D is a living rule set (how else does WotC continue to engage make money off players who have the core?).
And what will be the shorthand "5e" equivalent for One D&D, I've seen 1D&D and OD&D both of which confuse since they seem to also evoke "1st edition" as well as "old school" neither of which One D&D planned to be.
The mechanics are the mechanics, I'm neither disappointed nor enthusiastic ... which might be the point since it looks like I"ll be able to play my present 5e largely just fine within these rules. But the naming and the roll out, I dunno seems a lotta sound and fury signifying meh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Two precedents, the only TTRPG titles out there as long lived and continuously lived as D&D are Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. One doesn't I believe put a lot of emphasis on the version of Traveller. I believe what Mongoose puts out is just Traveller, might be wrong. Call of Cthulhu is proudly proclaiming its CoC 7th edition.
D&D has a history of editions and WotC is trying (again, as they did try this with 5th "it's just dungeons and dragons") to do some sort of "year zero" revolution of this being "just dungeons and dragons" but also being obligated to all the traditions of D&D that's come before ... that's actually not the best way to do a year zero revolution.
So I think One D&D is stupid as a name, maybe fine for a laboratory heading but not for the product line. They call it One D&D even though the texts of the rules clearly point out there are many "other" products outside this "one" line with which you can inform your game, it's right there in the discussion of character races. It has a sort of "worked in the presentation to the board" vibe to it.
There's also the myth of stability in "One D&D" which is recycling the same nonsense in the early period of 5e. D&D is a living rule set (how else does WotC continue to engage make money off players who have the core?).
And what will be the shorthand "5e" equivalent for One D&D, I've seen 1D&D and OD&D both of which confuse since they seem to also evoke "1st edition" as well as "old school" neither of which One D&D planned to be.
The mechanics are the mechanics, I'm neither disappointed nor enthusiastic ... which might be the point since it looks like I"ll be able to play my present 5e largely just fine within these rules. But the naming and the roll out, I dunno seems a lotta sound and fury signifying meh.
You missed out the world of darkness, which is, and I may be wrong, one of the other long lived systems.
Two precedents, the only TTRPG titles out there as long lived and continuously lived as D&D are Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. One doesn't I believe put a lot of emphasis on the version of Traveller. I believe what Mongoose puts out is just Traveller, might be wrong. Call of Cthulhu is proudly proclaiming its CoC 7th edition.
D&D has a history of editions and WotC is trying (again, as they did try this with 5th "it's just dungeons and dragons") to do some sort of "year zero" revolution of this being "just dungeons and dragons" but also being obligated to all the traditions of D&D that's come before ... that's actually not the best way to do a year zero revolution.
So I think One D&D is stupid as a name, maybe fine for a laboratory heading but not for the product line. They call it One D&D even though the texts of the rules clearly point out there are many "other" products outside this "one" line with which you can inform your game, it's right there in the discussion of character races. It has a sort of "worked in the presentation to the board" vibe to it.
There's also the myth of stability in "One D&D" which is recycling the same nonsense in the early period of 5e. D&D is a living rule set (how else does WotC continue to engage make money off players who have the core?).
And what will be the shorthand "5e" equivalent for One D&D, I've seen 1D&D and OD&D both of which confuse since they seem to also evoke "1st edition" as well as "old school" neither of which One D&D planned to be.
The mechanics are the mechanics, I'm neither disappointed nor enthusiastic ... which might be the point since it looks like I"ll be able to play my present 5e largely just fine within these rules. But the naming and the roll out, I dunno seems a lotta sound and fury signifying meh.
You missed out the world of darkness, which is, and I may be wrong, one of the other long lived systems.
Cyberpunk RED as well. I actually do need to check that out, regardless of how badly CD Projekt RED biffed the launch.
Yeah, I wasn't talking just about "long lived" properties but the longest. I played those games when they were "brand new" and the games I was talking about as contemporaneous with D&D were considered "classics" by then. Cyberpunk (RED is only attached to its present edition, and absolutely check it out) came out in 1988 (I actually played the black boxed set probably more than D&D) Vampire the Masquerade doesn't come out till 1990 (after Ars Magica which was a sort of ancestor to the Storyteller System). Most game histories consider those two titles a different generation, one or two generations after D&D, CoC (1981) and Traveller (1977).
But to the topic at hand I don't particularly mind the next evolution of D&D being called something other than 5.5 or 6e. But I'm not a fan of the pretense behind "One D&D". "One" for the mechanics (which won't remain static, despite pretense) seems to challenge the notion of a (ever expanding) multiverse of lore too.
Of course, speaking of RED, I think this new iteration should actually be called CD PROJEKT D&D 2024 GOLD, but they'll never do that because D&D officially doesn't have a sense of humor unless it's trolling old schoolers ;)
It's a weird name that I think people are missing the point of.
Here in the US we live in One Nation. That's the point of One D&D. It isn't the number so much as the ropes that bind the games together. It's not his D&D and her D&D, where they each play with their own homebrew rules. It's one D&D where most people will play RAW because they're expected to play on their phone and it's just easier for everyone to play One D&D.
Besides that, I'm actually laughing a bit. Wizards of the Coast just hates "sixth edition"s. In Magic: the Gathering it was called Classic. Here we are and we might not get a number again, even though ever since 7th edition, Classic has been called 6th edition, because jumping off the number train is dumb.
It's a weird name that I think people are missing the point of.
Here in the US we live in One Nation. That's the point of One D&D. It isn't the number so much as the ropes that bind the games together. It's not his D&D and her D&D, where they each play with their own homebrew rules. It's one D&D where most people will play RAW because they're expected to play on their phone and it's just easier for everyone to play One D&D.
Besides that, I'm actually laughing a bit. Wizards of the Coast just hates "sixth edition"s. In Magic: the Gathering it was called Classic. Here we are and we might not get a number again, even though ever since 7th edition, Classic has been called 6th edition, because jumping off the number train is dumb.
No, I get that "one D&D" resonance with "one nation" and the pretense of "indivisible". And it's still just that, a pretense, that "everyone" will be playing "one d&d", especially given these play test documents specifically say _some_ players may take character options from _other books_ (like MMM etc). I"m not a branding consultant, but I do argue with them on Zoom, so I feel qualified to say If you're already diluting you're "one" by expressly putting exceptions into your playtest out the gate, your indivisible conceit is already lost and should be abandoned.
You may be onto something about an aversion to the number 6, it's sometimes thought of as a bad or unlucky number, where 7 is associated with look and divinity. But again, I only argue with brand consultants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's a weird name that I think people are missing the point of.
Here in the US we live in One Nation. That's the point of One D&D. It isn't the number so much as the ropes that bind the games together. It's not his D&D and her D&D, where they each play with their own homebrew rules. It's one D&D where most people will play RAW because they're expected to play on their phone and it's just easier for everyone to play One D&D.
Besides that, I'm actually laughing a bit. Wizards of the Coast just hates "sixth edition"s. In Magic: the Gathering it was called Classic. Here we are and we might not get a number again, even though ever since 7th edition, Classic has been called 6th edition, because jumping off the number train is dumb.
No, I get that "one D&D" resonance with "one nation" and the pretense of "indivisible". And it's still just that, a pretense, that "everyone" will be playing "one d&d", especially given these play test documents specifically say _some_ players may take character options from _other books_ (like MMM etc). I"m not a branding consultant, but I do argue with them on Zoom, so I feel qualified to say If you're already diluting you're "one" by expressly putting exceptions into your playtest out the gate, your indivisible conceit is already lost and should be abandoned.
You may be onto something about an aversion to the number 6, it's sometimes thought of as a bad or unlucky number, where 7 is associated with look and divinity. But again, I only argue with brand consultants.
I more meant the part about how their plan is to control how D&D is played in a way D&D isn't supposed to be controlled.
With that said, I 100% agree with your views on brand consulting.
I have seen lots of comments about the UA rules and mechanics but no one seems to have looked at the name given to the improved system.
I like it, it indicates Wizards are moving away from a versioning approach to more of a living system. Games Workshop did this a while back and it has vastly improved the system and allowed them to quickly move to change and improve issues with the rules that crop up creating a better balance. It also helps us all feel that all we own isn’t going to be thrown out and redone
I also like the idea that it binds all DnD together, every campaign going on, published, homebrew and everything else is all part of the same multiverse.
so yea just my thoughts (and no doubt another thing for some people to start complaining about lol)
except it will be a new system...just in the play test, they are doing away with races and subraces. looks to me like they are trying to get rid of halfling all together and it just be a small human. the sophistry and rhetoric sounds great but what its really going to be is a vastly different thing. they don't want to tell everyone that they are making a new system. then the books they have planned for the next two years will tank...why am I going to buy materials that are going to be obsolete in a couple of years?
Whatever the final name is, I do think they will need some indication of version/iteration. While the playtest rules are technically an extension of 5e and are compatible with it, they will be using different rulesets. We see it already with MoM giving us Goblin and Goblin (Legacy). We're going to see an awful lot of duplicates with Legacy tags unless we get a more structured way to refer to content that is technically compatible but has since been replaced/updated.
If someone shows up as a half-elf, are they a half-elf or a half-human, half elf? We will need a way to differentiate.
I have seen lots of comments about the UA rules and mechanics but no one seems to have looked at the name given to the improved system.
I like it, it indicates Wizards are moving away from a versioning approach to more of a living system. Games Workshop did this a while back and it has vastly improved the system and allowed them to quickly move to change and improve issues with the rules that crop up creating a better balance. It also helps us all feel that all we own isn’t going to be thrown out and redone
I also like the idea that it binds all DnD together, every campaign going on, published, homebrew and everything else is all part of the same multiverse.
so yea just my thoughts (and no doubt another thing for some people to start complaining about lol)
I think it's dumb, eventually they're going to ship of theseus this thing into a completely different game. I also think the Xbox's are named stupidly, I like my names to have a simple numbered progression
It really depends on what the future holds. If it goes as they seem to envision it, then it's great. If it goes like Windows 10 - supposed to have been the last iteration and then just continual updates, but became just another version - then I'll hate it. I'd have much preferred it be called 6e. I hate the XBoxOne name because it leads to too much confusion because they've named it what the I'd naturally call the original XBox, so it causes confusion - at least in verbal speech.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Might give this one a miss. I hear the DnD Series X will be coming shortly after the DnD One.
No matter what Wizards calls it, it will eventually be popularly known as either 5.5e or 6e. They tried to call D&D 5e just "D&D" for years but relented when the popular opinion overruled them.
I don’t mind it as a name for the big push that incorporates not just the rules changes and new books, but also the digital tabletop and etc. I feel that the 2024 set of core rule books should still be called 6e.
Like the XBox One - which wasn't the first - and then they produced another version and had to come up with another name.
I find it almost insulting when companies will avoid going into larger numbers, and instead decide to reorder existing numbers or just skip the numbers and go back to their original titles.
Final fantasy does it well - simple numerical order, and we know what we're getting.
Xbox, then xbox 360, then xbox one (not to be confused with the first xbox, which could be called "xbox 1"). This was bad.
Movies have done it too. Predator, Predator 2 (so far so good), Predators (ok, going a little sideways now), The Predator (ok seriously what's wrong with the number 4?)
I know there are ones which got so far then just went back to their first title. can't think of them offhand.
At any rate, if this is to be the next edition of D&D, then I would much rather see it called "D&D 6th Edition" than "One D&D".
because what happens when they inevitably decide to sell more books? One D&D 2e? Two D&D? One D&D 6e?
And if it does become One D&D 2e, and then people start saying "looking for a good 2e adventure", and then things get muddled. Because numbers exist to unmuddle these things, and "One" is a number, already being used; D&D 1e, or "AD&D".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Should be noted that One D&D is the playtest codename, just like how D&D fifth edition went by D&D Next
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"One D&D" is just like "D&D Next" - their term for the playtesting project. In official messages they even call it the "project code name."
So after 2024, I seriously doubt it will be called "One D&D" anymore. When it comes out, I'm sure it will likely just be called "D&D" like all of the past editions and updates (other than 2e which was the only one to actually have an edition designation in the logo). So, even though I like the term "One D&D" for the catch all of books + D&D Beyond + VTT, I don't expect it to last beyond playtesting. It's just a temporary nickname to separate "playtest D&D" from currently official D&D.
Two precedents, the only TTRPG titles out there as long lived and continuously lived as D&D are Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. One doesn't I believe put a lot of emphasis on the version of Traveller. I believe what Mongoose puts out is just Traveller, might be wrong. Call of Cthulhu is proudly proclaiming its CoC 7th edition.
D&D has a history of editions and WotC is trying (again, as they did try this with 5th "it's just dungeons and dragons") to do some sort of "year zero" revolution of this being "just dungeons and dragons" but also being obligated to all the traditions of D&D that's come before ... that's actually not the best way to do a year zero revolution.
So I think One D&D is stupid as a name, maybe fine for a laboratory heading but not for the product line. They call it One D&D even though the texts of the rules clearly point out there are many "other" products outside this "one" line with which you can inform your game, it's right there in the discussion of character races. It has a sort of "worked in the presentation to the board" vibe to it.
There's also the myth of stability in "One D&D" which is recycling the same nonsense in the early period of 5e. D&D is a living rule set (how else does WotC continue to engage make money off players who have the core?).
And what will be the shorthand "5e" equivalent for One D&D, I've seen 1D&D and OD&D both of which confuse since they seem to also evoke "1st edition" as well as "old school" neither of which One D&D planned to be.
The mechanics are the mechanics, I'm neither disappointed nor enthusiastic ... which might be the point since it looks like I"ll be able to play my present 5e largely just fine within these rules. But the naming and the roll out, I dunno seems a lotta sound and fury signifying meh.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You missed out the world of darkness, which is, and I may be wrong, one of the other long lived systems.
Cyberpunk RED as well. I actually do need to check that out, regardless of how badly CD Projekt RED biffed the launch.
Yeah, I wasn't talking just about "long lived" properties but the longest. I played those games when they were "brand new" and the games I was talking about as contemporaneous with D&D were considered "classics" by then. Cyberpunk (RED is only attached to its present edition, and absolutely check it out) came out in 1988 (I actually played the black boxed set probably more than D&D) Vampire the Masquerade doesn't come out till 1990 (after Ars Magica which was a sort of ancestor to the Storyteller System). Most game histories consider those two titles a different generation, one or two generations after D&D, CoC (1981) and Traveller (1977).
But to the topic at hand I don't particularly mind the next evolution of D&D being called something other than 5.5 or 6e. But I'm not a fan of the pretense behind "One D&D". "One" for the mechanics (which won't remain static, despite pretense) seems to challenge the notion of a (ever expanding) multiverse of lore too.
Of course, speaking of RED, I think this new iteration should actually be called CD PROJEKT D&D 2024 GOLD, but they'll never do that because D&D officially doesn't have a sense of humor unless it's trolling old schoolers ;)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's a weird name that I think people are missing the point of.
Here in the US we live in One Nation. That's the point of One D&D. It isn't the number so much as the ropes that bind the games together. It's not his D&D and her D&D, where they each play with their own homebrew rules. It's one D&D where most people will play RAW because they're expected to play on their phone and it's just easier for everyone to play One D&D.
Besides that, I'm actually laughing a bit. Wizards of the Coast just hates "sixth edition"s. In Magic: the Gathering it was called Classic. Here we are and we might not get a number again, even though ever since 7th edition, Classic has been called 6th edition, because jumping off the number train is dumb.
No, I get that "one D&D" resonance with "one nation" and the pretense of "indivisible". And it's still just that, a pretense, that "everyone" will be playing "one d&d", especially given these play test documents specifically say _some_ players may take character options from _other books_ (like MMM etc). I"m not a branding consultant, but I do argue with them on Zoom, so I feel qualified to say If you're already diluting you're "one" by expressly putting exceptions into your playtest out the gate, your indivisible conceit is already lost and should be abandoned.
You may be onto something about an aversion to the number 6, it's sometimes thought of as a bad or unlucky number, where 7 is associated with look and divinity. But again, I only argue with brand consultants.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It screams of a marketing department decision to me...
I more meant the part about how their plan is to control how D&D is played in a way D&D isn't supposed to be controlled.
With that said, I 100% agree with your views on brand consulting.
except it will be a new system...just in the play test, they are doing away with races and subraces. looks to me like they are trying to get rid of halfling all together and it just be a small human. the sophistry and rhetoric sounds great but what its really going to be is a vastly different thing. they don't want to tell everyone that they are making a new system. then the books they have planned for the next two years will tank...why am I going to buy materials that are going to be obsolete in a couple of years?
Whatever the final name is, I do think they will need some indication of version/iteration. While the playtest rules are technically an extension of 5e and are compatible with it, they will be using different rulesets. We see it already with MoM giving us Goblin and Goblin (Legacy). We're going to see an awful lot of duplicates with Legacy tags unless we get a more structured way to refer to content that is technically compatible but has since been replaced/updated.
If someone shows up as a half-elf, are they a half-elf or a half-human, half elf? We will need a way to differentiate.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm