I wish you guys would stop changing D&D when you already have a great system going with 5th Edition. It's almost like you want to find ways to ruin the game so nobody will want anything more to do with it. What is the matter with you guys and girls? Seriously.
There is nothing forcing you to move to 1D&D. If you want to stick with 5e, then do so.
Like any game, updates and so forth are important. 5e is a good game and I enjoy it, but it's purpose was to recover from 4e, which it has done very well. It's not a perfect game though, and they're trying to improve it. Whether they will succeed or not is another question. New editions are inevitable and will continue until D&D becomes unprofitable.
I'm a little curious about people who seem surprised at the fact we're getting a new edition, though. Did you think that after five editions plus the various other forms...we had hit the pinnacle where no more editions would ever be released until the end of time? Even when I was balancing whether I should invest in D&D, which was before the 1D&D announcement, I was weighing up how long it would be before a new edition was released (I'd guessed right, my estimation was '23/'24), so I'm a little confused as to why there are some who seem wrongfooted by the move to a new edition.
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.
I want more options. Wizards is a business. They sell me more options. It is that simple. You do not like something? Then do not buy it.
This is like complaining about a restaurant offering more options to appeal to more customers. Chill out. Let other customers enjoy their meal.
Serious question: Do you think in order for some option to be used in the game it must be included in a book or in a supplement? It must be official?
In the early days when there were fewer classes and certainly fewer options in print we used to just house rule new classes or variations on those available.
It is ironic how those who crave options but defer to Wizards and have them decide for them what's optional effectively wind up with fewer options than the infinite number of them available to those of us who just build our own classes, our own spells, our own items, etcetera.
To expand on your analogy: One needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. But one can also cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
There is nothing forcing you to move to 1D&D. If you want to stick with 5e, then do so.
Like any game, updates and so forth are important. 5e is a good game and I enjoy it, but it's purpose was to recover from 4e, which it has done very well. It's not a perfect game though, and they're trying to improve it. Whether they will succeed or not is another question. New editions are inevitable and will continue until D&D becomes unprofitable.
I'm a little curious about people who seem surprised at the fact we're getting a new edition, though. Did you think that after five editions plus the various other forms...we had hit the pinnacle where no more editions would ever be released until the end of time? Even when I was balancing whether I should invest in D&D, which was before the 1D&D announcement, I was weighing up how long it would be before a new edition was released (I'd guessed right, my estimation was '23/'24), so I'm a little confused as to why there are some who seem wrongfooted by the move to a new edition.
Well according to Wizards "One D&D" is not a new edition. They have said they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
They and most who play 5e seem more than enough satisfied with 5e to just get in some changes here and some improvements there but ...
Knowing just how much love the system has and how D&D has seen a lot of growth in terms of new players I suspect has them thinking they can pull a 3.5 every few years insisting it's all "One D&D" so it's all essentially the same game—and to be fair it probably will be—but hoping they can still get people to buy new books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
To expand on the anological expansion: Just because one can cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that one should complain about a restaurant offering more menu options. Just because a restaurant offers more menu options does not mean that one must stop cooking and order those. Just because a restaurant offers something one can cook in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that someone can't choose to let the restaurant do it for them. Sometimes, people want something from Milliways just to say it's official Milliways food even if they could make it themselves.
Me? I'm in the camp of WotC has tried over and over to get people to realize they can modify the game to their liking but have come to realize that players just want Milliways-branded stuff regardless, and they'd be fools not to utilize that market.
Could be many reasons someone wants something in print instead of homebrew. I prefer homebrew so far. Let's see if WotC can beat it (but I doubt it for my preferences which are not other people's preferences and there's nothing wrong with that).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To expand on the anological expansion: Just because one can cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that one should complain about a restaurant offering more menu options. Just because a restaurant offers more menu options does not mean that one must stop cooking and order those. Just because a restaurant offers something one can cook in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that someone can't choose to let the restaurant do it for them. Sometimes, people want something from Milliways just to say it's official Milliways food even if they could make it themselves.
Me? I'm in the camp of WotC has tried over and over to get people to realize they can modify the game to their liking but have come to realize that players just want Milliways-branded stuff regardless, and they'd be fools not to utilize that market.
Could be many reasons someone wants something in print instead of homebrew. I prefer homebrew so far. Let's see if WotC can beat it (but I doubt it for my preferences which are not other people's preferences and there's nothing wrong with that).
One hundred percent. I did say one needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. I meant that.
I've also a preference for homebrew but I also see no point in begrudging those who want what's branded. Let them consume and play the game how they want to consume and play it.
I just get the impression some who might be newer to the hobby don't even realize some thing can be played without something official telling them how.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Serious question: Do you think in order for some option to be used in the game it must be included in a book or in a supplement? It must be official?
In the early days when there were fewer classes and certainly fewer options in print we used to just house rule new classes or variations on those available.
It is ironic how those who crave options but defer to Wizards and have them decide for them what's optional effectively wind up with fewer options than the infinite number of them available to those of us who just build our own classes, our own spells, our own items, etcetera.
To expand on your analogy: One needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. But one can also cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen.
I don't think it has to be official to be included, but there is value in the label of "official". Any rule, mechanic, magic item, etc can be an improvement regardless of source, but, in theory at least, official stuff should have been playtested and reasonably balanced (ok, my confidence in them has been shaken as of late, but the principle still somehwat holds). Even if it isn't, I'm very likely to hear about it here on the forums or in an article etc. Compare that to "sunwinksoutforever's Awesome Mod", where I can't be certain of those things. I'd have to put in hours of work, including at least one-shot to test it out and make sure it works well (assuming it's not a minor tweak) to ensure that it doesn't break the game.
Two weeks ago, I did a session zero for my new campaign. The inevitable question of what's allowed came up. All I had to say was "anything in the core rules, expansion rules, MotM or official FR stuff, anything else will be on a case-by-case basis". Clear and well defined rules that are easily summarised.
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.
I don't think it has to be official to be included, but there is value in the label of "official". Any rule, mechanic, magic item, etc can be an improvement regardless of source, but, in theory at least, official stuff should have been playtested and reasonably balanced (ok, my confidence in them has been shaken as of late, but the principle still somehwat holds). Even if it isn't, I'm very likely to hear about it here on the forums or in an article etc. Compare that to "sunwinksoutforever's Awesome Mod", where I can't be certain of those things. I'd have to put in hours of work, including at least one-shot to test it out and make sure it works well (assuming it's not a minor tweak) to ensure that it doesn't break the game.
Two weeks ago, I did a session zero for my new campaign. The inevitable question of what's allowed came up. All I had to say was "anything in the core rules, expansion rules, MotM or official FR stuff, anything else will be on a case-by-case basis". Clear and well defined rules that are easily summarised.
We all do that. No one is just letting players bring their own inventions to a game. It's just some of us allow players to then negotiate things and we might house-rule to allow for those things if we please. That has been happening at tables for decades.
When we do allow a player to tweak or to come up with a class feature or spell for example or we ourselves do and see how that goes we are then playtesting that class feature or spell for our own games. I'm not here trying to sell you or anyone else my "awesome mod" but if my players and I want to do that and use such things in our games we will. We don't need your permission to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
I don't think it has to be official to be included, but there is value in the label of "official". Any rule, mechanic, magic item, etc can be an improvement regardless of source, but, in theory at least, official stuff should have been playtested and reasonably balanced (ok, my confidence in them has been shaken as of late, but the principle still somehwat holds). Even if it isn't, I'm very likely to hear about it here on the forums or in an article etc. Compare that to "sunwinksoutforever's Awesome Mod", where I can't be certain of those things. I'd have to put in hours of work, including at least one-shot to test it out and make sure it works well (assuming it's not a minor tweak) to ensure that it doesn't break the game.
Two weeks ago, I did a session zero for my new campaign. The inevitable question of what's allowed came up. All I had to say was "anything in the core rules, expansion rules, MotM or official FR stuff, anything else will be on a case-by-case basis". Clear and well defined rules that are easily summarised.
We all do that. No one is just letting players bring their own inventions to a game. It's just some of us allow players to then negotiate things and we might house-rule to allow for those things if we please. That has been happening at tables for decades.
When we do allow a player to tweak or to come up with a class feature or spell for example or we ourselves do and see how that goes we are then playtesting that class feature or spell for our own games. I'm not here trying to sell you or anyone else my "awesome mod" but if my players and I want to do that and use such things in our games we will. We don't need your permission to do so.
You clearly didn't understand what was being said.
I was saying that having the "official" label is valuable to people because it makes things easier. I believe I was pretty clear on that. No one, not me or anyone else on this thread, said that you had to have my or anyone else's permission to use homebrew at your own table. I mean, literally my first sentence explicitly said otherwise.
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.
You clearly didn't understand what was being said.
I was saying that having the "official" label is valuable to people because it makes things easier. I believe I was pretty clear on that. No one, not me or anyone else on this thread, said that you had to have my or anyone else's permission to use homebrew at your own table. I mean, literally my first sentence explicitly said otherwise.
If you just wanted to say it makes things easier for people if something is put in an official book you could have just say that.
I suppose it does. And certainly for those newer to the hobby who might "break the game" if they don't know what they're doing.
Why even say you can't be sure if someone else's homebrew class features or spells or whatever are things you could trust you could use at your table when any such things at your table are probably going to be of your invention meaning you'd have had to decide they were balanced or whatever?
Short of published third-party content or things shared on blogs or in threads or whatever it makes no sense to be talking about how you can't trust what others are doing.
You were responding to a post in which I asked someone if they were aware that they could come up with options of their own. Not use mine. Or anyone else's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
I wish you guys would stop changing D&D when you already have a great system going with 5th Edition. It's almost like you want to find ways to ruin the game so nobody will want anything more to do with it. What is the matter with you guys and girls? Seriously.
So, you want to have your flip phone in one pocket and an iPod in another? That was a perfectly good system. Tech companies have shown us, if you don’t innovate, someone else will. Its better for you to make yourself obsolete than let someone else do it to you.
And while we’re at it, 1e was also a perfectly good system. Or at least we all thought so at them time. But, boy, am I glad they kept coming up with new ones. It’s just an edition change. It wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
5e is a good system, but it is not a “great system”. It lacks a number of customisation options for characters and becomes increasingly linear (particularly for martial characters) as the game progresses. For many characters, the only real choice is going to be your subclass—after that, the game makes a lot of the decisions for you. There are also other fundamental problems, like how healers can’t really keep up with comparable monster damage output, making it often better to let someone drop to zero and then heal, rather than try to keep them in the positives.
It can use improvements, and a lot of what OneD&D is looking to do would be keeping the things that work for 5e, while making improvements on the things that do not.
You know there's still games playing AD&D, 3rd and other older editions of D&D and even new stuff still gets made on those systems?
If you prefer the older editions - which are still available to get, even in digital form, on DMs Guild and are still being played and still having people make new stuff for - you can just play those.
For some people 5th Edition isn't for them - it's not the ruleset they like and they might enjoy the One D&D stuff more. So, why ***** and moan?
If people want to play One D&D, they can. If people prefer to stick with 5th Edition, they can. If people prefer to stick with 4th Edition they can. and so on.
And then there are people who basically make their own system by mixing rules from every edition.
D&D is one of the most successful TTRPG franchises in the world for precisely this reason. It's easy to play the way you want to. New editions and stuff come out to provide more options for your ease but they are all completely optional.
And given 5th and even One D&D Basic Rules will all be free - it's not like you even have to pay anything at all to play either one. So seriously, what in the holy fluffballs are you moaning about?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
So seriously, what in the holy fluffballs are you moaning about?
A pet peeve of mine on these forums is seeing Thread creators with barely any posts to their name posting outrage that they have actually no interest in having a discussion on; they just want to rant and then leave. Now of course, that doesn't apply to every thread created by a forum newbie, but it is a fairly common thing that occurs.
Before investing time into addressing any rants, a good practise is to look at the post history of an individual - do they have barely 10 posts? Do they seem to pop up to interact in the forums once a year?
I've learned to ask myself 'is someone going to answer you in good faith, or is your time going to waste?' before committing to an informative response.
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
There is nothing forcing you to move to 1D&D. If you want to stick with 5e, then do so.
Like any game, updates and so forth are important. 5e is a good game and I enjoy it, but it's purpose was to recover from 4e, which it has done very well. It's not a perfect game though, and they're trying to improve it. Whether they will succeed or not is another question. New editions are inevitable and will continue until D&D becomes unprofitable.
I'm a little curious about people who seem surprised at the fact we're getting a new edition, though. Did you think that after five editions plus the various other forms...we had hit the pinnacle where no more editions would ever be released until the end of time? Even when I was balancing whether I should invest in D&D, which was before the 1D&D announcement, I was weighing up how long it would be before a new edition was released (I'd guessed right, my estimation was '23/'24), so I'm a little confused as to why there are some who seem wrongfooted by the move to a new edition.
Well according to Wizards "One D&D" is not a new edition. They have said they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
They and most who play 5e seem more than enough satisfied with 5e to just get in some changes here and some improvements there but ...
Knowing just how much love the system has and how D&D has seen a lot of growth in terms of new players I suspect has them thinking they can pull a 3.5 every few years insisting it's all "One D&D" so it's all essentially the same game—and to be fair it probably will be—but hoping they can still get people to buy new books.
Oh no, not more books! The horror!! 😛
Sarcasm aside, I think that whether they consider it a "new edition" or not is besides the point. I don't actually care how they market it. What matters to me is simple - will there be new stuff I like, and can I mix and match the best parts of 5e and 1DnD in my home games without too much trouble? If the answer is yes, then as far as I'm concerned they've succeeded.
I wish you guys would stop changing D&D when you already have a great system going with 5th Edition. It's almost like you want to find ways to ruin the game so nobody will want anything more to do with it. What is the matter with you guys and girls? Seriously.
A new edition means new cool stuff and new cool changes. A good system can always be made better, because nothing is perfect.
Anyways, you can always keep playing the edition you love. We can't play a version of the game that hasn't been made or released.
Other people have already given some great examples, but I would like to point out that we wouldn't have 5e, or even D&D in general, if people didn't build off and improve systems that were held in high regard. Chainmail came out before D&D, and it was quite successful for it's genre. Gygax and Arneson used some of the rules, systems, and ideas from Chainmail for D&D, and the game changed and evolved over the years to give us what we have now.
If people back then had been alright with "good enough", then we wouldn't have what we have today. I personally am excited to see what awesome new ideas will make it into 1DD, and how the framework of the game will be modified, expanded, and improved upon (if all goes well).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Given that 1D&D is going to be an iterative version of 5e (perhaps 5.5), it will ultimately affect all existing campaigns operated through here and on linked sites/VTTs. I find this most fascinating, myself.
Players who rely on digital space stuff will be impacted more strongly than those who do not -- and that will be an ongoing challenge for many. I wonder if there is any Open Source VTT systems out there available yet for folks to use with their own settings.
Actually, let me do a quick google search on that...
There are several of them. So those could be used by folks who desire to step away from any kind of directly tie stuff and preserve their own systems.
But those who don't will be updated. DDB will be updated. So it is worthwhile to note that if the new features undercut existing stuff and are not pleasing to a some people, well, that's the way it will go.
Claims that they are ruining the game are a bridge too far, lol, however, and I don't say that lightly; I hated 3 and 3.5. I was disapproving of 4. I find 5e overly simplistic and unbalanced. But 5e is fun, and I can work with it, whereas I could not do so previously (and really, I blame late stage 2e for a lot of that).
I run games that are not going to fly with the whole 5e DDB system. Even if I were to *try* to stick to the core features here, It wouldn't work. So for me, the concerns about all of that are meaningless, and I will just keep doing what I do and stay abreast because zi like new ideas, new ways, new things. And I am aware that how I like to do things is not a mainstream idea, although far too many here seem to think that they are.
Especially humorous to me because D&D's design team are not mainstream folks, lol.
One D&D will be good or it won't -- and Wizards is more than able to blink back if they screw it up, but this is why these playtesting and so forth releases are important, and also why participating in them matters -- and the thing that complainers should do is get more people involved in playtesting them. People outside their groups, people who don't visit DDB, people who may not know that DDB exists.
Because the more information they get from more people, the better the end result will be to the extent possible following the lowest common denominator aspect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sarcasm aside, I think that whether they consider it a "new edition" or not is besides the point. I don't actually care how they market it. What matters to me is simple - will there be new stuff I like, and can I mix and match the best parts of 5e and 1DnD in my home games without too much trouble? If the answer is yes, then as far as I'm concerned they've succeeded.
Reread the post to which you are responding: It isn't referring to "more books" as in just that single upgrade from 5e to "One D&D." It is referring to "more books" as in new core rule books to be purchased every few years if they go that route where they're expecting their customers to buy an update in the vein of 3.5 that is essentially the same game but incorporating enough new and even warranted changes and improvements to then ostensibly warrant new books.
Wasn't talking about One D&D like it's gonna be some new books in 2024. Was talking about the possibility they see the market there for people who would buy new core rule books every few years if they can spin it as "it's still the same game because it's all One D&D but here's an upgrade."
That seems a very likely possibility given their talk of just how "under-monetized" the brand is despite the game being as popular as ever and how well they likely know some people are so brand loyal they won't even use anything in their games unless it has their stamp of approval.
One core rule book costs as much as 50 bucks. Even more.
When you could theoretically buy any one edition of the game and play for a lifetime and they know this it would be grossly mercenary of them to do this.
It's always exciting when a new edition hits the shelves. But if they do start putting out new core rule books every few years anyone who was there when they did this within three years of one another in the early 2000s and saw the cries of money grab then knows how it is going to play out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
So, you want to have your flip phone in one pocket and an iPod in another? That was a perfectly good system. Tech companies have shown us, if you don’t innovate, someone else will. Its better for you to make yourself obsolete than let someone else do it to you.
And while we’re at it, 1e was also a perfectly good system. Or at least we all thought so at them time. But, boy, am I glad they kept coming up with new ones. It’s just an edition change. It wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
Some still play AD&D and some still find it a vastly superior system. CBR ran an article just 6 or 7 weeks ago with its author making the case for why he considers it to be a much better game than 5e:
It's a game and it's a matter of preference and you can't act like one edition is objectively better than the other.
Does that mean those who own the brand shouldn't redesign the game and bring out a new edition of it every ten or so years? Of course not. I think most players look forward to that.
But "new" doesn't automatically mean "better." Something that should be obvious in a world where some "innovations" have had disastrous consequences for environment, for society, etcetera. if you're going to use analogies using technology.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wish you guys would stop changing D&D when you already have a great system going with 5th Edition. It's almost like you want to find ways to ruin the game so nobody will want anything more to do with it. What is the matter with you guys and girls? Seriously.
I want more options. Wizards is a business. They sell me more options. It is that simple. You do not like something? Then do not buy it.
This is like complaining about a restaurant offering more options to appeal to more customers. Chill out. Let other customers enjoy their meal.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
There is nothing forcing you to move to 1D&D. If you want to stick with 5e, then do so.
Like any game, updates and so forth are important. 5e is a good game and I enjoy it, but it's purpose was to recover from 4e, which it has done very well. It's not a perfect game though, and they're trying to improve it. Whether they will succeed or not is another question. New editions are inevitable and will continue until D&D becomes unprofitable.
I'm a little curious about people who seem surprised at the fact we're getting a new edition, though. Did you think that after five editions plus the various other forms...we had hit the pinnacle where no more editions would ever be released until the end of time? Even when I was balancing whether I should invest in D&D, which was before the 1D&D announcement, I was weighing up how long it would be before a new edition was released (I'd guessed right, my estimation was '23/'24), so I'm a little confused as to why there are some who seem wrongfooted by the move to a new edition.
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.
Serious question: Do you think in order for some option to be used in the game it must be included in a book or in a supplement? It must be official?
In the early days when there were fewer classes and certainly fewer options in print we used to just house rule new classes or variations on those available.
It is ironic how those who crave options but defer to Wizards and have them decide for them what's optional effectively wind up with fewer options than the infinite number of them available to those of us who just build our own classes, our own spells, our own items, etcetera.
To expand on your analogy: One needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. But one can also cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Well according to Wizards "One D&D" is not a new edition. They have said they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
They and most who play 5e seem more than enough satisfied with 5e to just get in some changes here and some improvements there but ...
Knowing just how much love the system has and how D&D has seen a lot of growth in terms of new players I suspect has them thinking they can pull a 3.5 every few years insisting it's all "One D&D" so it's all essentially the same game—and to be fair it probably will be—but hoping they can still get people to buy new books.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
To expand on the anological expansion: Just because one can cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that one should complain about a restaurant offering more menu options. Just because a restaurant offers more menu options does not mean that one must stop cooking and order those. Just because a restaurant offers something one can cook in one's own kitchen doesn't mean that someone can't choose to let the restaurant do it for them. Sometimes, people want something from Milliways just to say it's official Milliways food even if they could make it themselves.
Me? I'm in the camp of WotC has tried over and over to get people to realize they can modify the game to their liking but have come to realize that players just want Milliways-branded stuff regardless, and they'd be fools not to utilize that market.
Could be many reasons someone wants something in print instead of homebrew. I prefer homebrew so far. Let's see if WotC can beat it (but I doubt it for my preferences which are not other people's preferences and there's nothing wrong with that).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
One hundred percent. I did say one needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. I meant that.
I've also a preference for homebrew but I also see no point in begrudging those who want what's branded. Let them consume and play the game how they want to consume and play it.
I just get the impression some who might be newer to the hobby don't even realize some thing can be played without something official telling them how.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
I don't think it has to be official to be included, but there is value in the label of "official". Any rule, mechanic, magic item, etc can be an improvement regardless of source, but, in theory at least, official stuff should have been playtested and reasonably balanced (ok, my confidence in them has been shaken as of late, but the principle still somehwat holds). Even if it isn't, I'm very likely to hear about it here on the forums or in an article etc. Compare that to "sunwinksoutforever's Awesome Mod", where I can't be certain of those things. I'd have to put in hours of work, including at least one-shot to test it out and make sure it works well (assuming it's not a minor tweak) to ensure that it doesn't break the game.
Two weeks ago, I did a session zero for my new campaign. The inevitable question of what's allowed came up. All I had to say was "anything in the core rules, expansion rules, MotM or official FR stuff, anything else will be on a case-by-case basis". Clear and well defined rules that are easily summarised.
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.
We all do that. No one is just letting players bring their own inventions to a game. It's just some of us allow players to then negotiate things and we might house-rule to allow for those things if we please. That has been happening at tables for decades.
When we do allow a player to tweak or to come up with a class feature or spell for example or we ourselves do and see how that goes we are then playtesting that class feature or spell for our own games. I'm not here trying to sell you or anyone else my "awesome mod" but if my players and I want to do that and use such things in our games we will. We don't need your permission to do so.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
You clearly didn't understand what was being said.
I was saying that having the "official" label is valuable to people because it makes things easier. I believe I was pretty clear on that. No one, not me or anyone else on this thread, said that you had to have my or anyone else's permission to use homebrew at your own table. I mean, literally my first sentence explicitly said otherwise.
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.
If you just wanted to say it makes things easier for people if something is put in an official book you could have just say that.
I suppose it does. And certainly for those newer to the hobby who might "break the game" if they don't know what they're doing.
Why even say you can't be sure if someone else's homebrew class features or spells or whatever are things you could trust you could use at your table when any such things at your table are probably going to be of your invention meaning you'd have had to decide they were balanced or whatever?
Short of published third-party content or things shared on blogs or in threads or whatever it makes no sense to be talking about how you can't trust what others are doing.
You were responding to a post in which I asked someone if they were aware that they could come up with options of their own. Not use mine. Or anyone else's.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
So, you want to have your flip phone in one pocket and an iPod in another? That was a perfectly good system. Tech companies have shown us, if you don’t innovate, someone else will. Its better for you to make yourself obsolete than let someone else do it to you.
And while we’re at it, 1e was also a perfectly good system. Or at least we all thought so at them time. But, boy, am I glad they kept coming up with new ones. It’s just an edition change. It wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
It can use improvements, and a lot of what OneD&D is looking to do would be keeping the things that work for 5e, while making improvements on the things that do not.
You know there's still games playing AD&D, 3rd and other older editions of D&D and even new stuff still gets made on those systems?
If you prefer the older editions - which are still available to get, even in digital form, on DMs Guild and are still being played and still having people make new stuff for - you can just play those.
For some people 5th Edition isn't for them - it's not the ruleset they like and they might enjoy the One D&D stuff more. So, why ***** and moan?
If people want to play One D&D, they can.
If people prefer to stick with 5th Edition, they can.
If people prefer to stick with 4th Edition they can.
and so on.
And then there are people who basically make their own system by mixing rules from every edition.
D&D is one of the most successful TTRPG franchises in the world for precisely this reason. It's easy to play the way you want to. New editions and stuff come out to provide more options for your ease but they are all completely optional.
And given 5th and even One D&D Basic Rules will all be free - it's not like you even have to pay anything at all to play either one. So seriously, what in the holy fluffballs are you moaning about?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
A pet peeve of mine on these forums is seeing Thread creators with barely any posts to their name posting outrage that they have actually no interest in having a discussion on; they just want to rant and then leave. Now of course, that doesn't apply to every thread created by a forum newbie, but it is a fairly common thing that occurs.
Before investing time into addressing any rants, a good practise is to look at the post history of an individual - do they have barely 10 posts? Do they seem to pop up to interact in the forums once a year?
I've learned to ask myself 'is someone going to answer you in good faith, or is your time going to waste?' before committing to an informative response.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Oh no, not more books! The horror!! 😛
Sarcasm aside, I think that whether they consider it a "new edition" or not is besides the point. I don't actually care how they market it. What matters to me is simple - will there be new stuff I like, and can I mix and match the best parts of 5e and 1DnD in my home games without too much trouble? If the answer is yes, then as far as I'm concerned they've succeeded.
A new edition means new cool stuff and new cool changes. A good system can always be made better, because nothing is perfect.
Anyways, you can always keep playing the edition you love. We can't play a version of the game that hasn't been made or released.
Other people have already given some great examples, but I would like to point out that we wouldn't have 5e, or even D&D in general, if people didn't build off and improve systems that were held in high regard. Chainmail came out before D&D, and it was quite successful for it's genre. Gygax and Arneson used some of the rules, systems, and ideas from Chainmail for D&D, and the game changed and evolved over the years to give us what we have now.
If people back then had been alright with "good enough", then we wouldn't have what we have today. I personally am excited to see what awesome new ideas will make it into 1DD, and how the framework of the game will be modified, expanded, and improved upon (if all goes well).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Given that 1D&D is going to be an iterative version of 5e (perhaps 5.5), it will ultimately affect all existing campaigns operated through here and on linked sites/VTTs. I find this most fascinating, myself.
Players who rely on digital space stuff will be impacted more strongly than those who do not -- and that will be an ongoing challenge for many. I wonder if there is any Open Source VTT systems out there available yet for folks to use with their own settings.
Actually, let me do a quick google search on that...
There are several of them. So those could be used by folks who desire to step away from any kind of directly tie stuff and preserve their own systems.
But those who don't will be updated. DDB will be updated. So it is worthwhile to note that if the new features undercut existing stuff and are not pleasing to a some people, well, that's the way it will go.
Claims that they are ruining the game are a bridge too far, lol, however, and I don't say that lightly; I hated 3 and 3.5. I was disapproving of 4. I find 5e overly simplistic and unbalanced. But 5e is fun, and I can work with it, whereas I could not do so previously (and really, I blame late stage 2e for a lot of that).
I run games that are not going to fly with the whole 5e DDB system. Even if I were to *try* to stick to the core features here, It wouldn't work. So for me, the concerns about all of that are meaningless, and I will just keep doing what I do and stay abreast because zi like new ideas, new ways, new things. And I am aware that how I like to do things is not a mainstream idea, although far too many here seem to think that they are.
Especially humorous to me because D&D's design team are not mainstream folks, lol.
One D&D will be good or it won't -- and Wizards is more than able to blink back if they screw it up, but this is why these playtesting and so forth releases are important, and also why participating in them matters -- and the thing that complainers should do is get more people involved in playtesting them. People outside their groups, people who don't visit DDB, people who may not know that DDB exists.
Because the more information they get from more people, the better the end result will be to the extent possible following the lowest common denominator aspect.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Reread the post to which you are responding: It isn't referring to "more books" as in just that single upgrade from 5e to "One D&D." It is referring to "more books" as in new core rule books to be purchased every few years if they go that route where they're expecting their customers to buy an update in the vein of 3.5 that is essentially the same game but incorporating enough new and even warranted changes and improvements to then ostensibly warrant new books.
Wasn't talking about One D&D like it's gonna be some new books in 2024. Was talking about the possibility they see the market there for people who would buy new core rule books every few years if they can spin it as "it's still the same game because it's all One D&D but here's an upgrade."
That seems a very likely possibility given their talk of just how "under-monetized" the brand is despite the game being as popular as ever and how well they likely know some people are so brand loyal they won't even use anything in their games unless it has their stamp of approval.
One core rule book costs as much as 50 bucks. Even more.
When you could theoretically buy any one edition of the game and play for a lifetime and they know this it would be grossly mercenary of them to do this.
It's always exciting when a new edition hits the shelves. But if they do start putting out new core rule books every few years anyone who was there when they did this within three years of one another in the early 2000s and saw the cries of money grab then knows how it is going to play out.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Some still play AD&D and some still find it a vastly superior system. CBR ran an article just 6 or 7 weeks ago with its author making the case for why he considers it to be a much better game than 5e:
One of Dungeon & Dragons' Oldest Iterations Remains Its Best
It's a game and it's a matter of preference and you can't act like one edition is objectively better than the other.
Does that mean those who own the brand shouldn't redesign the game and bring out a new edition of it every ten or so years? Of course not. I think most players look forward to that.
But "new" doesn't automatically mean "better." Something that should be obvious in a world where some "innovations" have had disastrous consequences for environment, for society, etcetera. if you're going to use analogies using technology.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.