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.
Either that or they just re-release the same content updated for the new ruleset charging each time they do so.
I am not going to say that you should not release new editions or update rulesets, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with looking at what we have currently, looking at what works and what doesn't and trying to improve it, sometimes the changes you make might not hit the mark but that is always the risk you take in trying something new and I think people do need to be more open to trying new things rather than insisting that everything remain static and unchanging, that said I can't say I am particularly fond of the changes made in One D&D and have doubts that Wizard's of the Coast are making these changes with the best of intentions.
I mean we have already seen a number of changes that they wanted to push through that clearly are not in the best interest of the players (OGL 2.0 anyone?) and looking at the content they have released so far (especially the proposed changes to Druid) I can't say it is a ruleset I am excited to play.
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.
Either that or they just re-release the same content updated for the new ruleset charging each time they do so.
I am not going to say that you should not release new editions or update rulesets, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with looking at what we have currently, looking at what works and what doesn't and trying to improve it, sometimes the changes you make might not hit the mark but that is always the risk you take in trying something new and I think people do need to be more open to trying new things rather than insisting that everything remain static and unchanging, that said I can't say I am particularly fond of the changes made in One D&D and have doubts that Wizard's of the Coast are making these changes with the best of intentions.
I mean we have already seen a number of changes that they wanted to push through that clearly are not in the best interest of the players (OGL 2.0 anyone?) and looking at the content they have released so far (especially the proposed changes to Druid) I can't say it is a ruleset I am excited to play.
I just don’t understand people who say stuff like this. It is Playtest. It’s supposed to be different so they can get feedback.
They said in the last video they are looking for ways to move things to “on your turn” which they did with Rogue sneak attack. The results of the survey came in and Rogue was on the 60% range mainly because of sneak attack. So now they know, for sneak attack, the “on your turn” to speed up combat was overshadowed by players wanting the tactical advantages of “on a turn” to sneak attack on OA, readied actions, etc.
If you don’t like where it is headed, put it in the survey. If you just want everything to be the same then there is no point to the playtest and you may just have to stay with 5E
I dOn't know what the hell some folks were doing in 1981, but D&D was entirely a luxury product -- and keep in mind that the term luxury product means anything that isn't essential to survival, basically. It isn't gas, food, house, car, utilities, etc.
All hobbies are that way. No exceptions.
I have been working since I was 8. granted, part time and all that, but it was still work, and I still did it a lot, and so when I see a quote of a person I have blocked say "it was 10 bucks" I laugh my ass off. I was a kid. This book alone was well beyond my means, even as someone who worked:
Just took that photo. That is my original one. I still use it. i *had* to wait for christmas for it. And I was playing for two years before I got it. a year of that as a DM. A module might have been 10 bucks on sale, but not the book.
D&D doesn't require a ton of money to play. Nor is it so unaffordable that no one can do it, and putting out a complete set of rulebooks every five years won't be hanging that. Ever gotten into cars, or sewing, or even doing digital music or video?
there is always a cost of outlay for any hobby. The entire argument about D&D being too pricey in its current formats boils down to one f two things:
ya dont like Wizards and have a grudge
or
ya want something for nothing
and both of those are ridiculous.
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
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.
Either that or they just re-release the same content updated for the new ruleset charging each time they do so.
I am not going to say that you should not release new editions or update rulesets, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with looking at what we have currently, looking at what works and what doesn't and trying to improve it, sometimes the changes you make might not hit the mark but that is always the risk you take in trying something new and I think people do need to be more open to trying new things rather than insisting that everything remain static and unchanging, that said I can't say I am particularly fond of the changes made in One D&D and have doubts that Wizard's of the Coast are making these changes with the best of intentions.
I mean we have already seen a number of changes that they wanted to push through that clearly are not in the best interest of the players (OGL 2.0 anyone?) and looking at the content they have released so far (especially the proposed changes to Druid) I can't say it is a ruleset I am excited to play.
I just don’t understand people who say stuff like this. It is Playtest. It’s supposed to be different so they can get feedback.
Yeah and I have given my feedback, I think the changes suck, not sure what is so hard to figure out?
Of course things could and probably will be different when they release the material officially but even so the rules they have released so far still indicate the general direction they want to go with the ruleset and if this is the direction I am not excited, I can put in my feedback and hope they change course but what they have shown so far does not look promising.
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.
OH NO, buying new core books every 10 years! THE HORROR!
Better?
Every F-E-W years. How many times do you have to completely misrepresent what I am saying?
I am not talking about a new edition every "ten" years. I could not care less if they did that just like I've not cared less in the past when that has happened.
I am talking about them using this whole idea of "One D&D" where it's no longer about editions to put out what is really just an update of 5e and then to put out 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, etcetera, every FEW years.
Better?
So you're complaining about something that hasn't happened in two decades, and even back then you weren't required to buy the new core books because free errata update files and the free SRD existed. I'm not really seeing the cause for hysteria.
I love when people take the “under-monetised” statement out of context and pretend that it implies something that was very clearly disavowed by the interview. It shows that they got the information second hand from an unbiased source and are trying to feign knowledge of business terms whose specific definitions within the world of business they are actually ignorant of, and generally shows they are here to stir up trouble, rather than engage in informed conversation.
Let’s be very clear what was meant by calling D&D under-monetised - it means they are not receiving money from a majority of their players. That’s not some kind of sinister statement - it is just the simple reality of their business. Only about 20% of players actually pay money into D&D - a percentage that has been relatively stagnant even as DMing has become more accessible.
In the context of the meeting where the CEO said the game was “under-monetised”—a presentation to high level investors—the target audience would have understood that. He probably should have used a different term, since it was clear the general public would also see or read the report, clear gaming journalism is full of bad writers who can’t be bothered to explain context, and clear that Wizards’ player base has a long, long history of not understanding technical language and choosing to apply their own interpretations of plain meaning rather than spend ten seconds educating themselves about usage within the specific context.
After acknowledging the reality that their player base was not completely monetised, the execs went on to discuss that the way to increase that monetisation was not “just keep doing what we’re doing and pushing new books all the time.” They explicitly noted that they did not think trying to further squeeze blood from the stone that is the 20% of the players would be an effective mechanism for increasing profits - instead, they stated that they needed to branch out beyond just making rulebooks and create new products for the 80% of the game not presently monetised.
Trying to derive some kind of conspiracy that they are going to try and push a new core set of books from that statement shows a general lack of knowledge of both the statement relied upon and how running a business works.
What we are far more likely to see? A new set of core books, and some supplemental core books released over the years. Which… is exactly what 5e did—you had the main core books, then supplemental core books like Tasha’s or the various monster manuals. And what 4e did. And what D&D has basically been doing since its inception.
Is "One D&D" a new edition of the game or isn't it?
They insist that's it not. But what do you reckon? Is it or isn't it?
If it's not then it's the equivalent of 3.5. Only at least they'll have waited a decade and not just three years to put it out.
What I have said is a theory. Never claimed otherwise. But I can see no easier way for them to try to increase short-term monetization than to tell their most loyal of consumers "Oh this isn't a new edition it's all One D&D right? But here are just some of those shiny new things we've been designing while pissing about with UA instead of showing we're committed to designing quality campaign settings and accessories and often enough and we've even thrown them in some shiny new core rule books for you."
More than a couple of their most loyal of customers in this thread saying they'd be lining up to buy into such a scheme. Don't see you calling them "conspiracy theorists."
Also amazing is the ease with which you insult people and call them "ignorant" provided how spectacularly wrong you were about the OGL and how it was "fake" except until it wasn't.
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.
People don't have to buy new editions or products when they come out. You can always keep playing the old ones.
You don't even have to spend money if you want to play the game. The basic rules are free, and the fact that the Creative Commons are out now means that you can continue playing 5e forever. On top of that, it's always possible to try out materials that cost money by just joining a table where people are willing to let you peruse their books.
WotC is a company and they need money. Of course they are going to give you more products you can buy if you want to. Otherwise, they would be out of business by now. Also, people would have grown tired of 5e eventually and stopped buying products. New editions are really the only reason the game is still here.
It only took one of us to get together the 10 dollars (1e) or 20 dollars (2e) a core rule book or supplement cost at the time. [...] It wasn't always a "luxury product."
Adjusting for inflation, that means that these not luxury prices are in a very similar range as the luxury prices today.
According to the numbers you give, the money you would have to spend for 1e and 2e are as follows when compared to money now:
So there. According to the very numbers you gave, D&D has always been a luxury when you actually evaluate money from the 20th century for how much it's worth now. In 5e, you can get products from around $25 to $49.99, depending on where you look. Yes, D&D has always been a luxury. The very figures you gave proves your own statement wrong.
Your numbers seem to be inflated.
This tired and predictable response about how they are a company and they need to make money is the sort of rhetoric one would expect from the Ben Shapiros of the world and basically excuses all manner of corporate greed. It is a cop-out.
And guess what?
In 2003 when they put out 3.5 people were ******* livid.
No one was pulling out of their arses these excuses just because they were now so in the thrall of the company they believed they could do no wrong in the pursuit of more money for less.
If you honestly don't believe there will be an exodus of players if they put out new core rule books every few years under the banner of "One D&D' then I can see why you're probably goign to be among those who will be lining up to buy them.
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're complaining about something that hasn't happened in two decades, and even back then you weren't required to buy the new core books because free errata update files and the free SRD existed. I'm not really seeing the cause for hysteria.
This is the third time in this thread you've said I'm saying things I'm not saying.
I'm not complaining about something that happened back in 2003. I'm saying I suspect they are going to use the "One D&D" banner to put out periodical equivalents of 3.5 because they can tell people: "This isn't a new edition it's all One D&D remember it's just got some shiny new things in it we've come up with while pissing about UA instead of showing we're capable of producing great campaign settings and great accessories and providing you with them instead!"
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.
Are you really trying to say that Xanthers wasn’t really 5.2 and Tasha’s 5.3?
How were those books not more analogous with Player's Handbook IIof 3.5e?
You could not go through the entire character creation process or know how to play the game with just Xanathar's and Tasha's.
Suggesting they were complete updates to the rules is absurd.
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.
They call it a new edition. 3.5 was not actually called a new edition. It was called 3rd Edition (revised).
They are not calling it a new edition. They have said in response to questions about whether "One D&D" is a new edition that they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
I know very well 3.5 was not considered to be a new edition. It wasn't. That's partially why people were ******* livid when they were expected to buy a whole new set of core rule 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.
You linked figures from 2014, so nearly a decade of inflation left out. Regardless, which of those prices suggests anything other than a luxury item? And again, who, exactly is starving due to a lack of D&D core rules ownership?
It has been explained over and over why people were livid about 3.5. The only connection you have made to 6e is that some people are livid over 6e, too.
And yes, if they run things badly there will be an exodus of players. This is true regardless of the manner of bad management that may occur. Luxury item sellers failing is hardly a new thing in history. However, it is still a luxury product. We will miss it if it is gone, but it is not any sort of necessity of life.
Those figures reflect how much people would have been expected to pay for earlier editions in the year 2014 when 5e was still more expensive than they would have been. It was 150 bucks for a full core rule set then. That decade that's passed is irrelevant. Not to mention: the books back then had stitched binding and were worth more in spite of their costing less.
The connection I have actually made is in the theory they will put out new core rule books every few years and just remind people it's not a new edition because it's all "One D&D" but it now has all those new options their design team dreamt up instead of ... you know ... putting all that time and effort into quality campaign settings or quality accessories like it used to be done?
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.
They call it a new edition. 3.5 was not actually called a new edition. It was called 3rd Edition (revised).
They are not calling it a new edition. They have said in response to questions about whether "One D&D" is a new edition that they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
I know very well 3.5 was not considered to be a new edition. It wasn't. That's partially why people were xxxxxxx livid when they were expected to buy a whole new set of core rule books.
Unlike 3.5e, which they said was a revised version of 3.0 replacing 3.0 (at the cost to players of a full set of books), they are offering 6e as an alternate, 5e compatible set of rules, so not replacing. At least not in the same manner.
AND, rather than doing this after the current edition has been out only a couple years, they are doing this after the current edition has been out a decade.
Those are not trivial differences.
People were livid over 3.5 because it was errata to 3.0 being sold as a replacement edition AND because, frankly, 3.0 was bad enough that said errata was desperately needed. Again, not trivial differences.
Yup. And if and when that next "alternate 5e-compatible set of rules" under the banner of "One D&D" comes out a few years from now? And the following few years? And the following?
Do you reckon then you will get the point I'm trying to make? And stop just pointing out the differences between 3.5e and "6e"?
This is a theory. I might be well and truly wrong. Thing is I'm prepared to admit that. I see little point furiously arguing over it because some find it so soul-destroying to be told Wizbro are greedy.
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.
A for profit corporation that is required by law to essentially be greedy doing exactly that?
What a shock! What a terrifying outcome! What an unexpected thing -- they are doing what they need to do in order to stay in business.
perhaps if some were to put more effort into the task of changing the laws around Corporations and establishing some foundational ethics regarding them than they spend complaining about a particular company they are mad at, things could be a little better.
Me, Imma unsubscribe this thread and go play some D&D.
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
5e is a good edition, and is very accessible and easy to understand, but its not perfect and could use quite a few changes. WOTC are trying to expand and improve it, and I will admit that I am not the biggest fan of One D&D and I think that it is not the direction that it should go to, but I have to agree with others that it is unreasonable to be frustrated by the idea that WOTC might release another edition in the future.
The game has been many iterations, and it will continue to be updated and changed in the future, but if you like 5e, nothing is stopping you from continuing to play 5e. If you come across a problem in your game, look up a solution online, or just homebrew it yourself. You don't need to play WOTC D&D to enjoy the game, and you don't have to do what they tell you to do.
You linked figures from 2014, so nearly a decade of inflation left out. Regardless, which of those prices suggests anything other than a luxury item? And again, who, exactly is starving due to a lack of D&D core rules ownership?
It has been explained over and over why people were livid about 3.5. The only connection you have made to 6e is that some people are livid over 6e, too.
And yes, if they run things badly there will be an exodus of players. This is true regardless of the manner of bad management that may occur. Luxury item sellers failing is hardly a new thing in history. However, it is still a luxury product. We will miss it if it is gone, but it is not any sort of necessity of life.
Those figures reflect how much people would have been expected to pay for earlier editions in the year 2014 when 5e was still more expensive than they would have been. It was 150 bucks for a full core rule set then. That decade that's passed is irrelevant. Not to mention: the books back then had stitched binding and were worth more in spite of their costing less.
The connection I have actually made is in the theory they will put out new core rule books every few years and just remind people it's not a new edition because it's all "One D&D" but it now has all those new options their design team dreamt up instead of ... you know ... putting all that time and effort into quality campaign settings or quality accessories like it used to be done?
You said someone's numbers seemed inflated, i.e. too high. Where were you paying $150 for the core rules? I see $93 for the set. If you are going to cherry pick vendor and date, well... that makes comparisons problematic.
And the stuff they put out 'back in the day' was not all 'top quality.' Rose coloured glasses, sir.
Oh, and for the record, I never bought any settings or modules from 2e through 4e. I had my own developed from 1e and using it or creating new setting from scratch was easy enough for me since then. Not used any 5e settings, either. Just some ideas from a couple. Both are much tougher sells than you seem to think. That was one of the problems TSR seemed to be running into.
93 dollars?.Down from a list price of over 150. And that's on Amazon where generally things are cheaper than in the brick-and-mortar stores.
Never claimed everything was top quality. There was some real drek put out back then too.
And your last point is irrelevant as most of us do that but some of us would still like a good campaign setting or accessory that can compete with something like Planescape.
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.
This is a theory. I might be well and truly wrong. Thing is I'm prepared to admit that. I see little point furiously arguing over it because some find it so soul-destroying to be told Wizbro are greedy.
They are a for profit company selling luxuries. Of course they are greedy. If they price themselves out of the market, then they will fail just as any company doing so fails. If they overextend and try to sell too many things people do not want, they will fail, just as any company doing so fails.
This is not a new thing. This is maybe 2nd year business program stuff. The hard part is finding ways to make decent profits while avoiding said pitfalls, among others.
If you think their products are overpriced, don't buy them. If you don't like their products, regardless of price, seek other products.
There it is again. The tired and predictable excuse-making.
Amazing how other companies can put out a greater variety of things and survive!
But poor Wizbro have no choice but to look into models that just rinse and repeat what they had with 5e because their design team can't design anything beyond periodic UA releases that then apparently warrant new books.
There is a world of difference between a new boxed set hitting the shelves and groups excitedly running games using it and poring over its maps and players just salivating over the next UA release.
It's not like Wizbro can't afford to do that anymore.
They are a multi-billion dollar company now just locking in new customers and fooling them into believing they're deliverying when what they are is lazy and so just trying to make more for less.
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
You linked figures from 2014, so nearly a decade of inflation left out. Regardless, which of those prices suggests anything other than a luxury item? And again, who, exactly is starving due to a lack of D&D core rules ownership?
It has been explained over and over why people were livid about 3.5. The only connection you have made to 6e is that some people are livid over 6e, too.
And yes, if they run things badly there will be an exodus of players. This is true regardless of the manner of bad management that may occur. Luxury item sellers failing is hardly a new thing in history. However, it is still a luxury product. We will miss it if it is gone, but it is not any sort of necessity of life.
Those figures reflect how much people would have been expected to pay for earlier editions in the year 2014 when 5e was still more expensive than they would have been. It was 150 bucks for a full core rule set then. That decade that's passed is irrelevant. Not to mention: the books back then had stitched binding and were worth more in spite of their costing less.
The connection I have actually made is in the theory they will put out new core rule books every few years and just remind people it's not a new edition because it's all "One D&D" but it now has all those new options their design team dreamt up instead of ... you know ... putting all that time and effort into quality campaign settings or quality accessories like it used to be done?
You said someone's numbers seemed inflated, i.e. too high. Where were you paying $150 for the core rules? I see $93 for the set. If you are going to cherry pick vendor and date, well... that makes comparisons problematic.
And the stuff they put out 'back in the day' was not all 'top quality.' Rose coloured glasses, sir.
Oh, and for the record, I never bought any settings or modules from 2e through 4e. I had my own developed from 1e and using it or creating new setting from scratch was easy enough for me since then. Not used any 5e settings, either. Just some ideas from a couple. Both are much tougher sells than you seem to think. That was one of the problems TSR seemed to be running into.
93 dollars?.Down from a list price of over 150. And that's on Amazon where generally things are cheaper than in the brick-and-mortar stores.
Never claimed everything was top quality. There was some real drek put out back then too.
And your last point is irrelevant as most of us do that but some of us would still like a good campaign setting or accessory that can compete with something like Planescape.
For the boxed set rather than buying piecemeal. We don't know how the 2014 figures were priced.
Much as I absolutely love Planescape: Torment as a game, I have never used Sigil as a setting. I have had similar settings long before Planescape was written. And that is my point. When 'most of us do,' (make our own worlds rather than use published settings) then that is indicative of lower demand. For settings, our own imaginations are the competing product.
We've all used homebrew settings and often more so than official ones.
These still sold. They still do.
So if Wizbro shouldn't put out campaign settings anymore because you'd rather use your own just how do you expect they're going to make more money from D&D?
Just packaging UA content into the equivalent of PHB IIs until the end of time?
Telling customers it's all just One D&D and these new core rule books they'll also throw together to incorporate things from those PHB IIs every few years ain't new editions and are perfectly compatible so please spend your money on what you've already got?
Because that sounds like my theory.
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're complaining about something that hasn't happened in two decades, and even back then you weren't required to buy the new core books because free errata update files and the free SRD existed. I'm not really seeing the cause for hysteria.
This is the third time in this thread you've said I'm saying things I'm not saying.
I'm not complaining about something that happened back in 2003. I'm saying I suspect they are going to use the "One D&D" banner to put out periodical equivalents of 3.5 because they can tell people: "This isn't a new edition it's all One D&D remember it's just got some shiny new things in it we've come up with while pissing about UA instead of showing we're capable of producing great campaign settings and great accessories and providing you with them instead!"
And? So what if they do? If you don't like a given product, don't buy it; your existing books won't implode. I don't care whether or not they call any new release a new edition or not, and neither should you - what you should care about is whether you can use enough of it to be worth the cover price. And even then, thanks to DDB, you can literally just buy the bits and pieces you want for much less and ignore the rest.
I skipped 4e because the content was unusable in my 3.5 games, not because they called it a new edition. I bought 3.5 because the content was usable in my 3e games, and eventually migrated wholesale. That's the rational thing to do.
I used the numbers you gave. They are adjusted for modern day inflation, which is why they seem "inflated". You can't just give figures and then say those figures are wrong the second people actually give context and modern day comparisons for + about them
A new edition means new cool stuff and new cool changes.
Either that or they just re-release the same content updated for the new ruleset charging each time they do so.
You can continue playing 5e, then. Wizards can't force you to buy 1DD. Even if you lose your books, then you can still play this edition via the Creative Commons.
Also, most editions have significant changes. We the fans are helping influence the next version of the game via the surveys, so I doubt that it will be exactly like 5e. Regardless, you appear to be concerned about people hypothetically making the next edition of the game in a sloppy and bad way when there is little evidence suggesting that they'll actually do that.
Either that or they just re-release the same content updated for the new ruleset charging each time they do so.
I am not going to say that you should not release new editions or update rulesets, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with looking at what we have currently, looking at what works and what doesn't and trying to improve it, sometimes the changes you make might not hit the mark but that is always the risk you take in trying something new and I think people do need to be more open to trying new things rather than insisting that everything remain static and unchanging, that said I can't say I am particularly fond of the changes made in One D&D and have doubts that Wizard's of the Coast are making these changes with the best of intentions.
I mean we have already seen a number of changes that they wanted to push through that clearly are not in the best interest of the players (OGL 2.0 anyone?) and looking at the content they have released so far (especially the proposed changes to Druid) I can't say it is a ruleset I am excited to play.
I just don’t understand people who say stuff like this. It is Playtest. It’s supposed to be different so they can get feedback.
They said in the last video they are looking for ways to move things to “on your turn” which they did with Rogue sneak attack. The results of the survey came in and Rogue was on the 60% range mainly because of sneak attack. So now they know, for sneak attack, the “on your turn” to speed up combat was overshadowed by players wanting the tactical advantages of “on a turn” to sneak attack on OA, readied actions, etc.
If you don’t like where it is headed, put it in the survey. If you just want everything to be the same then there is no point to the playtest and you may just have to stay with 5E
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I dOn't know what the hell some folks were doing in 1981, but D&D was entirely a luxury product -- and keep in mind that the term luxury product means anything that isn't essential to survival, basically. It isn't gas, food, house, car, utilities, etc.
All hobbies are that way. No exceptions.
I have been working since I was 8. granted, part time and all that, but it was still work, and I still did it a lot, and so when I see a quote of a person I have blocked say "it was 10 bucks" I laugh my ass off. I was a kid. This book alone was well beyond my means, even as someone who worked:
Just took that photo. That is my original one. I still use it. i *had* to wait for christmas for it. And I was playing for two years before I got it. a year of that as a DM. A module might have been 10 bucks on sale, but not the book.
D&D doesn't require a ton of money to play. Nor is it so unaffordable that no one can do it, and putting out a complete set of rulebooks every five years won't be hanging that. Ever gotten into cars, or sewing, or even doing digital music or video?
there is always a cost of outlay for any hobby. The entire argument about D&D being too pricey in its current formats boils down to one f two things:
ya dont like Wizards and have a grudge
or
ya want something for nothing
and both of those are ridiculous.
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
Yeah and I have given my feedback, I think the changes suck, not sure what is so hard to figure out?
Of course things could and probably will be different when they release the material officially but even so the rules they have released so far still indicate the general direction they want to go with the ruleset and if this is the direction I am not excited, I can put in my feedback and hope they change course but what they have shown so far does not look promising.
So you're complaining about something that hasn't happened in two decades, and even back then you weren't required to buy the new core books because free errata update files and the free SRD existed. I'm not really seeing the cause for hysteria.
Are you really trying to say that Xanthers wasn’t really 5.2 and Tasha’s 5.3?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Is "One D&D" a new edition of the game or isn't it?
They insist that's it not. But what do you reckon? Is it or isn't it?
If it's not then it's the equivalent of 3.5. Only at least they'll have waited a decade and not just three years to put it out.
What I have said is a theory. Never claimed otherwise. But I can see no easier way for them to try to increase short-term monetization than to tell their most loyal of consumers "Oh this isn't a new edition it's all One D&D right? But here are just some of those shiny new things we've been designing while pissing about with UA instead of showing we're committed to designing quality campaign settings and accessories and often enough and we've even thrown them in some shiny new core rule books for you."
More than a couple of their most loyal of customers in this thread saying they'd be lining up to buy into such a scheme. Don't see you calling them "conspiracy theorists."
Also amazing is the ease with which you insult people and call them "ignorant" provided how spectacularly wrong you were about the OGL and how it was "fake" except until it wasn't.
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.
Your numbers seem to be inflated.
This tired and predictable response about how they are a company and they need to make money is the sort of rhetoric one would expect from the Ben Shapiros of the world and basically excuses all manner of corporate greed. It is a cop-out.
And guess what?
In 2003 when they put out 3.5 people were ******* livid.
No one was pulling out of their arses these excuses just because they were now so in the thrall of the company they believed they could do no wrong in the pursuit of more money for less.
If you honestly don't believe there will be an exodus of players if they put out new core rule books every few years under the banner of "One D&D' then I can see why you're probably goign to be among those who will be lining up to buy them.
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.
This is the third time in this thread you've said I'm saying things I'm not saying.
I'm not complaining about something that happened back in 2003. I'm saying I suspect they are going to use the "One D&D" banner to put out periodical equivalents of 3.5 because they can tell people: "This isn't a new edition it's all One D&D remember it's just got some shiny new things in it we've come up with while pissing about UA instead of showing we're capable of producing great campaign settings and great accessories and providing you with them instead!"
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.
How were those books not more analogous with Player's Handbook II of 3.5e?
You could not go through the entire character creation process or know how to play the game with just Xanathar's and Tasha's.
Suggesting they were complete updates to the rules is absurd.
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.
They are not calling it a new edition. They have said in response to questions about whether "One D&D" is a new edition that they no longer see the game in terms of editions.
I know very well 3.5 was not considered to be a new edition. It wasn't. That's partially why people were ******* livid when they were expected to buy a whole new set of core rule 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.
Those figures reflect how much people would have been expected to pay for earlier editions in the year 2014 when 5e was still more expensive than they would have been. It was 150 bucks for a full core rule set then. That decade that's passed is irrelevant. Not to mention: the books back then had stitched binding and were worth more in spite of their costing less.
The connection I have actually made is in the theory they will put out new core rule books every few years and just remind people it's not a new edition because it's all "One D&D" but it now has all those new options their design team dreamt up instead of ... you know ... putting all that time and effort into quality campaign settings or quality accessories like it used to be done?
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.
Yup. And if and when that next "alternate 5e-compatible set of rules" under the banner of "One D&D" comes out a few years from now? And the following few years? And the following?
Do you reckon then you will get the point I'm trying to make? And stop just pointing out the differences between 3.5e and "6e"?
This is a theory. I might be well and truly wrong. Thing is I'm prepared to admit that. I see little point furiously arguing over it because some find it so soul-destroying to be told Wizbro are greedy.
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.
GASP!
Oh my good heavens! All my Stars and Garters!
A for profit corporation that is required by law to essentially be greedy doing exactly that?
What a shock! What a terrifying outcome! What an unexpected thing -- they are doing what they need to do in order to stay in business.
perhaps if some were to put more effort into the task of changing the laws around Corporations and establishing some foundational ethics regarding them than they spend complaining about a particular company they are mad at, things could be a little better.
Me, Imma unsubscribe this thread and go play some D&D.
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
5e is a good edition, and is very accessible and easy to understand, but its not perfect and could use quite a few changes. WOTC are trying to expand and improve it, and I will admit that I am not the biggest fan of One D&D and I think that it is not the direction that it should go to, but I have to agree with others that it is unreasonable to be frustrated by the idea that WOTC might release another edition in the future.
The game has been many iterations, and it will continue to be updated and changed in the future, but if you like 5e, nothing is stopping you from continuing to play 5e. If you come across a problem in your game, look up a solution online, or just homebrew it yourself. You don't need to play WOTC D&D to enjoy the game, and you don't have to do what they tell you to do.
93 dollars?.Down from a list price of over 150. And that's on Amazon where generally things are cheaper than in the brick-and-mortar stores.
Never claimed everything was top quality. There was some real drek put out back then too.
And your last point is irrelevant as most of us do that but some of us would still like a good campaign setting or accessory that can compete with something like Planescape.
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.
There it is again. The tired and predictable excuse-making.
Amazing how other companies can put out a greater variety of things and survive!
But poor Wizbro have no choice but to look into models that just rinse and repeat what they had with 5e because their design team can't design anything beyond periodic UA releases that then apparently warrant new books.
There is a world of difference between a new boxed set hitting the shelves and groups excitedly running games using it and poring over its maps and players just salivating over the next UA release.
It's not like Wizbro can't afford to do that anymore.
They are a multi-billion dollar company now just locking in new customers and fooling them into believing they're deliverying when what they are is lazy and so just trying to make more for less.
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.
We've all used homebrew settings and often more so than official ones.
These still sold. They still do.
So if Wizbro shouldn't put out campaign settings anymore because you'd rather use your own just how do you expect they're going to make more money from D&D?
Just packaging UA content into the equivalent of PHB IIs until the end of time?
Telling customers it's all just One D&D and these new core rule books they'll also throw together to incorporate things from those PHB IIs every few years ain't new editions and are perfectly compatible so please spend your money on what you've already got?
Because that sounds like my theory.
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.
And? So what if they do? If you don't like a given product, don't buy it; your existing books won't implode. I don't care whether or not they call any new release a new edition or not, and neither should you - what you should care about is whether you can use enough of it to be worth the cover price. And even then, thanks to DDB, you can literally just buy the bits and pieces you want for much less and ignore the rest.
I skipped 4e because the content was unusable in my 3.5 games, not because they called it a new edition. I bought 3.5 because the content was usable in my 3e games, and eventually migrated wholesale. That's the rational thing to do.
Since this thread is still on page 1 of General Discussion:
I used the numbers you gave. They are adjusted for modern day inflation, which is why they seem "inflated". You can't just give figures and then say those figures are wrong the second people actually give context and modern day comparisons for + about them
You can continue playing 5e, then. Wizards can't force you to buy 1DD. Even if you lose your books, then you can still play this edition via the Creative Commons.
Also, most editions have significant changes. We the fans are helping influence the next version of the game via the surveys, so I doubt that it will be exactly like 5e. Regardless, you appear to be concerned about people hypothetically making the next edition of the game in a sloppy and bad way when there is little evidence suggesting that they'll actually do that.
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.