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.
I'm not complaining about options. You can have all the options you want. What options in this game are you really missing that they need to change the version number or rewrite the full rules every 5-10 years?
They have not changed the version number; 1D&D is still 5e. They have not rewrote the rules either: 1D&D UA is not even official, and the rule within are presented as modular options. And even if 1D&D UA did make it to official publication, they are not going to make the new rules to be the only way to play the game and throw out the old rules. If anything, the new rules will be additional options.
I want more elves, spells, magic items, and spelljammers. I can obviously homebrew them, but having them in official publication makes things easier, as official books are the lingua franca between everyone at the table. I also want rules and guidance on eliminating the class and subclass system (i.e.: break them into individual class and subclass features to mix and match), have vehicle/ship combat rules (GOS did not provide much, and S:AIS did not really give us any), have mass combat rules (we have it in UA, but not officially published), etc.
Gary Gygax would literally flip his lid if he saw what they did from 2nd Edition to 4th and then had to find people that could try to fix it back with 5. I'd rather WOTC just give it to the public than having to please stockholders every year by changing all the game rules. You don't see Hasbro or Mattel doing that crap with their boardgames. Monopoly has several iterations but it's still the same CORE RULES.
I rather have Wizards own the IP to D&D. They are actually the only ones who have the resources and skill to grow the TTRPG hobby, and to do that, they need to monetize D&D. Everyone else in the industry is piggybacking off of Wizards' effort. Paizo cannot even offer decent competition, let alone grow the hobby. All other third party companies are completely incompetent at drawing new people into the hobby. And Wizards did put the SRD in Creative Commons, so I am not sure what you are complaining about.
I do not think Monopoly is a good comparison. While I know way more people who have tried Monopoly compared to D&D, I have only met one person who said they do not mind playing Monopoly, everyone else I know hates it. While not many people I know have tried D&D, I know more people who like D&D than liking Monopoly. All this is just anecdotal evidence of course, but I highly doubt Monopoly has the same passionate fan base that D&D does. If Monopoly was your first boardgame, sure, it might be fine. But the more experience you have with different boardgames, the more Monopoly will taste like complete utter trash, and if you are like most people, you will stop playing it.
Risk has LOTS of variations and editions. Even in the most basic version of Risk, there are quite a few optional rules that have been added over the years. As fun as Risk is, I do not remember the last time I played the basic version, it is just too boring compared to so many newer versions. The Risk version that I actually have and play from time to time is Risk: Europe.
There are also lots of variations and editions for Axis and Allies, and I personally have three. I have only played 1941 once by myself and I did not even finish it. I have 1940 Global, but I do not think I will ever play it physically, since it just takes way too long, but you bet I will play it digitally once they release it. Even though I know I will probably never play them, I do plan to buy 1914, 1942 (the original version, technically in its second edition, but fifth edition if you count all the other spinoff editions), and Zombies.
I also played a lot of Betrayal at House on the Hill, which is in its third edition. I have the first edition and its expansion, but I do plan to eventually get the second and third edition once I have tried out most of the haunts in the first edition, but that is going to take a while.
1D&D UA and 5e also share the same core rules. Hell, the rules are so modular and flexible that you can easily use old races with UA backgrounds and get two sets of ASIs if you want to. And even if they call 1D&D a brand new separate edition from 5e, they are still compatible with each other, so I really do not see what the issue is since the underlying mechanics are all the same. And if you really want a static edition of D&D, you can pick any edition of D&D and play just that. Hell, you can even pick 5e in its most virgin state and use only the Basic Rules that has like only four classes. No one is forcing you to play differently than what you want to play.
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.
Yes. That's how most games work. You write the rules and release the game. It's the same game on store shelves for years. If you update the game, you improve on it maybe 20-30 years later and you don't go backwards...to where you have to fix it with another edition.
You can't compare 5e with chess or monopoly. The complexity of the rules means it needs to be tweaked and altered because there is no objective pinnacle, unlike simpler games. It's funny that you mention monopoly though, how many sets of rules are there now? I'm not talking about the various settings where they simply swap out the place names, but where there are different rules. Off the top of my head, there are the standard rules, extended version, Deal, Cheaters and Sore Losers. I'm sure there are more, as well.
Ignoring monopoly, for games on the complexity level of D&D...that's not how it works, you don't get a single version. Warhammer 40k, for example, came out in '87 and is about to release its tenth edition. That's an edition every 3.5 years. That would be like three editions in the time that 5e lasted, and 5e is still going to be living for another 5-10 years.
5e will still be valid next year. I don't mean that in a technical but unsatisfying way of the books still being in your bookshelf - there will still be adventures released that you can play with using 5e.
As I said though, D&D has never sat on the shelf, remaining the same, for 20 let alone 30 years. Literally, the longest it's gone without some kind of update or new version or something like that being released is...6 years.
It will have been 10 years between updates, which is almost double the previous record and over double the average for D&D. It's really not been rushed. I'm still really confused why anyone would think that 5e would be the ultimate version of D&D and would never have an update or be replaced? It was the working assumption for me when I bought into the game. I knew it would be updated soon...and l decided it was better to just get started than to wait for a new one.
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.
Monopoly didn't have magazines, published by the game's publisher, offering monthly suggested modifications to the rules either. Some of which would eventually be produced as "official rules", and then groups would decide whether such Unearthed Arcana could charge into their games like a band of OP cavaliers and barbarians.
I miss the old Dragon Magazine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I rather have Wizards own the IP to D&D. They are actually the only ones who have the resources and skill to grow the TTRPG hobby, and to do that, they need to monetize D&D. Everyone else in the industry is piggybacking off of Wizards' effort. Paizo cannot even offer decent competition, let alone grow the hobby. All other third party companies are completely incompetent at drawing new people into the hobby. And Wizards did put the SRD in Creative Commons, so I am not sure what you are complaining about.
In the early- to mid- nineties large record labels who had money to burn and who saw the rise and rise of death metal added a number of death metal bands to their rosters. These bands could then boast high-end production and whatnot. But they became garbage. Their music was drained of character and the speed and aggression that made them so good.
That in my opinion is what Wizards have done and continue to do with the brand. It's no longer the same game. It's like a once and former death metal band that now plays alternative rock releasing albums under the same name just to piggyback off of their once and former glory.
Your statement about "everyone else in the industry" piggybacking off Wizards' effort is false.
Most OSR games use as their template versions of the game produced before Wizards bought TSR. Some might be taking the SRD and homebrewing it to the point it is no longer recognizably Wizards' game in order to capture that old-school charm but their hardly dependent on how well Wizards are doing and particularly going forward as few if any are going to make use of the revisions to the rules coming out next year.
Only Wizards of the Coast have the "skill" to grow the hobby? Take off the rose-colored glasses.
It's not Wizards who dominate awards. No book they have produced for the hobby in the past fifteen years can remotely compare to things put out by companies like Free League Publishing, Goodman Games, Mythmere Games, Necrotic Gnome, or even the tiniest of publishers like Lost Pages. Wizards have all the money in the world. But next to zero talent on which to spend it.
EDIT: A regular bookstore in Tokyo that used to stock imported English-language table-top role-playing games was much more greatly committed to supporting Pathfinder and stocking its rulebooks and supplements than they were D&D. The localized Japanese-language edition of Call of Cthulhu is much more popular here than that of D&D. Most in the hobby here are inclined to play domestic table-top role-playing games like Sword World. In Europe Swedish table-top role-playing games perform well. They have done so since the early 1980s. Wizards dominate the market in the English-speaking world. And that's not going to change anytime soon. But let's not pretend there isn't a whole world of role-playing beyond those tables that only play Wizards' game.
Gary Gygax would literally flip his lid if he saw what they did from 2nd Edition to 4th and then had to find people that could try to fix it back with 5.
People love to invoke Gygax's name despite the fact that A) He wasn't nearly as good of a person as some make him out to be and B) We don't know what he would actually believe if he were here now.
I'd rather WOTC just give it to the public than having to please stockholders every year by changing all the game rules. You don't see Hasbro or Mattel doing that crap with their boardgames. Monopoly has several iterations but it's still the same CORE RULES.
New editions don't come out "every year"; We've had 5e for 10 times as long as that, Also, Monopoly and games like it are not RPGs and are far less complex. Due to this, they have far less room for improvement and mechanics that don''t work that need to be fixed. Again, you do not have to switch to the new edition and you will not suffer for not doing so. I find the frustration that is rampant in this thread against improvement and modifications that help others to be quite upsetting. You are hardly being hurt by edition changes at all, since you can continue to play whatever version of the game you want.
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.
Were official D&D to be taken in a direction you did not approve of would you be as stoic as you expect others to be?
Just shrug and go and play whatever your preferred edition might be?
It's easy to tell others to do that when you're among those satisfied with Wizards' handling of the brand.
No one is saying that anyone has to shut up (least not if they're not being jerks about it et, which is a different issue). I'm not overly happy with what WotC is doing. I complain about it occasionally. The difference is that I've thought about what's happening, considered whether my complaints are valid, thought about whether the solutions are feasible and I'm generally reasonable in my discussion of those concerns. Complaining about another version (not edition) when we're on something like the 14th version, closing what also happens to be the longest lasting version in the history of D&D? When editions are the standard in the industry? When there's no pressure to have to use the updated rules (as opposed to when we went to 5e from 4e where if players wanted new adventures from WotC, they had to get the new rules)?
They're not complaining about how WotC is doing things. They're complaining about a central feature of the game. Which is fine. We're all allowed to have things we don't like about the game. But given that there isn't any pressure to update, they're a parallel set of rules which they can use or not, as they desire...then it really doesn't feel like they've actually thought through what's wrong. I'm not even sure what's wrong, because there doesn't seem to be a downside.
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.
Gary Gygax would literally flip his lid if he saw what they did from 2nd Edition to 4th and then had to find people that could try to fix it back with 5.
People love to invoke Gygax's name despite the fact that A) He wasn't nearly as good of a person as some make him out to be and B) We don't know what he would actually believe if he were here now.
Actually, we know exactly what Gary Gygax thought of modern D&D, he was a regular poster on Dragonfoot forums, and answered direct questions and all of those questions and answers are still available for everyone to read today.
Short answer, he didn't actually like modern D&D at all, actually, he didn't care much even for his own 1st edition AD&D. He actually preferred and played Castles & Crusades, that was his game of choice.
As for whether he was a good person or not... meh... people today as very judgy, it says more about them than it does about the people they judge.
In the early- to mid- nineties large record labels who had money to burn and who saw the rise and rise of death metal added a number of death metal bands to their rosters. These bands could then boast high-end production and whatnot. But they became garbage. Their music was drained of character and the speed and aggression that made them so good.
That in my opinion is what Wizards have done and continue to do with the brand. It's no longer the same game. It's like a once and former death metal band that now plays alternative rock releasing albums under the same name just to piggyback off of their once and former glory.
1D&D UA is still the same game as 5e. They are still compatible with each other. There is nothing stopping anyone from mixing and matching official and UA races, backgrounds, and classes. I have not played any other editions, but I heard 5e is pretty close to previous 3e. 4e was a bit different, but it is still recognizable as D&D.
Your statement about "everyone else in the industry" piggybacking off Wizards' effort is false.
It's not Wizards who dominate awards. No book they have produced for the hobby in the past fifteen years can remotely compare to things put out by companies like Free League Publishing, Goodman Games, Mythmere Games, Necrotic Gnome, or even the tiniest of publishers like Lost Pages. Wizards have all the money in the world. But next to zero talent on which to spend it.
Nope, this part is very true. Third parties are absolutely riding off the backs of Wizards directly. Third parties made a big stink about the OGL, because they do not think they can survive without it being free to use. If they actually had their shit together, they would not care what happened to Wizards' IP, because they know they can design products that stand on their own two feet.
And everyone in the industry, including Paizo, are riding off of Wizards marketing budget. D&D is the gateway game to TTRPGs. Paizo at best could only retain players during the 4e era, they certainly do not have the resources to draw people in like Wizards can. Wizards is the only company in the industry to have the resources to not just market their game, but expand the market and hobby. I have never even heard of Paizo and Pathfinder until I started doing research on D&D, so yeah, I am quite certain in my assessment that nobody besides Wizards have the skill and resources to expand the audience pool.
I do not think Monopoly is under Wizards directly, but hell, Monopoly manages to more money than D&D despite being a more hated game. If Hasbro can make more money selling a hated game like Monopoly than from a well loved D&D, and third parties cannot even manage to sell their products without whining about the OGL, no one is going to be convinced that third parties have the skill and resources to grow the market. I am not the one with rose tinted glasses here.
EDIT: A regular bookstore in Tokyo that used to stock imported English-language table-top role-playing games was much more greatly committed to supporting Pathfinder and stocking its rulebooks and supplements than they were D&D. The localized Japanese-language edition of Call of Cthulhu is much more popular here than that of D&D. Most in the hobby here are inclined to play domestic table-top role-playing games like Sword World. In Europe Swedish table-top role-playing games perform well. They have done so since the early 1980s. Wizards dominate the market in the English-speaking world. And that's not going to change anytime soon. But let's not pretend there isn't a whole world of role-playing beyond those tables that only play Wizards' game.
There is a whole world of TTRPGs outside of D&D, but we should not pretend that any of them can rival D&D in scale. I do not think even all other TTRPGs combined can rival D&D. Sure, D&D might not top every countries' list, but on a global scale, D&D is at the very top.
They're not complaining about how WotC is doing things. They're complaining about a central feature of the game. Which is fine. We're all allowed to have things we don't like about the game. But given that there isn't any pressure to update, they're a parallel set of rules which they can use or not, as they desire...then it really doesn't feel like they've actually thought through what's wrong. I'm not even sure what's wrong, because there doesn't seem to be a downside.
Exactly this. I ******* hate the concept of classes and subclasses, which is central to not just the game, but the entire genre, but I am not going to complain about Wizards adding more and more classes and subclasses. I want Wizards to add more options, even if it is options like classes and subclasses, which I do not really care too much about. If I am going to complain, I will complain about Wizards not offering me a system to break classes and subclasses down to its individual features to freely mix and match.
Nobody has to like the direction 5e is going, but no one is forcing anybody to follow that direction either. Just pick 5e at a point in time in the past that you like and freeze 5e there. Hell, 5e is so flexible and modular you can mix and match which books and even individual optional rules you want to use, and even mechanics from other games. If a person likes the PHB, XGTE, and MP:MOTM, but dislikes TCOE, they do not have to allow TCOE or all the books published before MP:MOTM.
Short answer, he didn't actually like modern D&D at all, actually, he didn't care much even for his own 1st edition AD&D. He actually preferred and played Castles & Crusades, that was his game of choice.
Which you will note was a far less successful game than D&D. The reality is that Gygax was not the end-all be-all of RPG designers; plenty of people improved on his ideas.
Short answer, he didn't actually like modern D&D at all, actually, he didn't care much even for his own 1st edition AD&D. He actually preferred and played Castles & Crusades, that was his game of choice.
Which you will note was a far less successful game than D&D. The reality is that Gygax was not the end-all be-all of RPG designers; plenty of people improved on his ideas.
Gygax & Arneson aren't famous for being great designers, they are famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years. Without them, the so-called "RPG Designers" who created nothing, would have nothing to improve upon. Any Tom Dick and Harry can take someone else's idea and design, point out all the mistakes and find ways to improve it. Standing on the shoulders of genius, taking credit for it and being a critic of the work you stole to create your own work, hell that is the easy part.
Castle's and Crusades may not be as economically successful as modern D&D, but since 2004 when it was released, every book released for it is compatible with everything that came before and the game is flawless and relentlessly dedicated to ensuring it always executes on its design goals. WotC is still trying to figure out what D&D is and isn't after 20+ years of owning the franchise. The design goals of C&C might not be as marketable as the D&D (Mcdonald's style) sales pitch, but C&C is a way better game mechanically than anything WotC could ever hope to produce.
Gygax isn't famous for being a great designer, he is famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years.
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
Gygax isn't famous for being a great designer, he is famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years.
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
He wasn't even the first to put together the specific mix in D&D. Gygax brought the wargaming and rules part to the system, but Dave Arneson was the one who came up with the "but what if we use the system not just for making another wargame, but making a way of telling stories together through roleplaying" element that actually created D&D. Gygax later forced Arneson out of the company and rewrote the game's history to take credit for Arneson's critically important, genera-defining contribution because, in addition to being the kind of person who very intentionally included his pro-eugenics, anti-non-Western-European views into the game, he also was a bad friend.
Gygax's views on the subject should be completely irrelevant. He was the king of gatekeeping in a game that is filled with gatekeeping, and the rules reflected a level of needless complexity which kept the game from growing or appealing to more casual players. 5e was very much reactionary against the pointless complexity of prior editions and very clearly was designed for something that still had the nostalgia of classic D&D (in a way 4e did not) without being something a player could intuitively grasp with just a few minutes learning.
Which, of course, is why we are getting something new next year--in a lot of ways, 5e went a bit too far in removing complexity where it should not (player options are fairly limited and character creation is extremely linear after the first couple choices) while not going far enough in other areas (they are streamlining things like monster stat blocks--for most of 5e, you needed to flip between the monster and looking up that monster's spells which might be spread across different pages or entire books, making DMing in pen and paper harder than it needs to be).
It is clear Wizards is, overall, finally happy with the base idea of the edition--so happy they are not going to be releasing an entirely new edition. They are going to add an (optional) patch to 5e which shores up 5e's flaws while keeping the things players actually like about the edition intact. As someone who has lived through edition changes before, I'm extremely happy about that--I am glad we are going to get something that addresses known flaws, without rendering all purchased content invalid. That's great--and far better for both the game and the customer than the industry standard of a completely new edition.
Gygax isn't famous for being a great designer, he is famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years.
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
Revisionist history is an ugly thing. Wargames were not Roleplaying game, no one role-played before D&D. Your trying to discredit Gygax and Arnesons contributions to fit your own narrative.
No one is suggesting anyone use any version of the game, I don't know where you are pulling that from. The point made was that Gygax is famous for being a great designer, which was a false statement. He is famous for being the god father of role-playing games, an indisputable, objective fact. If you disagree with it, you are objectively wrong the same you would be if you claimed 1+1 is 7.
Arneson is an important figure in the creation of D&D but the reality is that he produced next to nothing. He was an idea man, a visionary, but he had no motivation to do any actual work. Gygax wrote D&D almost exclusively on his own. Most of Arnesons notes were essentially scrap paper ideas of which virtually none actually made it into the actual final product that was released. He was a crap writer, adventures with his name on it are universally known as the worst adventures ever written for D&D which include hack jobs like Temple of the Frog, Adventures in Blackmoor and City of the Gods.
Not saying he doesn't belong in the history of D&D, but accrediting him for creating D&D is a bit like giving credit to Columbus for discovering America.
Gygax isn't famous for being a great designer, he is famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years.
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
He wasn't even the first to put together the specific mix in D&D. Gygax brought the wargaming and rules part to the system, but Dave Arneson was the one who came up with the "but what if we use the system not just for making another wargame, but making a way of telling stories together through roleplaying" element that actually created D&D. Gygax later forced Arneson out of the company and rewrote the game's history to take credit for Arneson's critically important, genera-defining contribution because, in addition to being the kind of person who very intentionally included his pro-eugenics, anti-non-Western-European views into the game, he also was a bad friend.
Gygax's views on the subject should be completely irrelevant. He was the king of gatekeeping in a game that is filled with gatekeeping, and the rules reflected a level of needless complexity which kept the game from growing or appealing to more casual players. 5e was very much reactionary against the pointless complexity of prior editions and very clearly was designed for something that still had the nostalgia of classic D&D (in a way 4e did not) without being something a player could intuitively grasp with just a few minutes learning.
Which, of course, is why we are getting something new next year--in a lot of ways, 5e went a bit too far in removing complexity where it should not (player options are fairly limited and character creation is extremely linear after the first couple choices) while not going far enough in other areas (they are streamlining things like monster stat blocks--for most of 5e, you needed to flip between the monster and looking up that monster's spells which might be spread across different pages or entire books, making DMing in pen and paper harder than it needs to be).
It is clear Wizards is, overall, finally happy with the base idea of the edition--so happy they are not going to be releasing an entirely new edition. They are going to add an (optional) patch to 5e which shores up 5e's flaws while keeping the things players actually like about the edition intact. As someone who has lived through edition changes before, I'm extremely happy about that--I am glad we are going to get something that addresses known flaws, without rendering all purchased content invalid. That's great--and far better for both the game and the customer than the industry standard of a completely new edition.
You are giving way too much credit to Arneson and way too little to Gygax. Arneson effectively put together some notes on scrap paper for Gygax who spent years developing and writing the game while begging Dave for help he never got. When the game was released and became popular, Dave sued him for Royalties while continually making a total of 0 contributions to actual products. Neither Dave or Gygax were saints, but Gygax was the only one that ever actually produced something. Having an idea means exactly jack and shit, any actual adult knows that.
No one is suggesting that 1e AD&D was somehow perfect or some sort of revelation as compared to modern RPG mechanics that have the luxury of standing on the shoulders of decades of experience, but Gygax spent years developing a game on which there was little to actually compare it to. He invented something and this, not his game design skills is what he is famous for.
In the early- to mid- nineties large record labels who had money to burn and who saw the rise and rise of death metal added a number of death metal bands to their rosters. These bands could then boast high-end production and whatnot. But they became garbage. Their music was drained of character and the speed and aggression that made them so good.
That in my opinion is what Wizards have done and continue to do with the brand. It's no longer the same game. It's like a once and former death metal band that now plays alternative rock releasing albums under the same name just to piggyback off of their once and former glory.
1D&D UA is still the same game as 5e. They are still compatible with each other. There is nothing stopping anyone from mixing and matching official and UA races, backgrounds, and classes. I have not played any other editions, but I heard 5e is pretty close to previous 3e. 4e was a bit different, but it is still recognizable as D&D.
Your statement about "everyone else in the industry" piggybacking off Wizards' effort is false.
It's not Wizards who dominate awards. No book they have produced for the hobby in the past fifteen years can remotely compare to things put out by companies like Free League Publishing, Goodman Games, Mythmere Games, Necrotic Gnome, or even the tiniest of publishers like Lost Pages. Wizards have all the money in the world. But next to zero talent on which to spend it.
Nope, this part is very true. Third parties are absolutely riding off the backs of Wizards directly. Third parties made a big stink about the OGL, because they do not think they can survive without it being free to use. If they actually had their shit together, they would not care what happened to Wizards' IP, because they know they can design products that stand on their own two feet.
And everyone in the industry, including Paizo, are riding off of Wizards marketing budget. D&D is the gateway game to TTRPGs. Paizo at best could only retain players during the 4e era, they certainly do not have the resources to draw people in like Wizards can. Wizards is the only company in the industry to have the resources to not just market their game, but expand the market and hobby. I have never even heard of Paizo and Pathfinder until I started doing research on D&D, so yeah, I am quite certain in my assessment that nobody besides Wizards have the skill and resources to expand the audience pool.
I do not think Monopoly is under Wizards directly, but hell, Monopoly manages to more money than D&D despite being a more hated game. If Hasbro can make more money selling a hated game like Monopoly than from a well loved D&D, and third parties cannot even manage to sell their products without whining about the OGL, no one is going to be convinced that third parties have the skill and resources to grow the market. I am not the one with rose tinted glasses here.
EDIT: A regular bookstore in Tokyo that used to stock imported English-language table-top role-playing games was much more greatly committed to supporting Pathfinder and stocking its rulebooks and supplements than they were D&D. The localized Japanese-language edition of Call of Cthulhu is much more popular here than that of D&D. Most in the hobby here are inclined to play domestic table-top role-playing games like Sword World. In Europe Swedish table-top role-playing games perform well. They have done so since the early 1980s. Wizards dominate the market in the English-speaking world. And that's not going to change anytime soon. But let's not pretend there isn't a whole world of role-playing beyond those tables that only play Wizards' game.
There is a whole world of TTRPGs outside of D&D, but we should not pretend that any of them can rival D&D in scale. I do not think even all other TTRPGs combined can rival D&D. Sure, D&D might not top every countries' list, but on a global scale, D&D is at the very top.
I was not talking about the transition from 5th ed. to "One D&D."
How is that "very true" of game designers who don't even use Wizards' intellectual property? Are you aware of how little Wizards actually own? They own the name of the game. And they own a list of terms. Nothing more. They do not own the rules. That is very true. And you didn't respond to my point about how Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Off the work of TSR employees. Off the commitment to the hobby from those of us who have been playing for decades.
Are you saying if a megacorporation has wealth and influence enough to maintain a stranglehold on an industry and outperform others in terms of reach and earnings this must mean what they do is better than what their competitors are doing? Or is it only Wizards that who have achieved this magical status that suddenly sees capitalism as a rose gardens for all involved?
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
Read Jon Peterson's histories of table-top role-playing games.
These are heavily researched academic texts in the field of game studies.
What you are doing is revisionism.
FWIW: Jon Peterson even goes into the influence of wargames and the like on the development of role-playing games. His heftiest tome is around 700 pages in length and has a bibliography stretching to 30 pages. This study even talks about chess and other strategy games. Peterson has a whole book about the disaster that was the management of TSR and that of the relationship between Gygax and Arneson. He still acknowledges and respects their contribution to the hobby. Without them this site would not exist. You would be elsewhere playing video games.
I will listen to the person who has written the most comprehensive and definitive histories on the development of the hobby. Not people consumed by hatred for Gygax.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They have not changed the version number; 1D&D is still 5e. They have not rewrote the rules either: 1D&D UA is not even official, and the rule within are presented as modular options. And even if 1D&D UA did make it to official publication, they are not going to make the new rules to be the only way to play the game and throw out the old rules. If anything, the new rules will be additional options.
I want more elves, spells, magic items, and spelljammers. I can obviously homebrew them, but having them in official publication makes things easier, as official books are the lingua franca between everyone at the table. I also want rules and guidance on eliminating the class and subclass system (i.e.: break them into individual class and subclass features to mix and match), have vehicle/ship combat rules (GOS did not provide much, and S:AIS did not really give us any), have mass combat rules (we have it in UA, but not officially published), etc.
I rather have Wizards own the IP to D&D. They are actually the only ones who have the resources and skill to grow the TTRPG hobby, and to do that, they need to monetize D&D. Everyone else in the industry is piggybacking off of Wizards' effort. Paizo cannot even offer decent competition, let alone grow the hobby. All other third party companies are completely incompetent at drawing new people into the hobby. And Wizards did put the SRD in Creative Commons, so I am not sure what you are complaining about.
I do not think Monopoly is a good comparison. While I know way more people who have tried Monopoly compared to D&D, I have only met one person who said they do not mind playing Monopoly, everyone else I know hates it. While not many people I know have tried D&D, I know more people who like D&D than liking Monopoly. All this is just anecdotal evidence of course, but I highly doubt Monopoly has the same passionate fan base that D&D does. If Monopoly was your first boardgame, sure, it might be fine. But the more experience you have with different boardgames, the more Monopoly will taste like complete utter trash, and if you are like most people, you will stop playing it.
Risk has LOTS of variations and editions. Even in the most basic version of Risk, there are quite a few optional rules that have been added over the years. As fun as Risk is, I do not remember the last time I played the basic version, it is just too boring compared to so many newer versions. The Risk version that I actually have and play from time to time is Risk: Europe.
There are also lots of variations and editions for Axis and Allies, and I personally have three. I have only played 1941 once by myself and I did not even finish it. I have 1940 Global, but I do not think I will ever play it physically, since it just takes way too long, but you bet I will play it digitally once they release it. Even though I know I will probably never play them, I do plan to buy 1914, 1942 (the original version, technically in its second edition, but fifth edition if you count all the other spinoff editions), and Zombies.
I also played a lot of Betrayal at House on the Hill, which is in its third edition. I have the first edition and its expansion, but I do plan to eventually get the second and third edition once I have tried out most of the haunts in the first edition, but that is going to take a while.
1D&D UA and 5e also share the same core rules. Hell, the rules are so modular and flexible that you can easily use old races with UA backgrounds and get two sets of ASIs if you want to. And even if they call 1D&D a brand new separate edition from 5e, they are still compatible with each other, so I really do not see what the issue is since the underlying mechanics are all the same. And if you really want a static edition of D&D, you can pick any edition of D&D and play just that. Hell, you can even pick 5e in its most virgin state and use only the Basic Rules that has like only four classes. No one is forcing you to play differently than what you want to play.
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 >
You can't compare 5e with chess or monopoly. The complexity of the rules means it needs to be tweaked and altered because there is no objective pinnacle, unlike simpler games. It's funny that you mention monopoly though, how many sets of rules are there now? I'm not talking about the various settings where they simply swap out the place names, but where there are different rules. Off the top of my head, there are the standard rules, extended version, Deal, Cheaters and Sore Losers. I'm sure there are more, as well.
Ignoring monopoly, for games on the complexity level of D&D...that's not how it works, you don't get a single version. Warhammer 40k, for example, came out in '87 and is about to release its tenth edition. That's an edition every 3.5 years. That would be like three editions in the time that 5e lasted, and 5e is still going to be living for another 5-10 years.
5e will still be valid next year. I don't mean that in a technical but unsatisfying way of the books still being in your bookshelf - there will still be adventures released that you can play with using 5e.
As I said though, D&D has never sat on the shelf, remaining the same, for 20 let alone 30 years. Literally, the longest it's gone without some kind of update or new version or something like that being released is...6 years.
It will have been 10 years between updates, which is almost double the previous record and over double the average for D&D. It's really not been rushed. I'm still really confused why anyone would think that 5e would be the ultimate version of D&D and would never have an update or be replaced? It was the working assumption for me when I bought into the game. I knew it would be updated soon...and l decided it was better to just get started than to wait for a new one.
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.
Monopoly didn't have magazines, published by the game's publisher, offering monthly suggested modifications to the rules either. Some of which would eventually be produced as "official rules", and then groups would decide whether such Unearthed Arcana could charge into their games like a band of OP cavaliers and barbarians.
I miss the old Dragon Magazine.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
In the early- to mid- nineties large record labels who had money to burn and who saw the rise and rise of death metal added a number of death metal bands to their rosters. These bands could then boast high-end production and whatnot. But they became garbage. Their music was drained of character and the speed and aggression that made them so good.
That in my opinion is what Wizards have done and continue to do with the brand. It's no longer the same game. It's like a once and former death metal band that now plays alternative rock releasing albums under the same name just to piggyback off of their once and former glory.
Your statement about "everyone else in the industry" piggybacking off Wizards' effort is false.
Most OSR games use as their template versions of the game produced before Wizards bought TSR. Some might be taking the SRD and homebrewing it to the point it is no longer recognizably Wizards' game in order to capture that old-school charm but their hardly dependent on how well Wizards are doing and particularly going forward as few if any are going to make use of the revisions to the rules coming out next year.
Only Wizards of the Coast have the "skill" to grow the hobby? Take off the rose-colored glasses.
It's not Wizards who dominate awards. No book they have produced for the hobby in the past fifteen years can remotely compare to things put out by companies like Free League Publishing, Goodman Games, Mythmere Games, Necrotic Gnome, or even the tiniest of publishers like Lost Pages. Wizards have all the money in the world. But next to zero talent on which to spend it.
EDIT: A regular bookstore in Tokyo that used to stock imported English-language table-top role-playing games was much more greatly committed to supporting Pathfinder and stocking its rulebooks and supplements than they were D&D. The localized Japanese-language edition of Call of Cthulhu is much more popular here than that of D&D. Most in the hobby here are inclined to play domestic table-top role-playing games like Sword World. In Europe Swedish table-top role-playing games perform well. They have done so since the early 1980s. Wizards dominate the market in the English-speaking world. And that's not going to change anytime soon. But let's not pretend there isn't a whole world of role-playing beyond those tables that only play Wizards' game.
People love to invoke Gygax's name despite the fact that A) He wasn't nearly as good of a person as some make him out to be and B) We don't know what he would actually believe if he were here now.
New editions don't come out "every year"; We've had 5e for 10 times as long as that, Also, Monopoly and games like it are not RPGs and are far less complex. Due to this, they have far less room for improvement and mechanics that don''t work that need to be fixed. Again, you do not have to switch to the new edition and you will not suffer for not doing so. I find the frustration that is rampant in this thread against improvement and modifications that help others to be quite upsetting. You are hardly being hurt by edition changes at all, since you can continue to play whatever version of the game you want.
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.No one is saying that anyone has to shut up (least not if they're not being jerks about it et, which is a different issue). I'm not overly happy with what WotC is doing. I complain about it occasionally. The difference is that I've thought about what's happening, considered whether my complaints are valid, thought about whether the solutions are feasible and I'm generally reasonable in my discussion of those concerns. Complaining about another version (not edition) when we're on something like the 14th version, closing what also happens to be the longest lasting version in the history of D&D? When editions are the standard in the industry? When there's no pressure to have to use the updated rules (as opposed to when we went to 5e from 4e where if players wanted new adventures from WotC, they had to get the new rules)?
They're not complaining about how WotC is doing things. They're complaining about a central feature of the game. Which is fine. We're all allowed to have things we don't like about the game. But given that there isn't any pressure to update, they're a parallel set of rules which they can use or not, as they desire...then it really doesn't feel like they've actually thought through what's wrong. I'm not even sure what's wrong, because there doesn't seem to be a downside.
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.
Actually, we know exactly what Gary Gygax thought of modern D&D, he was a regular poster on Dragonfoot forums, and answered direct questions and all of those questions and answers are still available for everyone to read today.
Short answer, he didn't actually like modern D&D at all, actually, he didn't care much even for his own 1st edition AD&D. He actually preferred and played Castles & Crusades, that was his game of choice.
As for whether he was a good person or not... meh... people today as very judgy, it says more about them than it does about the people they judge.
1D&D UA is still the same game as 5e. They are still compatible with each other. There is nothing stopping anyone from mixing and matching official and UA races, backgrounds, and classes. I have not played any other editions, but I heard 5e is pretty close to previous 3e. 4e was a bit different, but it is still recognizable as D&D.
Nope, this part is very true. Third parties are absolutely riding off the backs of Wizards directly. Third parties made a big stink about the OGL, because they do not think they can survive without it being free to use. If they actually had their shit together, they would not care what happened to Wizards' IP, because they know they can design products that stand on their own two feet.
And everyone in the industry, including Paizo, are riding off of Wizards marketing budget. D&D is the gateway game to TTRPGs. Paizo at best could only retain players during the 4e era, they certainly do not have the resources to draw people in like Wizards can. Wizards is the only company in the industry to have the resources to not just market their game, but expand the market and hobby. I have never even heard of Paizo and Pathfinder until I started doing research on D&D, so yeah, I am quite certain in my assessment that nobody besides Wizards have the skill and resources to expand the audience pool.
I do not think Monopoly is under Wizards directly, but hell, Monopoly manages to more money than D&D despite being a more hated game. If Hasbro can make more money selling a hated game like Monopoly than from a well loved D&D, and third parties cannot even manage to sell their products without whining about the OGL, no one is going to be convinced that third parties have the skill and resources to grow the market. I am not the one with rose tinted glasses here.
There is a whole world of TTRPGs outside of D&D, but we should not pretend that any of them can rival D&D in scale. I do not think even all other TTRPGs combined can rival D&D. Sure, D&D might not top every countries' list, but on a global scale, D&D is at the very top.
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 >
Exactly this. I ******* hate the concept of classes and subclasses, which is central to not just the game, but the entire genre, but I am not going to complain about Wizards adding more and more classes and subclasses. I want Wizards to add more options, even if it is options like classes and subclasses, which I do not really care too much about. If I am going to complain, I will complain about Wizards not offering me a system to break classes and subclasses down to its individual features to freely mix and match.
Nobody has to like the direction 5e is going, but no one is forcing anybody to follow that direction either. Just pick 5e at a point in time in the past that you like and freeze 5e there. Hell, 5e is so flexible and modular you can mix and match which books and even individual optional rules you want to use, and even mechanics from other games. If a person likes the PHB, XGTE, and MP:MOTM, but dislikes TCOE, they do not have to allow TCOE or all the books published before MP:MOTM.
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 >
Which you will note was a far less successful game than D&D. The reality is that Gygax was not the end-all be-all of RPG designers; plenty of people improved on his ideas.
Gygax & Arneson aren't famous for being great designers, they are famous for inventing the concept of a role-playing game and creating a multi-billion dollar franchise that has catapulted an entire industry that flourished for over 50 years. Without them, the so-called "RPG Designers" who created nothing, would have nothing to improve upon. Any Tom Dick and Harry can take someone else's idea and design, point out all the mistakes and find ways to improve it. Standing on the shoulders of genius, taking credit for it and being a critic of the work you stole to create your own work, hell that is the easy part.
Castle's and Crusades may not be as economically successful as modern D&D, but since 2004 when it was released, every book released for it is compatible with everything that came before and the game is flawless and relentlessly dedicated to ensuring it always executes on its design goals. WotC is still trying to figure out what D&D is and isn't after 20+ years of owning the franchise. The design goals of C&C might not be as marketable as the D&D (Mcdonald's style) sales pitch, but C&C is a way better game mechanically than anything WotC could ever hope to produce.
(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
He wasn't even the first to put together the specific mix in D&D. Gygax brought the wargaming and rules part to the system, but Dave Arneson was the one who came up with the "but what if we use the system not just for making another wargame, but making a way of telling stories together through roleplaying" element that actually created D&D. Gygax later forced Arneson out of the company and rewrote the game's history to take credit for Arneson's critically important, genera-defining contribution because, in addition to being the kind of person who very intentionally included his pro-eugenics, anti-non-Western-European views into the game, he also was a bad friend.
Gygax's views on the subject should be completely irrelevant. He was the king of gatekeeping in a game that is filled with gatekeeping, and the rules reflected a level of needless complexity which kept the game from growing or appealing to more casual players. 5e was very much reactionary against the pointless complexity of prior editions and very clearly was designed for something that still had the nostalgia of classic D&D (in a way 4e did not) without being something a player could intuitively grasp with just a few minutes learning.
Which, of course, is why we are getting something new next year--in a lot of ways, 5e went a bit too far in removing complexity where it should not (player options are fairly limited and character creation is extremely linear after the first couple choices) while not going far enough in other areas (they are streamlining things like monster stat blocks--for most of 5e, you needed to flip between the monster and looking up that monster's spells which might be spread across different pages or entire books, making DMing in pen and paper harder than it needs to be).
It is clear Wizards is, overall, finally happy with the base idea of the edition--so happy they are not going to be releasing an entirely new edition. They are going to add an (optional) patch to 5e which shores up 5e's flaws while keeping the things players actually like about the edition intact. As someone who has lived through edition changes before, I'm extremely happy about that--I am glad we are going to get something that addresses known flaws, without rendering all purchased content invalid. That's great--and far better for both the game and the customer than the industry standard of a completely new edition.
Revisionist history is an ugly thing. Wargames were not Roleplaying game, no one role-played before D&D. Your trying to discredit Gygax and Arnesons contributions to fit your own narrative.
No one is suggesting anyone use any version of the game, I don't know where you are pulling that from. The point made was that Gygax is famous for being a great designer, which was a false statement. He is famous for being the god father of role-playing games, an indisputable, objective fact. If you disagree with it, you are objectively wrong the same you would be if you claimed 1+1 is 7.
Revisionist history is an ugly thing
Arneson is an important figure in the creation of D&D but the reality is that he produced next to nothing. He was an idea man, a visionary, but he had no motivation to do any actual work. Gygax wrote D&D almost exclusively on his own. Most of Arnesons notes were essentially scrap paper ideas of which virtually none actually made it into the actual final product that was released. He was a crap writer, adventures with his name on it are universally known as the worst adventures ever written for D&D which include hack jobs like Temple of the Frog, Adventures in Blackmoor and City of the Gods.
Not saying he doesn't belong in the history of D&D, but accrediting him for creating D&D is a bit like giving credit to Columbus for discovering America.
You are giving way too much credit to Arneson and way too little to Gygax. Arneson effectively put together some notes on scrap paper for Gygax who spent years developing and writing the game while begging Dave for help he never got. When the game was released and became popular, Dave sued him for Royalties while continually making a total of 0 contributions to actual products. Neither Dave or Gygax were saints, but Gygax was the only one that ever actually produced something. Having an idea means exactly jack and shit, any actual adult knows that.
No one is suggesting that 1e AD&D was somehow perfect or some sort of revelation as compared to modern RPG mechanics that have the luxury of standing on the shoulders of decades of experience, but Gygax spent years developing a game on which there was little to actually compare it to. He invented something and this, not his game design skills is what he is famous for.
I was not talking about the transition from 5th ed. to "One D&D."
How is that "very true" of game designers who don't even use Wizards' intellectual property? Are you aware of how little Wizards actually own? They own the name of the game. And they own a list of terms. Nothing more. They do not own the rules. That is very true. And you didn't respond to my point about how Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Off the work of TSR employees. Off the commitment to the hobby from those of us who have been playing for decades.
Are you saying if a megacorporation has wealth and influence enough to maintain a stranglehold on an industry and outperform others in terms of reach and earnings this must mean what they do is better than what their competitors are doing? Or is it only Wizards that who have achieved this magical status that suddenly sees capitalism as a rose gardens for all involved?
Read Jon Peterson's histories of table-top role-playing games.
These are heavily researched academic texts in the field of game studies.
What you are doing is revisionism.
FWIW: Jon Peterson even goes into the influence of wargames and the like on the development of role-playing games. His heftiest tome is around 700 pages in length and has a bibliography stretching to 30 pages. This study even talks about chess and other strategy games. Peterson has a whole book about the disaster that was the management of TSR and that of the relationship between Gygax and Arneson. He still acknowledges and respects their contribution to the hobby. Without them this site would not exist. You would be elsewhere playing video games.
I will listen to the person who has written the most comprehensive and definitive histories on the development of the hobby. Not people consumed by hatred for Gygax.