Jeremy Crawford is on record for saying that he designed certain things because it would have made Baulder's Gate more fun. On top of that he has stated several decisions will frustrate Dungeon Masters, which in a video game, players can do whatever and the DM/AI/Game engine doesn't care, it just continues on like it doesn't matter. Real Dungeon Masters not so much. This is further exemplified by the rules referring to your PC, not as a player character.... But as an avatar. A video game reference.
The two largest issues with 2024 so far seems to be the rules for hiding and the ability to switch weapons.
There are many games that let you hide and then leave your hiding spot to attack. Sometimes you only need to crouch and you suddenly become invisible. Then there are countless ways of becoming invisible in the game despite standing right in front of your foe.
Games also have a tendency to let you switch between weapons whenever you want as often as you want.
I can see both of these being made intentionally to mirror a video game feel to D&D. Which then becomes a major issue with a Real DM. For example nearly unlimited weapon switching which results in going form two handed weapons to light weapons to maximize your number of attacks. Or to use a shield while cycling through your weapons. You would easily be able to do this in a video game and no one would care.
But for a TTRPG both seems silly. Obviously someone who can see a hiding creature can see a hiding creature. Dual wielding should be actually dual weilding. Going from a two handed weapon to a light weapon to another light weapon to another weapon shouldnt work.
Which brings me to the point are many people just misreading the rules or are the rules actually trying to use video game logic in an TTRPG?
... or are the rules actually trying to use video game logic in an TTRPG?
That was 4th edition. Seriously they tried to make D&D into WOW the table top game. 5.5 has changed some things to simplify the rules again, probably to make their VTT easier, and they removed a bunch of lore, some for the better some for the ??? but generally the rules still feel more table top... or online VTT with Discord than a video game. The changes to stealth also nerf the hells out of some of the more spooky monsters, so I hope they fix things like Shadow Demons. But whatever.
Video game no, that failed, VTT with microtransactions most likely.
The rules aren't specifically trying to emulate video game logic, but that doesn't mean they're trying for realism; they're trying for an experience that players like, and that's inevitably going to have some overlap with video games that are trying to do the same thing. On your two examples:
I have no idea what they were trying to do with stealth. It's neither video gamey nor not, it's just incomprehensible.
Weapon switching is presumably because they're trying to clean up pain points, and the 2014 rules for weapon switching caused problems (for example, with throwing weapons) while still actually having a fair amount of abuse potential.
The established reality clearly establishes that D&D remains primarily focused on tabletop play. In fact, the entire 2024 PHB is laid out in a way specifically catering to tabletop players - there are tips to keep you from having to erase content when building your character, a rules glossary for folks who can’t just search things online, etc.
What Crawford is saying with this quote is pretty mundane - basically “we looked at other similar games as part of our design.” He also looked at plenty of other TTRPGs in his design - they’re on the shelf behind him in many of his videos - but he can’t really come out and say “I liked this thing about Pathfinder and adapted it” in the same way he can say “I liked this thing about a digital D&D adaptation and adapted it.”
Of course, the crowd trying to push the “D&D is turning into a video game” conspiracy for whatever reason (I know I have a theory), ignore the full context of Crawford also discussing other tabletop games, and focus only on the thing that pushes their narrative. That’s the convenient part of being a conspiracy theorist - you don’t have to live in a world of facts; just a world where you only present the facts (or make up the facts) which support your agenda.
That is the opinion the direction the game is heading of many, but you will find some very few will vehemently say it ain't so.
Probably because most of the people making this claim are doomsayers who represent the worst parts of our community.
However, reality clearly establishes that D&D remains primarily focused on tabletop play. In fact, the entire 2024 PHB is laid out in a way specifically catering to tabletop players - there are tips to keep you from having to erase content when building your character, a rules glossary for folks who can’t just search things online, etc.
What Crawford is saying with this quote is pretty mundane - basically “we looked at other similar games as part of our design.” He also looked at plenty of other TTRPGs in his design - they’re on the shelf behind him in many of his videos - but he can’t really come out and say “I liked this thing about Pathfinder and adapted it” in the same way he can say “I liked this thing about a digital D&D adaptation and adapted it.”
Of course, the crowd trying to push the “D&D is turning into a video game” conspiracy for whatever reason (I know I have a theory), ignore the full context of Crawford also discussing other tabletop games, and focus only on the thing that pushes their narrative. That’s the convenient part of being a conspiracy theorist - you don’t have to live in a world of facts; just a world where you only present the facts (or make up the facts) which support your agenda.
I simply stated a fact which you have corroborated.
I have no agenda, and stating I do is a violation of the site rules and guidelines (flaming I believe), will you kindly edit your post?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The established reality clearly establishes that D&D remains primarily focused on tabletop play. In fact, the entire 2024 PHB is laid out in a way specifically catering to tabletop players - there are tips to keep you from having to erase content when building your character, a rules glossary for folks who can’t just search things online, etc.
What Crawford is saying with this quote is pretty mundane - basically “we looked at other similar games as part of our design.” He also looked at plenty of other TTRPGs in his design - they’re on the shelf behind him in many of his videos - but he can’t really come out and say “I liked this thing about Pathfinder and adapted it” in the same way he can say “I liked this thing about a digital D&D adaptation and adapted it.”
Of course, the crowd trying to push the “D&D is turning into a video game” conspiracy for whatever reason (I know I have a theory), ignore the full context of Crawford also discussing other tabletop games, and focus only on the thing that pushes their narrative. That’s the convenient part of being a conspiracy theorist - you don’t have to live in a world of facts; just a world where you only present the facts (or make up the facts) which support your agenda.
The rules glossary is actually the 2nd half of the rules that they left out of chapter 1. You literally have to go like three locations to find rules because rules that should be together are simply not together. Like it took way longer to figure out what each condition did having to look in the glossary instead of just the section of the chapter on conditions in 2014. To me it almost feels like the book is made more for someone using it online than in person. But it was definitely more effort using the rules glossary.
There are also a couple of points where the rules glossary is essential, but glossaries aren't suppose to be essential. There are rules that only appear in the glossary and so unless you know you need to read the glossary, you don't completely understand how to play the game.
Its not really a conspiracy if it looks like one way of interpreting the rules is video game logic or feels like a video game to me.
Jeremy Crawford is on record for saying that he designed certain things because it would have made Baulder's Gate more fun. On top of that he has stated several decisions will frustrate Dungeon Masters, which in a video game, players can do whatever and the DM/AI/Game engine doesn't care, it just continues on like it doesn't matter. Real Dungeon Masters not so much. This is further exemplified by the rules referring to your PC, not as a player character.... But as an avatar. A video game reference.
The two largest issues with 2024 so far seems to be the rules for hiding and the ability to switch weapons.
There are many games that let you hide and then leave your hiding spot to attack. Sometimes you only need to crouch and you suddenly become invisible. Then there are countless ways of becoming invisible in the game despite standing right in front of your foe.
Games also have a tendency to let you switch between weapons whenever you want as often as you want.
I can see both of these being made intentionally to mirror a video game feel to D&D. Which then becomes a major issue with a Real DM. For example nearly unlimited weapon switching which results in going form two handed weapons to light weapons to maximize your number of attacks. Or to use a shield while cycling through your weapons. You would easily be able to do this in a video game and no one would care.
But for a TTRPG both seems silly. Obviously someone who can see a hiding creature can see a hiding creature. Dual wielding should be actually dual weilding. Going from a two handed weapon to a light weapon to another light weapon to another weapon shouldnt work.
Which brings me to the point are many people just misreading the rules or are the rules actually trying to use video game logic in an TTRPG?
Of course wotc is converting D&D into a video game. The VTT is the 1st step. The AI for a DM, well, that will still take some time. The evidence is crystal clear. Anyone who watched the press conference at gen con can only come away with one conclusion that wotc is going full bore digital.
The rules glossary is actually the 2nd half of the rules that they left out of chapter 1. You literally have to go like three locations to find rules because rules that should be together are simply not together. Like it took way longer to figure out what each condition did having to look in the glossary instead of just the section of the chapter on conditions in 2014. To me it almost feels like the book is made more for someone using it online than in person. But it was definitely more effort using the rules glossary.
There are also a couple of points where the rules glossary is essential, but glossaries aren't suppose to be essential. There are rules that only appear in the glossary and so unless you know you need to read the glossary, you don't completely understand how to play the game.
Its not really a conspiracy if it looks like one way of interpreting the rules is video game logic or feels like a video game to me.
What do any of the points you bring up have to do with being video gamey? Yeah, there are layout issues, but that's hardly unique to video games (a lot of modern video games seem to be based on a theory of "who needs documentation, someone will create a wiki for us", which certainly isn't what D&D is doing).
The rules glossary is actually the 2nd half of the rules that they left out of chapter 1. You literally have to go like three locations to find rules because rules that should be together are simply not together. Like it took way longer to figure out what each condition did having to look in the glossary instead of just the section of the chapter on conditions in 2014. To me it almost feels like the book is made more for someone using it online than in person. But it was definitely more effort using the rules glossary.
There are also a couple of points where the rules glossary is essential, but glossaries aren't suppose to be essential. There are rules that only appear in the glossary and so unless you know you need to read the glossary, you don't completely understand how to play the game.
Its not really a conspiracy if it looks like one way of interpreting the rules is video game logic or feels like a video game to me.
What do any of the points you bring up have to do with being video gamey? Yeah, there are layout issues, but that's hardly unique to video games (a lot of modern video games seem to be based on a theory of "who needs documentation, someone will create a wiki for us", which certainly isn't what D&D is doing).
SImple, switching between weapons constantly is a very video gamey thing to do. You go from one weapon to another weapon to a third weapon without any effort by just clicking a button. It seems perfectly natural that you go from a greataxe to dual scimitars back to the greataxe within 6 seconds. (Or you switch to dual scimitars then quickly switch back to a sword and shield to block).
Same with being able to hide and just wander around still "invisible" until you attack. Video game doesn't care that you can do that.
I'm still not sure people are interpreting those rules correctly, but assuming they are, then both seems very video gamey to me and completely silly outside of a video game.
You shouldn't actually be able to Dual Wield and use a shield or Dual Wield and use a two handed weapon at the sametime, and yet apparently you can in the rules. Which is a very video game thing.
The rules glossary is actually the 2nd half of the rules that they left out of chapter 1. You literally have to go like three locations to find rules because rules that should be together are simply not together. Like it took way longer to figure out what each condition did having to look in the glossary instead of just the section of the chapter on conditions in 2014. To me it almost feels like the book is made more for someone using it online than in person. But it was definitely more effort using the rules glossary.
There are also a couple of points where the rules glossary is essential, but glossaries aren't suppose to be essential. There are rules that only appear in the glossary and so unless you know you need to read the glossary, you don't completely understand how to play the game.
Its not really a conspiracy if it looks like one way of interpreting the rules is video game logic or feels like a video game to me.
The way they did the The rules glossary is IMO the best thing that they did in 2024, the OG book made you look up ever rule in it's chapter and the glossary wasn't guaranteed to show the rule. When it comes to a rule book, I always start with the glosser, and have done so since 1st and 2nd ed because those books had too much word fluff and the rules needed to be clear and concise. 2024 has the best use I have seen yet.
Of course wotc is converting D&D into a video game. The VTT is the 1st step. The AI for a DM, well, that will still take some time. The evidence is crystal clear. Anyone who watched the press conference at gen con can only come away with one conclusion that wotc is going full bore digital.
While they are making a VTT, second time WotC has made one, the 1st time never made it out of Beta before they gave up on 4th edition. D&D Insider was going to be the vehicle for the VTT and the more video game type of D&D. That failed, WotC is avoiding doing 4th again.
As for AI DMing, that already exists, so do solo tabletop campaigns. These are not new ideas, and have been around longer than the technology to make them good. Ever play a MUD? or a 70s text based RPG? I have, it's basically AI DM.
No what WotC is doing is making a VTT, and hoping DMs and players will use it, and buy custom minis from their in VTT store. I don't mind this as long as we can add our own STL files, or other 3d assets with a common file type.
They may have considered AI at a few points, but the community pushback was overwhelming and they wont do that until that time when the community doesn't mind AI usage. This is because WotC and Hasbro has seen how ready we are to close subscriptions and close accounts if they make a wrong move. As a Corporation trying to make a profit for investors they don't want that income to be lost due to angry customers. Which happened way too many times last year, hells it even caused a major film to flop even though it was a great film.
I have no idea what they were trying to do with stealth. It's neither video gamey nor not, it's just incomprehensible.
If you're talking about the fixed DC thing, I suspect that they've seen a lot of TTRPGs are going player-facing, shifting things from the DM to the player, and trying to emulate that. For example, in TOR, if you're trying to sneak past an NPC, the DM doesn't roll at all. The player rolls Stealth (modified by the creature's Distinctive Features) and if they pass, they sneak by. If they fail, they're spotted.
I like that system and it works very well for TOR and other games. However, it brings it's own challenges, and I think one of D&D's strong points is that it's DM-facing (which isn't objectively better, but by being different, offers something the other day don't, which is a strength). I can see why they might think it's a good idea to introduce player-facing mechanics, but I think the game would be best off keeping the old system (at least in this instance).
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.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
Jeremy Crawford is on record for saying that he designed certain things because it would have made Baulder's Gate more fun. On top of that he has stated several decisions will frustrate Dungeon Masters, which in a video game, players can do whatever and the DM/AI/Game engine doesn't care, it just continues on like it doesn't matter. Real Dungeon Masters not so much. This is further exemplified by the rules referring to your PC, not as a player character.... But as an avatar. A video game reference.
The two largest issues with 2024 so far seems to be the rules for hiding and the ability to switch weapons.
There are many games that let you hide and then leave your hiding spot to attack. Sometimes you only need to crouch and you suddenly become invisible. Then there are countless ways of becoming invisible in the game despite standing right in front of your foe.
Games also have a tendency to let you switch between weapons whenever you want as often as you want.
I can see both of these being made intentionally to mirror a video game feel to D&D. Which then becomes a major issue with a Real DM. For example nearly unlimited weapon switching which results in going form two handed weapons to light weapons to maximize your number of attacks. Or to use a shield while cycling through your weapons. You would easily be able to do this in a video game and no one would care.
But for a TTRPG both seems silly. Obviously someone who can see a hiding creature can see a hiding creature. Dual wielding should be actually dual weilding. Going from a two handed weapon to a light weapon to another light weapon to another weapon shouldnt work.
Which brings me to the point are many people just misreading the rules or are the rules actually trying to use video game logic in an TTRPG?
Of course wotc is converting D&D into a video game. The VTT is the 1st step. The AI for a DM, well, that will still take some time. The evidence is crystal clear. Anyone who watched the press conference at gen con can only come away with one conclusion that wotc is going full bore digital.
Of course they’re moving towards digital. Most of life is. Does that mean converting to a video game? That remains to be seen. And depends on what you mean. One change you may say makes it a video game but to me or others it may not. Will they take how an official VTT will be affected by certain rules into account? Sure. Will they only write rules to fit the VTT? I’m skeptical. Will rules they like for the Tabletop game fit easily into the VTT by happenstance and some will claim it to be purely for making it a video game? I assume that will happen too.
For the time being, the 3 core books with be in print and digital. After that, who know what they will do.
Of course they’re moving towards digital. Most of life is. Does that mean converting to a video game? That remains to be seen. And depends on what you mean. One change you may say makes it a video game but to me or others it may not. Will they take how an official VTT will be affected by certain rules into account? Sure. Will they only write rules to fit the VTT? I’m skeptical. Will rules they like for the Tabletop game fit easily into the VTT by happenstance and some will claim it to be purely for making it a video game? I assume that will happen too.
For the time being, the 3 core books with be in print and digital. After that, who know what they will do.
Analog is still alive and well. Not just in the hobby space. But when it comes to things like books and music. Even one the world's most tech-enthusiastic countries—Japan—is home to many who prefer analog pastimes and who collect physical media. It never ceases to surprise tourists when they discover how common it is for people to still purchase CDs. But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D. At least as long as the IP is in their hands. Notice we don't hear this sort of rhetoric from other TRPG companies? Even games with a strong presence on things like Roll20. Their publishers aren't acting as if playing that way is the future of the hobby. Some not only want to but need to play online. And this is perfectly understandable. It doesn't bother me. But Hasbro's competitors still see playing in person and around a table as "how it's done" and frequently promote this image. Why do you reckon that might be?
But Hasbro's competitors still see playing in person and around a table as "how it's done" and frequently promote this image. Why do you reckon that might be?
Observer bias? The vast majority of RPG companies are mostly or entirely online, because the hobby store delivery chain is gradually disintegrating and the smaller players simply can't viably distribute their product in any other way.
The reality is, Hasbro doesn't want to go digital, they're heavily invested in the existing distribution chain, but they don't think they have a choice.
But Hasbro's competitors still see playing in person and around a table as "how it's done" and frequently promote this image. Why do you reckon that might be?
Observer bias? The vast majority of RPG companies are mostly or entirely online, because the hobby store delivery chain is gradually disintegrating and the smaller players simply can't viably distribute their product in any other way.
The reality is, Hasbro doesn't want to go digital, they're heavily invested in the existing distribution chain, but they don't think they have a choice.
Yeah....no....At my Pathfinder table 2 players have 2 inch thick 2e remasters (edition 2.5), and 2 others of us play with paper and pencil. Shadowdark's hard copy is a gorgeous layout, which we used last week.
Observer bias? The vast majority of RPG companies are mostly or entirely online, because the hobby store delivery chain is gradually disintegrating and the smaller players simply can't viably distribute their product in any other way.
The reality is, Hasbro doesn't want to go digital, they're heavily invested in the existing distribution chain, but they don't think they have a choice.
Digitization of most RPG products begins and ends with their availability as pdfs. Often being provided to customers at no extra cost when they purchase physical books. Most publishes of table-top games aren't moving towards a model that will see their games mostly or only played online. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Jeremy Crawford is on record for saying that he designed certain things because it would have made Baulder's Gate more fun. On top of that he has stated several decisions will frustrate Dungeon Masters, which in a video game, players can do whatever and the DM/AI/Game engine doesn't care, it just continues on like it doesn't matter. Real Dungeon Masters not so much. This is further exemplified by the rules referring to your PC, not as a player character.... But as an avatar. A video game reference.
The two largest issues with 2024 so far seems to be the rules for hiding and the ability to switch weapons.
There are many games that let you hide and then leave your hiding spot to attack. Sometimes you only need to crouch and you suddenly become invisible. Then there are countless ways of becoming invisible in the game despite standing right in front of your foe.
Games also have a tendency to let you switch between weapons whenever you want as often as you want.
I can see both of these being made intentionally to mirror a video game feel to D&D. Which then becomes a major issue with a Real DM. For example nearly unlimited weapon switching which results in going form two handed weapons to light weapons to maximize your number of attacks. Or to use a shield while cycling through your weapons. You would easily be able to do this in a video game and no one would care.
But for a TTRPG both seems silly. Obviously someone who can see a hiding creature can see a hiding creature. Dual wielding should be actually dual weilding. Going from a two handed weapon to a light weapon to another light weapon to another weapon shouldnt work.
Which brings me to the point are many people just misreading the rules or are the rules actually trying to use video game logic in an TTRPG?
That is the opinion the direction the game is heading of many, but you will find some very few will vehemently say it ain't so.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That was 4th edition. Seriously they tried to make D&D into WOW the table top game. 5.5 has changed some things to simplify the rules again, probably to make their VTT easier, and they removed a bunch of lore, some for the better some for the ??? but generally the rules still feel more table top... or online VTT with Discord than a video game. The changes to stealth also nerf the hells out of some of the more spooky monsters, so I hope they fix things like Shadow Demons. But whatever.
Video game no, that failed, VTT with microtransactions most likely.
The rules aren't specifically trying to emulate video game logic, but that doesn't mean they're trying for realism; they're trying for an experience that players like, and that's inevitably going to have some overlap with video games that are trying to do the same thing. On your two examples:
What Crawford is saying with this quote is pretty mundane - basically “we looked at other similar games as part of our design.” He also looked at plenty of other TTRPGs in his design - they’re on the shelf behind him in many of his videos - but he can’t really come out and say “I liked this thing about Pathfinder and adapted it” in the same way he can say “I liked this thing about a digital D&D adaptation and adapted it.”
Of course, the crowd trying to push the “D&D is turning into a video game” conspiracy for whatever reason (I know I have a theory), ignore the full context of Crawford also discussing other tabletop games, and focus only on the thing that pushes their narrative. That’s the convenient part of being a conspiracy theorist - you don’t have to live in a world of facts; just a world where you only present the facts (or make up the facts) which support your agenda.
I simply stated a fact which you have corroborated.
I have no agenda, and stating I do is a violation of the site rules and guidelines (flaming I believe), will you kindly edit your post?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The rules glossary is actually the 2nd half of the rules that they left out of chapter 1. You literally have to go like three locations to find rules because rules that should be together are simply not together. Like it took way longer to figure out what each condition did having to look in the glossary instead of just the section of the chapter on conditions in 2014. To me it almost feels like the book is made more for someone using it online than in person. But it was definitely more effort using the rules glossary.
There are also a couple of points where the rules glossary is essential, but glossaries aren't suppose to be essential. There are rules that only appear in the glossary and so unless you know you need to read the glossary, you don't completely understand how to play the game.
Its not really a conspiracy if it looks like one way of interpreting the rules is video game logic or feels like a video game to me.
Of course wotc is converting D&D into a video game. The VTT is the 1st step. The AI for a DM, well, that will still take some time. The evidence is crystal clear. Anyone who watched the press conference at gen con can only come away with one conclusion that wotc is going full bore digital.
What do any of the points you bring up have to do with being video gamey? Yeah, there are layout issues, but that's hardly unique to video games (a lot of modern video games seem to be based on a theory of "who needs documentation, someone will create a wiki for us", which certainly isn't what D&D is doing).
SImple, switching between weapons constantly is a very video gamey thing to do. You go from one weapon to another weapon to a third weapon without any effort by just clicking a button. It seems perfectly natural that you go from a greataxe to dual scimitars back to the greataxe within 6 seconds. (Or you switch to dual scimitars then quickly switch back to a sword and shield to block).
Same with being able to hide and just wander around still "invisible" until you attack. Video game doesn't care that you can do that.
I'm still not sure people are interpreting those rules correctly, but assuming they are, then both seems very video gamey to me and completely silly outside of a video game.
You shouldn't actually be able to Dual Wield and use a shield or Dual Wield and use a two handed weapon at the sametime, and yet apparently you can in the rules. Which is a very video game thing.
Actually, what he said was that Baldur's Gate showed them it would make D&D more fun. Things like bonus action potions, and movable Cloud of Daggers.
Got a link to that one for the full context?
This one's actually true! Here's a quote:
"Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world."
...Oh wait, that line is from the 2014 PHB, pg 11. I guess 5e was a video game all along. Darn it 😖
It's been "heading in that direction" (and "dying") since 3e. Keep at it though, you'll be right eventually!
The way they did the The rules glossary is IMO the best thing that they did in 2024, the OG book made you look up ever rule in it's chapter and the glossary wasn't guaranteed to show the rule. When it comes to a rule book, I always start with the glosser, and have done so since 1st and 2nd ed because those books had too much word fluff and the rules needed to be clear and concise. 2024 has the best use I have seen yet.
While they are making a VTT, second time WotC has made one, the 1st time never made it out of Beta before they gave up on 4th edition. D&D Insider was going to be the vehicle for the VTT and the more video game type of D&D. That failed, WotC is avoiding doing 4th again.
As for AI DMing, that already exists, so do solo tabletop campaigns. These are not new ideas, and have been around longer than the technology to make them good. Ever play a MUD? or a 70s text based RPG? I have, it's basically AI DM.
No what WotC is doing is making a VTT, and hoping DMs and players will use it, and buy custom minis from their in VTT store. I don't mind this as long as we can add our own STL files, or other 3d assets with a common file type.
They may have considered AI at a few points, but the community pushback was overwhelming and they wont do that until that time when the community doesn't mind AI usage. This is because WotC and Hasbro has seen how ready we are to close subscriptions and close accounts if they make a wrong move. As a Corporation trying to make a profit for investors they don't want that income to be lost due to angry customers. Which happened way too many times last year, hells it even caused a major film to flop even though it was a great film.
I am correct now per your post.
Seems were in agreement.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you're talking about the fixed DC thing, I suspect that they've seen a lot of TTRPGs are going player-facing, shifting things from the DM to the player, and trying to emulate that. For example, in TOR, if you're trying to sneak past an NPC, the DM doesn't roll at all. The player rolls Stealth (modified by the creature's Distinctive Features) and if they pass, they sneak by. If they fail, they're spotted.
I like that system and it works very well for TOR and other games. However, it brings it's own challenges, and I think one of D&D's strong points is that it's DM-facing (which isn't objectively better, but by being different, offers something the other day don't, which is a strength). I can see why they might think it's a good idea to introduce player-facing mechanics, but I think the game would be best off keeping the old system (at least in this instance).
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.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
Of course they’re moving towards digital. Most of life is. Does that mean converting to a video game? That remains to be seen. And depends on what you mean. One change you may say makes it a video game but to me or others it may not. Will they take how an official VTT will be affected by certain rules into account? Sure. Will they only write rules to fit the VTT? I’m skeptical. Will rules they like for the Tabletop game fit easily into the VTT by happenstance and some will claim it to be purely for making it a video game? I assume that will happen too.
For the time being, the 3 core books with be in print and digital. After that, who know what they will do.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Analog is still alive and well. Not just in the hobby space. But when it comes to things like books and music. Even one the world's most tech-enthusiastic countries—Japan—is home to many who prefer analog pastimes and who collect physical media. It never ceases to surprise tourists when they discover how common it is for people to still purchase CDs. But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D. At least as long as the IP is in their hands. Notice we don't hear this sort of rhetoric from other TRPG companies? Even games with a strong presence on things like Roll20. Their publishers aren't acting as if playing that way is the future of the hobby. Some not only want to but need to play online. And this is perfectly understandable. It doesn't bother me. But Hasbro's competitors still see playing in person and around a table as "how it's done" and frequently promote this image. Why do you reckon that might be?
Observer bias? The vast majority of RPG companies are mostly or entirely online, because the hobby store delivery chain is gradually disintegrating and the smaller players simply can't viably distribute their product in any other way.
The reality is, Hasbro doesn't want to go digital, they're heavily invested in the existing distribution chain, but they don't think they have a choice.
Yeah....no....At my Pathfinder table 2 players have 2 inch thick 2e remasters (edition 2.5), and 2 others of us play with paper and pencil. Shadowdark's hard copy is a gorgeous layout, which we used last week.
Digitization of most RPG products begins and ends with their availability as pdfs. Often being provided to customers at no extra cost when they purchase physical books. Most publishes of table-top games aren't moving towards a model that will see their games mostly or only played online. You are comparing apples to oranges.