The design and development of tabletop role-playing games is ultimately a creative endeavor.
Any creative worthy of the label will tell you that a profits over creativity approach is anathema to creative practice.
Modern D&D is the McDonald's of the industry. It maintains the dominance it maintains due to its name. If Wizards of the Coast renamed the game it would lose more players than you can imagine because many only play it because they want to play the game named D&D to then be able to say they play 'D&D.'
That's an awfully superficial motivation for choosing a game but we live in awfully superficial times.
Meanwhile those for whom the design and development of their games is a labor of love and not first and foremost a means to make millions from those who play their games are that little independent burger shop on the corner whose burgers cannot be beat.
That shop could be named anything and be renamed and renamed again and again and people would come because they come for the burgers and not the brand.
We see more innovation in the game products that win Ennies year after year than we have seen in D&D for decades.
It always amuses me when people make the case that D&D is primarily a commercial enterprise and that the owner of the IP cares more about money than anything. That may be true. But it is a self-own if ever there were . One that paints a poor picture not only of the owners of the IP but of those who make that case. Like people take pride in being so superficial. In letting the world know they approve of corporate greed and that they essentially prioritize quantity over quality. But we do live in awfully superficial times.
Oh yes, because if there’s one thing all the dev videos about the design process have shown, it’s that they have no interest in addressing issues raised by the community to create an engaging and positive experience. They certainly didn’t create a whole new modular base setup in the DMG both to recapture a vibe from earlier editions and to provide a more streamlined and player engaging downtime option. Nope, nothing but dollar signs in their eyes.
Oh yes, because if there’s one thing all the dev videos about the design process have shown, it’s that they have no interest in addressing issues raised by the community to create an engaging and positive experience. They certainly didn’t create a whole new modular base setup in the DMG both to recapture a vibe from earlier editions and to provide a more streamlined and player engaging downtime option. Nope, nothing but dollar signs in their eyes.
It's you and others here who give that impression of the company. You are constantly saying they are first and foremost a business. When it suits. But then people talk about indie games and how those who make them prioritize their games and the design and development of their games and even often their customers over making money and then it's Wizards aren't just about making money? Wizards obviously aren't 'just' about making money. I never said they were. But where do their priorities lie? Do these change depending on whatever in the moment suits you?
What downtime option would that be? And does it even remotely compare to what was once provided for domain-level play in even Basic least of all in AD&D?
Does it compare to the downtime rules published by Courtney Campbell?
Or those by Ben Laurence?
Outside of these forums and subreddits dedicated to D&D practically no one is singing the praises of the downtime rules in the 2024 DMG.
Those by Courtney Campbell have received accolades. Those by Ben Laurence are talked about as if they were the best we have seen in the hobby.
I'm not saying modern D&D lacks creativity. I am saying creativity takes a back seat to more than a few things that matter more to those who own the IP.
And it shows if you just step outside of your game of choice every once in a while and open another game book.
I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions, but you have no idea what games anyone on these forums may of may not be playing. Please stop attacking people with baseless assumptions.
I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions, but you have no idea what games anyone on these forums may of may not be playing. Please stop attacking people with baseless assumptions.
The funny thing about assumptions is if they are false it is easy enough to correct those who have falsely assumed things. There is little more baseless than just telling people not to assume things. If their assumptions are false correct them. I am happy to admit to my being wrong if you just name other games you play. If you are playing other TRPGs name them. And I will admit to my being wrong to assume you strictly play D&D. Simple. But just telling me not to assume things goes nowhere towards demonstrating that my assumptions are false. If anything it makes me suspect they are accurate. Because it's a tactic so often used by people to deflect from criticism.
I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions, but you have no idea what games anyone on these forums may of may not be playing. Please stop attacking people with baseless assumptions.
The funny thing about assumptions is if they are false it is easy enough to correct those who have falsely assumed things. There is little more baseless than just telling people not to assume things. If their assumptions are false correct them. I am happy to admit to my being wrong if you just name other games you play. If you are playing other TRPGs name them. And I will admit to my being wrong to assume you strictly play D&D. Simple. But just telling me not to assume things goes nowhere towards demonstrating that my assumptions are false. If anything it makes me suspect that are accurate.
Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Macross RPG, Supernatural RPG, Star Wars by FFG, Vampire/Werewolf (2nd edition), and Ponyfinder are some games that I have played a few times in the past couple years. But I nor anyone else owes you an explanation of what they play or why in order to be treated with respect and curtesy. So again, please stop making assumptions about people you don't know.
I'm not saying modern D&D lacks creativity. I am saying creativity takes a back seat to more than a few things that matter more to those who own the IP.
Oh, I'll say that. And while I think, overall, the 2024 rules are an improvement over the 2014 rules, both are amazingly empty of flavor, verve, inspiring creativity. In 2014, I think this was guided mostly by a desire to be as accessible as possible; which I'm good with, especially since D&D 2014 is wonderfully flexible and malleable in terms of applying it to evocative, "flavorful" homebrew settings and rules.
(Here I'll give a shout out to what I think might be the best supplement to the 2014 rules: VRGTR. The Domains of Dread ooze atmosphere and distinction in a way nothing else WOTC has put out does.)
For the 2024 rules, WOTC went even farther along the generic path, removing ALL world-specific lore and text, and even making the monster descriptions blander.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
I'm not saying modern D&D lacks creativity. I am saying creativity takes a back seat to more than a few things that matter more to those who own the IP.
Oh, I'll say that. And while I think, overall, the 2024 rules are an improvement over the 2014 rules, both are amazingly empty of flavor, verve, inspiring creativity. In 2014, I think this was guided mostly by a desire to be as accessible as possible; which I'm good with, especially since D&D 2014 is wonderfully flexible and malleable in terms of applying it to evocative, "flavorful" homebrew settings and rules.
(Here I'll give a shout out to what I think might be the best supplement to the 2014 rules: VRGTR. The Domains of Dread ooze atmosphere and distinction in a way nothing else WOTC has put out does.)
For the 2024 rules, WOTC went even farther along the generic path, removing ALL world-specific lore and text, and even making the monster descriptions blander.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
I can see your point, but D&D isn't a setting, it is a system. I think it is best to hold judgement on settings until we actually see the setting books that are due out this year. A year is a long time to wait for a full setting for the new 2024 rules, but that is a whole other subject.
If they don't put as much effort into the new setting books as they did for Ravenloft, then I will be in complete agreement with you. Even though I don't use published settings, they should be well made for the people that do.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
I think that this is exactly the point that Wizards wants, though. To agree with the above - they're publishing a system, not a setting. They want there to be a delineation between the mechanics/rules and the flavor/lore, which can be filled in by third party settings, homebrew, or published settings. I'm not saying which is the correct approach, but just pointing out that imo this is exactly what Wizards is trying to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I agree I’m not a fan of the lore step down in the new PHB- moreso over class descriptions and background prompts than the race stuff, though. But I can understand the thought process, particularly when homebrew settings track as their largest market by a wide margin; they want to try and avoid dictating the “right” forms of the various species and such. I’m tentatively optimistic that the emphasis on various locales and organizations we saw in the Forgotten Realms subclasses means they plan to refocus such lore to setting books, which should keep it in general circulation. And before someone trots out the “oh, look at them breaking up the content so they can make you pay twice for it” argument, consider that they already showed about 8 subclasses for FR- most other setting books or similar sources have had 1 or 2, so there’s plenty of hard content there as well. Ultimately we’ll have to wait and see on the final product, but I’m hopeful it’s more a restructuring of where the lore features rather than backing it off altogether.
The distinction between system and setting is a valid and important one. So as far as the core rulebooks go....OK. I still think they don't need to be quite as bland as they are, but we'll let it go.
That doesn't excuse WOTC from not publishing distinctive, evocative settings. And in this, they've failed miserably. Other than Ravenloft/Domains of Dread, the WOTC adventures and settings have generally been bland as well. I remain dumbfounded in just how bad VECNA: EVE OF RUIN was in almost every aspect, just as a for instance. They even managed to make Hell boring in BG:DTA.
First, keep in mind the actual topic of the thread which is why folk dislike and like the 2024 core rule books. While opinions on WotC are tied to some of these sentiments, this thread has gone wildly into a tangent. Remember to keep focused on the topic and not to hijack. Link back to how a point relates to this topic.
Secondly folk can criticise WotC and Hasbro. But keep in mind our rules on such- any 'criticism' that breaks any of our other rules, such a harassment or insults of individuals including each other will not be tolerated. There is no reason for you to be vitriolic towards each other over opinions on these matters or paint each other as 'anti-wotc' or 'pro-wotc'. Focus on the actual points being made, not each other.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
Each of those third-party campaigns first had to rip all the "flavor, fluff and lore" out of the base 2014 D&D rules. Someone with a basic 2014 PHB who comes into a Grim Hollow game for the first time first has to be told "Actually no, none of the information in your 2014 PHB is accurate, here's all the things that are actually correct" in Grim Hollow."
For some people, this process is easy, simple, and no trouble at all. For others, it's reason to never use a supplement that doesn't take place in the core world assumed by the 2014 books - whether a first-party book like Eberron or a third-party book like Grim Hollow.
D&D 5e, especially in its 2024 guise, is the Skyrim of tabletop RPGs. It's about as old, and the most hardcore, dedicated, and visible of its adherents play it with so many third-party mods (i.e. homebrew or third-party books) that it's almost unrecognizable. A vastly larger portion of the playerbase plays the 'vanilla' game, but those people silently do their own thing without interacting with the community at large and none of us can speak for them - but Wizards knows they're out there.
They have to write a game that pleases the silent majority of Vanilla Enjoyers while remaining modular, flexible, and bendable enough to accept the endless throngs of third-party products bolted onto it - as well as managing to successfully sell first-party supplements to players who often feel absolutely no need to ever purchase a book again. [Redacted]
Can any human being(s) alive manage to completely avoid mistakes and missteps, when so many contradictory factors are weighing off their every decision? Can anyone here blame people for the public perception of bitterness and hatred directed towards the new rules when all anyone ever sees is threads dedicated to how much someone hates a new rule or misses something from the old rules?
Yeah, the drawback of mass market appeal is you’ve got so many people looking at the product that it’s not hard for critiques to accumulate in an absolute number that looks significant if you don’t set it against the actual population of players.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
Each of those third-party campaigns first had to rip all the "flavor, fluff and lore" out of the base 2014 D&D rules. Someone with a basic 2014 PHB who comes into a Grim Hollow game for the first time first has to be told "Actually no, none of the information in your 2014 PHB is accurate, here's all the things that are actually correct" in Grim Hollow."
For some people, this process is easy, simple, and no trouble at all. For others, it's reason to never use a supplement that doesn't take place in the core world assumed by the 2014 books - whether a first-party book like Eberron or a third-party book like Grim Hollow.
D&D 5e, especially in its 2024 guise, is the Skyrim of tabletop RPGs. It's about as old, and the most hardcore, dedicated, and visible of its adherents play it with so many third-party mods (i.e. homebrew or third-party books) that it's almost unrecognizable. A vastly larger portion of the playerbase plays the 'vanilla' game, but those people silently do their own thing without interacting with the community at large and none of us can speak for them - but Wizards knows they're out there.
They have to write a game that pleases the silent majority of Vanilla Enjoyers while remaining modular, flexible, and bendable enough to accept the endless throngs of third-party products bolted onto it - as well as managing to successfully sell first-party supplements to players who often feel absolutely no need to ever purchase a book again. [Redacted]
Can any human being(s) alive manage to completely avoid mistakes and missteps, when so many contradictory factors are weighing off their every decision? Can anyone here blame people for the public perception of bitterness and hatred directed towards the new rules when all anyone ever sees is threads dedicated to how much someone hates a new rule or misses something from the old rules?
All good points...and I think I've not done a good job articulating my thoughts. I'll try again - please forgive any appearances of talking down. Not my intent!
I understand why the core rule books are relatively flavorless. I can even understand, to a degree, why supplementary monster books or books with new subclasses, spells, and magic items are; they need to be applicable to the widest set of users possible, as well as adhere to the core rules most people presumably have. All well and good.
But in terms of having to introduce significant deviations to create flavored, evocative settings....hasn't D&D done that repeatedly in its past? Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, even the original Forgotten Realms - didn't all of them, to varying degrees, remove, remix, or replace rules from the core books? Whether it's the removal of gods and clerics, the introduction of a fate tarot system, etc. - this is something D&D used to do, and fairly well.
Now? Well, to use my examples from the previous post, Avernus represented a GREAT opportunity to get weird, atmospheric, and scary with an adventure. And BG: DIV is anything but those things. And again from my examples: we see from many Kickstarters and third party publishers that WIERD or distinctive settings and adventures can sell like crazy. There's absolutely a market and hunger for D&D adventures and settings that aren't the same thing over and over again.
I mean, what “sells like crazy” for a 3PP isn’t necessarily the same kind of numbers a major business like WotC looks for. To a certain degree they seem to be looking to use setting-specific background feats for some of that. Also, considering the fairly low adoption I’ve heard of for most of the optional rules like sanity/honor, facing, spell points, etc. from the ‘14 DMG, I can imagine that the market just isn’t there for a gameplay overhaul on the scope of something like Dark Sun.
All good points...and I think I've not done a good job articulating my thoughts. I'll try again - please forgive any appearances of talking down. Not my intent!
I understand why the core rule books are relatively flavorless. I can even understand, to a degree, why supplementary monster books or books with new subclasses, spells, and magic items are; they need to be applicable to the widest set of users possible, as well as adhere to the core rules most people presumably have. All well and good.
But in terms of having to introduce significant deviations to create flavored, evocative settings....hasn't D&D done that repeatedly in its past? Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, even the original Forgotten Realms - didn't all of them, to varying degrees, remove, remix, or replace rules from the core books? Whether it's the removal of gods and clerics, the introduction of a fate tarot system, etc. - this is something D&D used to do, and fairly well.
Now? Well, to use my examples from the previous post, Avernus represented a GREAT opportunity to get weird, atmospheric, and scary with an adventure. And BG: DIV is anything but those things. And again from my examples: we see from many Kickstarters and third party publishers that WIERD or distinctive settings and adventures can sell like crazy. There's absolutely a market and hunger for D&D adventures and settings that aren't the same thing over and over again.
I am hopeful that we will see some good stuff with the new FR books. Setting specific Subclasses and Monster Stat Blocks to fit the lore sounds great to me, but who knows if they will pull it off. But that has more to do with settings and since I use a homebrew setting my Dad made, the 2024 core books really well for me.
I mean, what “sells like crazy” for a 3PP isn’t necessarily the same kind of numbers a major business like WotC looks for. To a certain degree they seem to be looking to use setting-specific background feats for some of that. Also, considering the fairly low adoption I’ve heard of for most of the optional rules like sanity/honor, facing, spell points, etc. from the ‘14 DMG, I can imagine that the market just isn’t there for a gameplay overhaul on the scope of something like Dark Sun.
Fair points! Especially about adoption rate: whether it's alternate settings or D&D competitors (Daggerheart, Draw Steel!), I assume that the number of people actually playing games using those pubs is significantly lower than those who buy them.
OTOH: How much does WOTC - and moreso Hasbro - care about adoption as long as people buy it? I have to assume Hasbro absolutely does not care if I ever crack open EVE OF RUIN once I've paid them for it.
OTOH, Part Deux: If leaked sales numbers are to be believed - if what vloggers like Dungeon Craft & others have shared in their YT channels is accurate - the biggest KS campaign settings are very much the kind of numbers that WOTC would like to have. For argument's sake, we'll stick with two supplements explicitly aimed at using D&D's core rules rather than replace them. Legends of Avantris' Crooked Moon setting raised more than $4 million, while DnDShorts' Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms raised more than $3 million. These numbers ARE competitive with a LOT of the canon adventures put out by WOTC. This is competitive with Spelljammer, Icewind Dale, Tomb of Annihilation, Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, and Princes of the Apocalypse.
And again from my examples: we see from many Kickstarters and third party publishers that WIERD or distinctive settings and adventures can sell like crazy. There's absolutely a market and hunger for D&D adventures and settings that aren't the same thing over and over again.
Looking at million dollar kickstarters, which is a reasonable lower bound to say something 'sells like crazy', there aren't a lot, so we can fairly well just classify them. List from
Strongholds & Streaming -- rules supplement for strongholds.
Humblewood -- campaign setting.
Kingdoms, Warfare & More Minis -- rules supplement for kingdom management.
The Deck of Many Animated Spells, Tarot & More -- D&D Tarot deck?
The Seeker’s Guide to Twisted Taverns -- looks to be drop-in locations.
Grim Hollow: The Monster Grimoire -- monster manual
Auroboros: Coils of the Serpent -- campaign setting
Heliana’s Guide to Monster Hunting -- not entirely sure what this one is? A bunch of boss fights? Probably counts as a monster manual.
Dungeons of Drakkenheim -- adventure
Fool’s Gold -- adventure
The Griffon’s Saddlebag Book Two -- rules supplements for magic items and character options.
Flee, Mortals!: The MCDM Monster Book -- monster manual
Steinhardt’s Guide to the Eldritch Hunt -- campaign setting
Sebastian Crowe’s Guide to Drakkenheim -- campaign setting
Obojima: Tales from the Tall Grass -- campaign setting
Moria (The One Ring) -- adventure (primarily for a different game system but there's a D&D version)
Ryoko’s Guide to the Yokai Realms -- monsters and player options
The Crooked Moon -- Not sure. It's either a campaign setting or a DM supplement.
Monsters of Drakkenheim -- monster manual
The Field Guide to Floral Dragons -- monster manual
Erevan’s Guide to Death & Beyond -- monster manual with some player options.
So... 2 adventures, 5-6 campaign settings, 6-7 monster manuals, and some that aren't particularly easy to classify. The majority are suitable as drop-in additions to existing campaigns. Also, we don't know exactly how much D&D sells, their earnings reports don't go into that much detail and the estimates I've seen are all over the map, but given that several of those have been made available on D&D Beyond, those numbers aren't negligible.
I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions, but you have no idea what games anyone on these forums may of may not be playing. Please stop attacking people with baseless assumptions.
The funny thing about assumptions is if they are false it is easy enough to correct those who have falsely assumed things. There is little more baseless than just telling people not to assume things. If their assumptions are false correct them. I am happy to admit to my being wrong if you just name other games you play. If you are playing other TRPGs name them. And I will admit to my being wrong to assume you strictly play D&D. Simple. But just telling me not to assume things goes nowhere towards demonstrating that my assumptions are false. If anything it makes me suspect they are accurate. Because it's a tactic so often used by people to deflect from criticism.
So what other TRPG or TRPGs do you play?
I play and have played Shadowrun, Torg, Vampire, Cyberpunk, Warhammer Fantasy, Everyday Heroes, Mutants and Masterminds, Hero and dozens of other systems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh yes, because if there’s one thing all the dev videos about the design process have shown, it’s that they have no interest in addressing issues raised by the community to create an engaging and positive experience. They certainly didn’t create a whole new modular base setup in the DMG both to recapture a vibe from earlier editions and to provide a more streamlined and player engaging downtime option. Nope, nothing but dollar signs in their eyes.
I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions, but you have no idea what games anyone on these forums may of may not be playing. Please stop attacking people with baseless assumptions.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The funny thing about assumptions is if they are false it is easy enough to correct those who have falsely assumed things. There is little more baseless than just telling people not to assume things. If their assumptions are false correct them. I am happy to admit to my being wrong if you just name other games you play. If you are playing other TRPGs name them. And I will admit to my being wrong to assume you strictly play D&D. Simple. But just telling me not to assume things goes nowhere towards demonstrating that my assumptions are false. If anything it makes me suspect they are accurate. Because it's a tactic so often used by people to deflect from criticism.
So what other TRPG or TRPGs do you play?
Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Macross RPG, Supernatural RPG, Star Wars by FFG, Vampire/Werewolf (2nd edition), and Ponyfinder are some games that I have played a few times in the past couple years. But I nor anyone else owes you an explanation of what they play or why in order to be treated with respect and curtesy. So again, please stop making assumptions about people you don't know.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I was talking about the new Bastion system. Got a fair bit of attention as the centerpiece of a UA.
Oh, I'll say that. And while I think, overall, the 2024 rules are an improvement over the 2014 rules, both are amazingly empty of flavor, verve, inspiring creativity. In 2014, I think this was guided mostly by a desire to be as accessible as possible; which I'm good with, especially since D&D 2014 is wonderfully flexible and malleable in terms of applying it to evocative, "flavorful" homebrew settings and rules.
(Here I'll give a shout out to what I think might be the best supplement to the 2014 rules: VRGTR. The Domains of Dread ooze atmosphere and distinction in a way nothing else WOTC has put out does.)
For the 2024 rules, WOTC went even farther along the generic path, removing ALL world-specific lore and text, and even making the monster descriptions blander.
When you look at the many successful third-party campaign settings - Symbaroum, Grimhallow, Crooked Moon, and many, many more - there are and how wonderfully evocative and singular they seem, the lack of creativity and flavor in D&D becomes very apparent.
I can see your point, but D&D isn't a setting, it is a system. I think it is best to hold judgement on settings until we actually see the setting books that are due out this year. A year is a long time to wait for a full setting for the new 2024 rules, but that is a whole other subject.
If they don't put as much effort into the new setting books as they did for Ravenloft, then I will be in complete agreement with you. Even though I don't use published settings, they should be well made for the people that do.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think that this is exactly the point that Wizards wants, though. To agree with the above - they're publishing a system, not a setting. They want there to be a delineation between the mechanics/rules and the flavor/lore, which can be filled in by third party settings, homebrew, or published settings. I'm not saying which is the correct approach, but just pointing out that imo this is exactly what Wizards is trying to do.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I agree I’m not a fan of the lore step down in the new PHB- moreso over class descriptions and background prompts than the race stuff, though. But I can understand the thought process, particularly when homebrew settings track as their largest market by a wide margin; they want to try and avoid dictating the “right” forms of the various species and such. I’m tentatively optimistic that the emphasis on various locales and organizations we saw in the Forgotten Realms subclasses means they plan to refocus such lore to setting books, which should keep it in general circulation. And before someone trots out the “oh, look at them breaking up the content so they can make you pay twice for it” argument, consider that they already showed about 8 subclasses for FR- most other setting books or similar sources have had 1 or 2, so there’s plenty of hard content there as well. Ultimately we’ll have to wait and see on the final product, but I’m hopeful it’s more a restructuring of where the lore features rather than backing it off altogether.
The distinction between system and setting is a valid and important one. So as far as the core rulebooks go....OK. I still think they don't need to be quite as bland as they are, but we'll let it go.
That doesn't excuse WOTC from not publishing distinctive, evocative settings. And in this, they've failed miserably. Other than Ravenloft/Domains of Dread, the WOTC adventures and settings have generally been bland as well. I remain dumbfounded in just how bad VECNA: EVE OF RUIN was in almost every aspect, just as a for instance. They even managed to make Hell boring in BG:DTA.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorOkay, stepping in folks.
First, keep in mind the actual topic of the thread which is why folk dislike and like the 2024 core rule books. While opinions on WotC are tied to some of these sentiments, this thread has gone wildly into a tangent. Remember to keep focused on the topic and not to hijack. Link back to how a point relates to this topic.
Secondly folk can criticise WotC and Hasbro. But keep in mind our rules on such- any 'criticism' that breaks any of our other rules, such a harassment or insults of individuals including each other will not be tolerated. There is no reason for you to be vitriolic towards each other over opinions on these matters or paint each other as 'anti-wotc' or 'pro-wotc'. Focus on the actual points being made, not each other.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Each of those third-party campaigns first had to rip all the "flavor, fluff and lore" out of the base 2014 D&D rules. Someone with a basic 2014 PHB who comes into a Grim Hollow game for the first time first has to be told "Actually no, none of the information in your 2014 PHB is accurate, here's all the things that are actually correct" in Grim Hollow."
For some people, this process is easy, simple, and no trouble at all. For others, it's reason to never use a supplement that doesn't take place in the core world assumed by the 2014 books - whether a first-party book like Eberron or a third-party book like Grim Hollow.
D&D 5e, especially in its 2024 guise, is the Skyrim of tabletop RPGs. It's about as old, and the most hardcore, dedicated, and visible of its adherents play it with so many third-party mods (i.e. homebrew or third-party books) that it's almost unrecognizable. A vastly larger portion of the playerbase plays the 'vanilla' game, but those people silently do their own thing without interacting with the community at large and none of us can speak for them - but Wizards knows they're out there.
They have to write a game that pleases the silent majority of Vanilla Enjoyers while remaining modular, flexible, and bendable enough to accept the endless throngs of third-party products bolted onto it - as well as managing to successfully sell first-party supplements to players who often feel absolutely no need to ever purchase a book again. [Redacted]
Can any human being(s) alive manage to completely avoid mistakes and missteps, when so many contradictory factors are weighing off their every decision? Can anyone here blame people for the public perception of bitterness and hatred directed towards the new rules when all anyone ever sees is threads dedicated to how much someone hates a new rule or misses something from the old rules?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, the drawback of mass market appeal is you’ve got so many people looking at the product that it’s not hard for critiques to accumulate in an absolute number that looks significant if you don’t set it against the actual population of players.
All good points...and I think I've not done a good job articulating my thoughts. I'll try again - please forgive any appearances of talking down. Not my intent!
I understand why the core rule books are relatively flavorless. I can even understand, to a degree, why supplementary monster books or books with new subclasses, spells, and magic items are; they need to be applicable to the widest set of users possible, as well as adhere to the core rules most people presumably have. All well and good.
But in terms of having to introduce significant deviations to create flavored, evocative settings....hasn't D&D done that repeatedly in its past? Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, even the original Forgotten Realms - didn't all of them, to varying degrees, remove, remix, or replace rules from the core books? Whether it's the removal of gods and clerics, the introduction of a fate tarot system, etc. - this is something D&D used to do, and fairly well.
Now? Well, to use my examples from the previous post, Avernus represented a GREAT opportunity to get weird, atmospheric, and scary with an adventure. And BG: DIV is anything but those things. And again from my examples: we see from many Kickstarters and third party publishers that WIERD or distinctive settings and adventures can sell like crazy. There's absolutely a market and hunger for D&D adventures and settings that aren't the same thing over and over again.
I mean, what “sells like crazy” for a 3PP isn’t necessarily the same kind of numbers a major business like WotC looks for. To a certain degree they seem to be looking to use setting-specific background feats for some of that. Also, considering the fairly low adoption I’ve heard of for most of the optional rules like sanity/honor, facing, spell points, etc. from the ‘14 DMG, I can imagine that the market just isn’t there for a gameplay overhaul on the scope of something like Dark Sun.
I am hopeful that we will see some good stuff with the new FR books. Setting specific Subclasses and Monster Stat Blocks to fit the lore sounds great to me, but who knows if they will pull it off. But that has more to do with settings and since I use a homebrew setting my Dad made, the 2024 core books really well for me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Fair points! Especially about adoption rate: whether it's alternate settings or D&D competitors (Daggerheart, Draw Steel!), I assume that the number of people actually playing games using those pubs is significantly lower than those who buy them.
OTOH: How much does WOTC - and moreso Hasbro - care about adoption as long as people buy it? I have to assume Hasbro absolutely does not care if I ever crack open EVE OF RUIN once I've paid them for it.
OTOH, Part Deux: If leaked sales numbers are to be believed - if what vloggers like Dungeon Craft & others have shared in their YT channels is accurate - the biggest KS campaign settings are very much the kind of numbers that WOTC would like to have. For argument's sake, we'll stick with two supplements explicitly aimed at using D&D's core rules rather than replace them. Legends of Avantris' Crooked Moon setting raised more than $4 million, while DnDShorts' Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms raised more than $3 million. These numbers ARE competitive with a LOT of the canon adventures put out by WOTC. This is competitive with Spelljammer, Icewind Dale, Tomb of Annihilation, Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, and Princes of the Apocalypse.
Looking at million dollar kickstarters, which is a reasonable lower bound to say something 'sells like crazy', there aren't a lot, so we can fairly well just classify them. List from
https://www.designers-and-dragons.com/2025/02/10/dungeons-dragons-for-a-million/
So... 2 adventures, 5-6 campaign settings, 6-7 monster manuals, and some that aren't particularly easy to classify. The majority are suitable as drop-in additions to existing campaigns. Also, we don't know exactly how much D&D sells, their earnings reports don't go into that much detail and the estimates I've seen are all over the map, but given that several of those have been made available on D&D Beyond, those numbers aren't negligible.
I play and have played Shadowrun, Torg, Vampire, Cyberpunk, Warhammer Fantasy, Everyday Heroes, Mutants and Masterminds, Hero and dozens of other systems.