Short answer.. Yeah.. kind of. I mean I think it's an exaggeration to say "no one plays it", even if that is true in my local area. But yeah, compared to 2014, it's shocking how few people are playing 2024. It doesn't match up with the proposed "best-selling D&D of all time", which I will remind you is the exact same thing WotC said about 4th edition. It took about 2 years before D&D fans and supporters of 4th edition were willing to accept that the game was not only doing poorly, but was outright failing as a product. I predict it will be the same with 2024.
Again bringing it back to the OP's topic. The problem with 2024 edition is that it's fundamentally the same game, essentially a reprint. The fact that people buy the product is not surprising at all. When D&D gets a new edition, every D&D fan is going to buy it. But when you realize that playing 2024 is the same as playing 2014 which you have already played the crap out of, essentially you end up in a place where you where before the new edition was launched.
Aka... waiting for a new edition. In the absence of a new edition (or an edition you want to play as the case was with 4th edition and to a degree 2nd edition), you seek out other games.
The success of all of these kick-starters and alternatives to D&D would not be successful if we were in 2014 and Wizards just launched 5th edition as a new game no one has played before. I mean during that period, there was no way to launch a successful alternative to D&D, EVERYONE was on the 5e D&D train.
That is not happening right now, 2024 is not having that impact, in fact, quite to the contrary, its because of the release of 2024 that all of these others games are so successful. They are offering something new and D&D is not currently, nor will offer anything new for many years to come. Its going to be 5th edition for at least another 3-5 years so as a D&D player, if you not excited about continuing to play the same old 5th edition, you are looking at other games and that is precisely what I think is happening right now.
This might be happening in your area, but my experience is the exact opposite. That is why it is important to not listen to random strangers on the internet (especially those looking for clicks) and go have a look for yourself.
Adventures never do as well as source books do, but we will have some idea of how things are going for 2024 in July. However, I predict, since we are doing that now, that the real test will be in November when the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide releases. If that sells well, then I would venture to say that 2024 is just fine.
But this is all getting a bit off topic again so I am guessing that this thread is pretty much done.
D&D has exploded in my LGS. My campaign was the only one running for about two years (with one or two false starts from others), with only three or four players. In the last six months, it's gone up to four campaigns and I'm regularly having to reject new players because we're full and I can't squeeze any more into my campaign. Of the other three campaigns, at least one is in a similar situation, another is also rejecting new players, but I'm don't know if it's full or for other reasons. The last one was set up explicitly to cater for everyone joining. That's from about 5 people to about 25 (or at least, 25 seats - some are playing in multiple campaigns).
That said, I don't know how much of that is down to 2024e. I'm the only one that I'm aware of that uses them - and I've been running a hybrid rules campaign, so not purely 2024e. It's possible the excitement from the release indirectly lead to the other campaigns forming.
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.
Short answer.. Yeah.. kind of. I mean I think it's an exaggeration to say "no one plays it", even if that is true in my local area. But yeah, compared to 2014, it's shocking how few people are playing 2024. It doesn't match up with the proposed "best-selling D&D of all time", which I will remind you is the exact same thing WotC said about 4th edition. It took about 2 years before D&D fans and supporters of 4th edition were willing to accept that the game was not only doing poorly, but was outright failing as a product. I predict it will be the same with 2024.
Again bringing it back to the OP's topic. The problem with 2024 edition is that it's fundamentally the same game, essentially a reprint. The fact that people buy the product is not surprising at all. When D&D gets a new edition, every D&D fan is going to buy it. But when you realize that playing 2024 is the same as playing 2014 which you have already played the crap out of, essentially you end up in a place where you where before the new edition was launched.
Aka... waiting for a new edition. In the absence of a new edition (or an edition you want to play as the case was with 4th edition and to a degree 2nd edition), you seek out other games.
The success of all of these kick-starters and alternatives to D&D would not be successful if we were in 2014 and Wizards just launched 5th edition as a new game no one has played before. I mean during that period, there was no way to launch a successful alternative to D&D, EVERYONE was on the 5e D&D train.
That is not happening right now, 2024 is not having that impact, in fact, quite to the contrary, its because of the release of 2024 that all of these others games are so successful. They are offering something new and D&D is not currently, nor will offer anything new for many years to come. Its going to be 5th edition for at least another 3-5 years so as a D&D player, if you not excited about continuing to play the same old 5th edition, you are looking at other games and that is precisely what I think is happening right now.
This might be happening in your area, but my experience is the exact opposite. That is why it is important to not listen to random strangers on the internet (especially those looking for clicks) and go have a look for yourself.
Adventures never do as well as source books do, but we will have some idea of how things are going for 2024 in July. However, I predict, since we are doing that now, that the real test will be in November when the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide releases. If that sells well, then I would venture to say that 2024 is just fine.
But this is all getting a bit off topic again so I am guessing that this thread is pretty much done.
Technically you are just a random person on the internet providing your own anecdotal information, what makes your experience anymore valid than someone with a different experience than yours?
In my area the majority of players aren't using 24 rules at all, mostly because they can do everything they want from new rules do with house rules. Just not enough of a change to deal with house ruling out the stuff they don't want from the new rules. Some of them have bought the books, most others have read them via sharing.
A rule tweak of the core 3 rulebooks release for the 50th anniversary is pretty disappointing to many, pile the botched release, and the character builder fiasco on top of that, and it's not hard to see why some may not have much love left.
This might be happening in your area, but my experience is the exact opposite. That is why it is important to not listen to random strangers on the internet (especially those looking for clicks) and go have a look for yourself.
Adventures never do as well as source books do, but we will have some idea of how things are going for 2024 in July. However, I predict, since we are doing that now, that the real test will be in November when the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide releases. If that sells well, then I would venture to say that 2024 is just fine.
But this is all getting a bit off topic again so I am guessing that this thread is pretty much done.
Technically you are just a random person on the internet providing your own anecdotal information, what makes your experience anymore valid than someone with a different experience than yours?
In my area the majority of players aren't using 24 rules at all, mostly because they can do everything they want from new rules do with house rules. Just not enough of a change to deal with house ruling out the stuff they don't want from the new rules. Some of them have bought the books, most others have read them via sharing.
A rule tweak of the core 3 rulebooks release for the 50th anniversary is pretty disappointing to many, pile the botched release, and the character builder fiasco on top of that, and it's not hard to see why some may not have much love left.
In his defense, we are all random people on the internet with a wide range of unique reflections and unique experiences, but one could argue that the prompting of this topic alone and the question it presents is evidence itself that something is not quite right.
In terms of social media, there is no question that the 2024 edition has been universally poorly received, you have to look long and hard to find anything positive on the subject of the 2024 release. I don't personally agree with all of it, but there is no denying the negativity is out there that prompts the OP's question.
I think if I were to break it down based on my personal take, reading the 2024 edition of the game prompts the question, what is the point of this edition? Why should someone buy it? why should someone play it? and how is it better than the original 2014 edition? All questions I personally can't answer with any conviction. In a sense, my answer is, if you don't already have the 2014 edition (meaning you're new), it's a better edit of the rules, but for the existing player, I have no meaningful way to justify it other than... it's easier to reference the same rules?
I'm actually quite surprised about the reception. When I got my DM guide for example, I was mostly pleasantly surprised. I felt the book addressed a common issue with the old DMG which was the fact that the old book really wasn't much of a guide. The 2024 DMG I feel does a much better job of basically breaking down what your job is as a DM.
The Monster Manual I think is the weakest of all the books as it quite literally doesn't address any of the monster design issues and effectively doubles down on the already well-established mistakes of 5e. This to me was going to be the great hope for the edition and it was a real letdown. Simply put, the monsters are boring.
The players handbook is largely a rehash of existing rules, I'm not sure what or why the beta test took as long as it did as it was ultimately for nothing, they just reprinted the rules in Tasha's Cauldron. It's a nicer edit but 95% of the rules in the PHB have already been printed in other books, its more of a consolidation than anything.
Needless to say it's the same 5e we know and love, but as I pointed out earlier, I think that is the problem. We have already had 10 years of 5e... it was great, we had a lot of fun, 2024 was supposed to give us something new and... frankly .. it didn't ... at all. Its the same game which I guess if you're already a fan is great, I mean I'm a fan but yeah... we have been playing this same design for 10 years already. I was hoping for something new.. Shake things up, give us something new to talk about ,..unfortunately there is nothing so the only option is to either play the same game for another 10 years or move on to something else until WotC gives us a proper 6th edition.
I don't want to use the word disappointing, but that's pretty much it, at least if you were expecting something new. I mean if you love 5e... its 5e, your golden. But if you were hoping for a next-generation D&D.. we didn't get that.
As OSR is saying above, 2024 is nice, but not spectacular. It’s a rewrite with improvements but not a recreation. It’s not even, really, a 5.5 - it’s 5.24
As OSR is saying above, 2024 is nice, but not spectacular. It’s a rewrite with improvements but not a recreation. It’s not even, really, a 5.5 - it’s 5.24
I will be honest, this is one of my single favorite elements of 5.24 - and while others here might think it is a letdown, I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the 50th anniversary than (hopefully) killing the worst element of D&D - edition changes.
The 2024 model of doing revisions and tweaking, which there have been some hints might be the model moving forward in place of edition changes, is far more consumer friendly than this game’s history. No more real splits of the community (there are some divisions, but, overall, a 5.14 and 5.24 player easily could switch between iterations and carry on conversations without any real ambiguity). No more sudden changes requiring you to choose between hundreds of dollars of purchases and the new hotness. No more trying to hack together homebrew ports to run an old adventure in a new system.
And, perhaps more importantly, players actually can playtest their content - with a new edition, you can’t get valid playtest data, since you’re throwing people in the deep end. With this system, we were able to have a pretty intensive playtest period - players already knew the basics, so were able to skip all that and move right to helping create the game itself.
I, for one, think it was a great way to celebrate the 50th anniversary by releasing the first iteration playtested by tens of thousands of players.
So, for OP’s benefit, if they are still following this thread, there is a little bit of love for you.
This might be happening in your area, but my experience is the exact opposite. That is why it is important to not listen to random strangers on the internet (especially those looking for clicks) and go have a look for yourself.
Technically you are just a random person on the internet providing your own anecdotal information, what makes your experience anymore valid than someone with a different experience than yours?
I never said anyone's experience is invalid. As highlighted above, I encourage people to seek out their own experiences instead.
Yeah it is awesome, slap some paint and touchups on the old material, change it just enough to cause issues and sell 3 more books with 95%of the same material. 24e is not a step forward, it is a sidestep. It is fun to watch the people that buy it as a step forward claim the people that see it for what it is are making a fuss over nothing.
"nothing to see here, move along".
Hey at least the Owlbear can fly, take my money!
That's why there is a lack of love of the new rules for some.
As OSR is saying above, 2024 is nice, but not spectacular. It’s a rewrite with improvements but not a recreation. It’s not even, really, a 5.5 - it’s 5.24
I will be honest, this is one of my single favorite elements of 5.24 - and while others here might think it is a letdown, I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the 50th anniversary than (hopefully) killing the worst element of D&D - edition changes.
The 2024 model of doing revisions and tweaking, which there have been some hints might be the model moving forward in place of edition changes, is far more consumer friendly than this game’s history. No more real splits of the community (there are some divisions, but, overall, a 5.14 and 5.24 player easily could switch between iterations and carry on conversations without any real ambiguity). No more sudden changes requiring you to choose between hundreds of dollars of purchases and the new hotness. No more trying to hack together homebrew ports to run an old adventure in a new system.
And, perhaps more importantly, players actually can playtest their content - with a new edition, you can’t get valid playtest data, since you’re throwing people in the deep end. With this system, we were able to have a pretty intensive playtest period - players already knew the basics, so were able to skip all that and move right to helping create the game itself.
I, for one, think it was a great way to celebrate the 50th anniversary by releasing the first iteration playtested by tens of thousands of players.
So, for OP’s benefit, if they are still following this thread, there is a little bit of love for you.
It's an interesting premise, is D&D better if it stops evolving and stabilizes into a sort of commoditization of the product?
There is some evidence in the market that supports the idea of this sort of evergreen approach to game design/franchise, Castles and Crusades is a pretty good example. It's remained basically the same system over I think like 8 or 9 printings at this point and while it doesn't have a huge market share, it has an audience.
I would argue however that edition warring and the edition changes have been ultimately good not bad for the franchise. The internet arguing aside, it has created a wide range of products (offshoots) of various editions, each taking some component, structure or design core and evolving it further and/or creating entire communities time stamped in a particular era of play.
The OSR for example loves its 1st and 2nd edition games, there are tons of products, support and evolutions taking place there, but had TSR simply stopped evolving or Wizards of the Coast taken over the product and not decided to create 3rd edition we wouldn't have Paizo-Pathfinder and all the evolutions based on that product. Even 4th edition despite any absence of longevity triggered a wide range of successful games like 13th age.
Design evolution is progress and while there are examples of successful evergreen products, new editions with modernization and evolution of mechanics by a market leader like the D&D franchise is almost a tradition and in a way the source of inspiration for the countless offshoots and unique products that are born from the different eras of D&D.
If D&D is now entering a kind of settled, evergreen period where 5th edition is effectively everything D&D will ever be, I suspect inevitably someone will come along and create the evolution that D&D should have. I mean its kind of happening already, there are a lot of games like DC20, Draw Steal and Daggerheart just to name a few. Im not sure its so great for D&D that other franchises lead the evolutions of fantasy RPG's. In fact I would argue D&D's popularity is driven by the fact that it's always been the industry leader on the forefront of designing the modern iteration of fantasy RPG's.
We'll see over time I guess, but I would still bet on 2024 edition as being a kind of short-lived version of D&D and 6th edition is something we'll see in 4-5 years tops. Especially if these other system rise in popularity and start swallowing up market share.
I don't hate D&D 2024 so much as I'm kind of disappointed with how they've decided to go all in on making the setting rules Agnostic; I understand that people like building their own worlds with their own lore and such (I've done this enough times) or changing the general lore of a given race but the results have been leaving it just... hollow.
Further, while I disagreed with seperating attributes from races I wasn't going to make a big issue out of it... until WotC decided to dump the changes they made in late 5th (where you could put either 3 +1s or a +2 and a+1 where you wanted) and instead decided to tie it to background so boo racism yay classism I guess?
With that having been said, I haven't written off D&D entirely; I feel like it's been mismanaged for a few years now but I'm hoping that the writers will be able to put forward some quality source material that prioritizes Rich lore over being as inoffensive and generic as possible.
Further, while I disagreed with seperating attributes from races I wasn't going to make a big issue out of it... until WotC decided to dump the changes they made in late 5th (where you could put either 3 +1s or a +2 and a+1 where you wanted) and instead decided to tie it to background so boo racism yay classism I guess?
For me, that's more of an issue with the implementation of DDB than D&D per se. In the game, in free to ignore it. The character builder makes it a pain.
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.
The basic concept of "your floating ASI's come from the life path you took prior to this" is fine, it's just the lack of a wildcard option in Beyond that failed to stick the landing. Having prebuilt models isn't an issue.
And the "classist" bit is just ridiculous- there's one all physical and one all mental background. Yes, performing religious services is not the kind of thing that lends itself to most forms of bodybuilding, nor is working as a foot soldier going to emphasize mental exercises over physical ones. And there's Guard for almost all the same flavor as Soldier with two mental stats. Now, you can't necessarily put together an optimized combination of attributes, skills, feat, etc. like this, and again it's unfortunate that they haven't included a custom '24 background tool on Beyond, but trying to aim any further accusations at D&D over the setup starts at patently ridiculous and ends at obvious bad faith muckraking.
The basic concept of "your floating ASI's come from the life path you took prior to this" is fine, it's just the lack of a wildcard option in Beyond that failed to stick the landing. Having prebuilt models isn't an issue.
And the "classist" bit is just ridiculous- there's one all physical and one all mental background. Yes, performing religious services is not the kind of thing that lends itself to most forms of bodybuilding, nor is working as a foot soldier going to emphasize mental exercises over physical ones. And there's Guard for almost all the same flavor as Soldier with two mental stats. Now, you can't necessarily put together an optimized combination of attributes, skills, feat, etc. like this, and again it's unfortunate that they haven't included a custom '24 background tool on Beyond, but trying to aim any further accusations at D&D over the setup starts at patently ridiculous and ends at obvious bad faith muckraking.
What about religions that place an emphasis on physical prowess? What about soldiers who were scouts, standard bearers or quartermasters? What about Noblemen who's education involved dance, posture and other things that would emphasize agility over intelligence, strength or charisma?
I could keep going with examples but I think I've made my point: If they were going to decouple attributes from race choices then the best choice was to make them wholly free for the players to put in as they see fit.
Yeah, this has been talked about before. Decoupling ASIs from species in order to promote creativity and individuality....and then hard-coding them to backgrounds was certainly a choice.
I don't understand why they have this bump at all.
I mean you create your character, be it dice rolls, array or point buy. You re already making the choice for your ability scores. Why create a bump based on other selections which leads to min/maxing?
Never understood that, not in any edition. Just leave it be. You make your stats and you're done with stats.. now my background, species and class choices based on aesthetics, playstyle and preferences.
It's like this rock we keep beating ourselves over the head with that has absolutely no upside.
The basic concept of "your floating ASI's come from the life path you took prior to this" is fine, it's just the lack of a wildcard option in Beyond that failed to stick the landing. Having prebuilt models isn't an issue.
And the "classist" bit is just ridiculous- there's one all physical and one all mental background. Yes, performing religious services is not the kind of thing that lends itself to most forms of bodybuilding, nor is working as a foot soldier going to emphasize mental exercises over physical ones. And there's Guard for almost all the same flavor as Soldier with two mental stats. Now, you can't necessarily put together an optimized combination of attributes, skills, feat, etc. like this, and again it's unfortunate that they haven't included a custom '24 background tool on Beyond, but trying to aim any further accusations at D&D over the setup starts at patently ridiculous and ends at obvious bad faith muckraking.
What about religions that place an emphasis on physical prowess? What about soldiers who were scouts, standard bearers or quartermasters? What about Noblemen who's education involved dance, posture and other things that would emphasize agility over intelligence, strength or charisma?
I could keep going with examples but I think I've made my point: If they were going to decouple attributes from race choices then the best choice was to make them wholly free for the players to put in as they see fit.
What about all those other backgrounds you could pick from? A noble who specialized in dancing sounds a lot like an Entertainer. A scout sounds a lot like a Guide or Wayfarer. A quartermaster sounds a lot like an Artisan or Merchant. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
Yes, you can come up with special exceptions to the general characterization associated with a background, but the point of the listed ones is to give people looking for a quickie background a "here's some stats that fit the general vibe of this career path". Particularly with the dropping of the soft features and little custom trinkets, there's no reason you can't sketch together your own custom background if you absolutely must have everything just so. The only flaw in the implementation of the concept here is that they didn't include build-a-background tools in the Beyond creator. And yes, that's a somewhat notable flaw, but that's an issue with Beyond not the '24 update.
I don't understand why they have this bump at all.
I mean you create your character, be it dice rolls, array or point buy. You re already making the choice for your ability scores. Why create a bump based on other selections which leads to min/maxing?
Never understood that, not in any edition. Just leave it be. You make your stats and you're done with stats.. now my background, species and class choices based on aesthetics, playstyle and preferences.
It's like this rock we keep beating ourselves over the head with that has absolutely no upside.
In early editions it was because they were running with the tropes/stereotypes associated with the races: dwarves are strong and tough, elves are lithe and clever, etc. It hung around as an artifact of the system, but recently the push for flexibility of character design and the impetus to move the game away from rules that can look bad in the right light got it changed. As for why they didn't do a more thorough change of character creation, probably because the artifact is still there to some degree plus it's just easier to keep the basic system and move where the bonuses come from than revise the system, and the mechanics themselves are sound enough.
Min/maxing is a player mentality and a choice on their part rather then something game influenced. So personally consider it a player issues to solve rather then a game/mechanic issues that requires something changing.
The options: (I can think of)
Asi via species (nature) - people complained for various reasons, typically about species being suited for certain classes over others.
Asi via background (nurture) - people complain various reasons, despite it allowing whichever species and class people wish to play to be paired with each other (unsure what the complaints actually are beside old method vs new method and/or min/maxing characters).
Asi via players wants (player blessings) - suspect people would still complain, however suspect it would be more to do with min/maxing players ruining the experience of others at tables or DMs having player issues.
No Asi at beginning (level progression Asi only) - every character would be the same potentially influenced by class, which leads back to it being restrictive to players choices, min/maxing and same old complaints.
No Asi anywhere (stagnant) - character don't improve beyond their starting stats unless influenced by equipment, items or spells. For the most part removing the Asi mechanics from game.
So regardless of where the Asi comes from the same complaints will arise until players mentality changes away from min/maxing. At least in my opinion
Anywho unsure if we're drifting off topic but does anyone else start singing the "where is the love" song when they open the thread??
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This might be happening in your area, but my experience is the exact opposite. That is why it is important to not listen to random strangers on the internet (especially those looking for clicks) and go have a look for yourself.
Adventures never do as well as source books do, but we will have some idea of how things are going for 2024 in July. However, I predict, since we are doing that now, that the real test will be in November when the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide releases. If that sells well, then I would venture to say that 2024 is just fine.
But this is all getting a bit off topic again so I am guessing that this thread is pretty much done.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
D&D has exploded in my LGS. My campaign was the only one running for about two years (with one or two false starts from others), with only three or four players. In the last six months, it's gone up to four campaigns and I'm regularly having to reject new players because we're full and I can't squeeze any more into my campaign. Of the other three campaigns, at least one is in a similar situation, another is also rejecting new players, but I'm don't know if it's full or for other reasons. The last one was set up explicitly to cater for everyone joining. That's from about 5 people to about 25 (or at least, 25 seats - some are playing in multiple campaigns).
That said, I don't know how much of that is down to 2024e. I'm the only one that I'm aware of that uses them - and I've been running a hybrid rules campaign, so not purely 2024e. It's possible the excitement from the release indirectly lead to the other campaigns forming.
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.
Technically you are just a random person on the internet providing your own anecdotal information, what makes your experience anymore valid than someone with a different experience than yours?
In my area the majority of players aren't using 24 rules at all, mostly because they can do everything they want from new rules do with house rules. Just not enough of a change to deal with house ruling out the stuff they don't want from the new rules. Some of them have bought the books, most others have read them via sharing.
A rule tweak of the core 3 rulebooks release for the 50th anniversary is pretty disappointing to many, pile the botched release, and the character builder fiasco on top of that, and it's not hard to see why some may not have much love left.
In his defense, we are all random people on the internet with a wide range of unique reflections and unique experiences, but one could argue that the prompting of this topic alone and the question it presents is evidence itself that something is not quite right.
In terms of social media, there is no question that the 2024 edition has been universally poorly received, you have to look long and hard to find anything positive on the subject of the 2024 release. I don't personally agree with all of it, but there is no denying the negativity is out there that prompts the OP's question.
I think if I were to break it down based on my personal take, reading the 2024 edition of the game prompts the question, what is the point of this edition? Why should someone buy it? why should someone play it? and how is it better than the original 2014 edition? All questions I personally can't answer with any conviction. In a sense, my answer is, if you don't already have the 2014 edition (meaning you're new), it's a better edit of the rules, but for the existing player, I have no meaningful way to justify it other than... it's easier to reference the same rules?
I'm actually quite surprised about the reception. When I got my DM guide for example, I was mostly pleasantly surprised. I felt the book addressed a common issue with the old DMG which was the fact that the old book really wasn't much of a guide. The 2024 DMG I feel does a much better job of basically breaking down what your job is as a DM.
The Monster Manual I think is the weakest of all the books as it quite literally doesn't address any of the monster design issues and effectively doubles down on the already well-established mistakes of 5e. This to me was going to be the great hope for the edition and it was a real letdown. Simply put, the monsters are boring.
The players handbook is largely a rehash of existing rules, I'm not sure what or why the beta test took as long as it did as it was ultimately for nothing, they just reprinted the rules in Tasha's Cauldron. It's a nicer edit but 95% of the rules in the PHB have already been printed in other books, its more of a consolidation than anything.
Needless to say it's the same 5e we know and love, but as I pointed out earlier, I think that is the problem. We have already had 10 years of 5e... it was great, we had a lot of fun, 2024 was supposed to give us something new and... frankly .. it didn't ... at all. Its the same game which I guess if you're already a fan is great, I mean I'm a fan but yeah... we have been playing this same design for 10 years already. I was hoping for something new.. Shake things up, give us something new to talk about ,..unfortunately there is nothing so the only option is to either play the same game for another 10 years or move on to something else until WotC gives us a proper 6th edition.
I don't want to use the word disappointing, but that's pretty much it, at least if you were expecting something new. I mean if you love 5e... its 5e, your golden. But if you were hoping for a next-generation D&D.. we didn't get that.
As OSR is saying above, 2024 is nice, but not spectacular. It’s a rewrite with improvements but not a recreation. It’s not even, really, a 5.5 - it’s 5.24
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I will be honest, this is one of my single favorite elements of 5.24 - and while others here might think it is a letdown, I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the 50th anniversary than (hopefully) killing the worst element of D&D - edition changes.
The 2024 model of doing revisions and tweaking, which there have been some hints might be the model moving forward in place of edition changes, is far more consumer friendly than this game’s history. No more real splits of the community (there are some divisions, but, overall, a 5.14 and 5.24 player easily could switch between iterations and carry on conversations without any real ambiguity). No more sudden changes requiring you to choose between hundreds of dollars of purchases and the new hotness. No more trying to hack together homebrew ports to run an old adventure in a new system.
And, perhaps more importantly, players actually can playtest their content - with a new edition, you can’t get valid playtest data, since you’re throwing people in the deep end. With this system, we were able to have a pretty intensive playtest period - players already knew the basics, so were able to skip all that and move right to helping create the game itself.
I, for one, think it was a great way to celebrate the 50th anniversary by releasing the first iteration playtested by tens of thousands of players.
So, for OP’s benefit, if they are still following this thread, there is a little bit of love for you.
I never said anyone's experience is invalid. As highlighted above, I encourage people to seek out their own experiences instead.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah it is awesome, slap some paint and touchups on the old material, change it just enough to cause issues and sell 3 more books with 95%of the same material. 24e is not a step forward, it is a sidestep. It is fun to watch the people that buy it as a step forward claim the people that see it for what it is are making a fuss over nothing.
"nothing to see here, move along".
Hey at least the Owlbear can fly, take my money!
That's why there is a lack of love of the new rules for some.
It's an interesting premise, is D&D better if it stops evolving and stabilizes into a sort of commoditization of the product?
There is some evidence in the market that supports the idea of this sort of evergreen approach to game design/franchise, Castles and Crusades is a pretty good example. It's remained basically the same system over I think like 8 or 9 printings at this point and while it doesn't have a huge market share, it has an audience.
I would argue however that edition warring and the edition changes have been ultimately good not bad for the franchise. The internet arguing aside, it has created a wide range of products (offshoots) of various editions, each taking some component, structure or design core and evolving it further and/or creating entire communities time stamped in a particular era of play.
The OSR for example loves its 1st and 2nd edition games, there are tons of products, support and evolutions taking place there, but had TSR simply stopped evolving or Wizards of the Coast taken over the product and not decided to create 3rd edition we wouldn't have Paizo-Pathfinder and all the evolutions based on that product. Even 4th edition despite any absence of longevity triggered a wide range of successful games like 13th age.
Design evolution is progress and while there are examples of successful evergreen products, new editions with modernization and evolution of mechanics by a market leader like the D&D franchise is almost a tradition and in a way the source of inspiration for the countless offshoots and unique products that are born from the different eras of D&D.
If D&D is now entering a kind of settled, evergreen period where 5th edition is effectively everything D&D will ever be, I suspect inevitably someone will come along and create the evolution that D&D should have. I mean its kind of happening already, there are a lot of games like DC20, Draw Steal and Daggerheart just to name a few. Im not sure its so great for D&D that other franchises lead the evolutions of fantasy RPG's. In fact I would argue D&D's popularity is driven by the fact that it's always been the industry leader on the forefront of designing the modern iteration of fantasy RPG's.
We'll see over time I guess, but I would still bet on 2024 edition as being a kind of short-lived version of D&D and 6th edition is something we'll see in 4-5 years tops. Especially if these other system rise in popularity and start swallowing up market share.
The love is there, however based of this thread alone I'm starting to wonder if people are getting in their own ways yet pointing the finger at DnD
I don't hate D&D 2024 so much as I'm kind of disappointed with how they've decided to go all in on making the setting rules Agnostic; I understand that people like building their own worlds with their own lore and such (I've done this enough times) or changing the general lore of a given race but the results have been leaving it just... hollow.
Further, while I disagreed with seperating attributes from races I wasn't going to make a big issue out of it... until WotC decided to dump the changes they made in late 5th (where you could put either 3 +1s or a +2 and a+1 where you wanted) and instead decided to tie it to background so boo racism yay classism I guess?
With that having been said, I haven't written off D&D entirely; I feel like it's been mismanaged for a few years now but I'm hoping that the writers will be able to put forward some quality source material that prioritizes Rich lore over being as inoffensive and generic as possible.
For me, that's more of an issue with the implementation of DDB than D&D per se. In the game, in free to ignore it. The character builder makes it a pain.
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.
The basic concept of "your floating ASI's come from the life path you took prior to this" is fine, it's just the lack of a wildcard option in Beyond that failed to stick the landing. Having prebuilt models isn't an issue.
And the "classist" bit is just ridiculous- there's one all physical and one all mental background. Yes, performing religious services is not the kind of thing that lends itself to most forms of bodybuilding, nor is working as a foot soldier going to emphasize mental exercises over physical ones. And there's Guard for almost all the same flavor as Soldier with two mental stats. Now, you can't necessarily put together an optimized combination of attributes, skills, feat, etc. like this, and again it's unfortunate that they haven't included a custom '24 background tool on Beyond, but trying to aim any further accusations at D&D over the setup starts at patently ridiculous and ends at obvious bad faith muckraking.
What about religions that place an emphasis on physical prowess? What about soldiers who were scouts, standard bearers or quartermasters? What about Noblemen who's education involved dance, posture and other things that would emphasize agility over intelligence, strength or charisma?
I could keep going with examples but I think I've made my point: If they were going to decouple attributes from race choices then the best choice was to make them wholly free for the players to put in as they see fit.
Yeah, this has been talked about before. Decoupling ASIs from species in order to promote creativity and individuality....and then hard-coding them to backgrounds was certainly a choice.
A bad one, to be clear.
Which is what they didn’t want to do to avoid min/maxing
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't understand why they have this bump at all.
I mean you create your character, be it dice rolls, array or point buy. You re already making the choice for your ability scores. Why create a bump based on other selections which leads to min/maxing?
Never understood that, not in any edition. Just leave it be. You make your stats and you're done with stats.. now my background, species and class choices based on aesthetics, playstyle and preferences.
It's like this rock we keep beating ourselves over the head with that has absolutely no upside.
What about all those other backgrounds you could pick from? A noble who specialized in dancing sounds a lot like an Entertainer. A scout sounds a lot like a Guide or Wayfarer. A quartermaster sounds a lot like an Artisan or Merchant. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
Yes, you can come up with special exceptions to the general characterization associated with a background, but the point of the listed ones is to give people looking for a quickie background a "here's some stats that fit the general vibe of this career path". Particularly with the dropping of the soft features and little custom trinkets, there's no reason you can't sketch together your own custom background if you absolutely must have everything just so. The only flaw in the implementation of the concept here is that they didn't include build-a-background tools in the Beyond creator. And yes, that's a somewhat notable flaw, but that's an issue with Beyond not the '24 update.
In early editions it was because they were running with the tropes/stereotypes associated with the races: dwarves are strong and tough, elves are lithe and clever, etc. It hung around as an artifact of the system, but recently the push for flexibility of character design and the impetus to move the game away from rules that can look bad in the right light got it changed. As for why they didn't do a more thorough change of character creation, probably because the artifact is still there to some degree plus it's just easier to keep the basic system and move where the bonuses come from than revise the system, and the mechanics themselves are sound enough.
Min/maxing is a player mentality and a choice on their part rather then something game influenced. So personally consider it a player issues to solve rather then a game/mechanic issues that requires something changing.
The options: (I can think of)
So regardless of where the Asi comes from the same complaints will arise until players mentality changes away from min/maxing. At least in my opinion
Anywho unsure if we're drifting off topic but does anyone else start singing the "where is the love" song when they open the thread??