Tangential perhaps, but a question I'd like some outside perspective on.
Why is everyone so absolutely blood-boiling gut-churning seeing-red furious at the thought of Wizards "changing" a book after publication?
Modern video games have done extremely will with post-launch support and patching to correct egregious issues with a launch title. The whole public perception of rangers, sorcerers, and monks all being pointless wouldn't matter for spit if Wizards was allowed to just issue updated, corrected redesigns without having to wait ten years and essentially issue a 5.5 update to the game which is a video game patch they could've done years ago for free if people weren't so violently, explosively hostile top the idea of Books Changing.
I get that a few folks don't like The New Direction(TM) with the game and they want to stick to R5e exactly as it appeared in 2014. They can totally still do that. The text exists on the Internet in perpetuity. Plus, for every person for whom rules updates are a total dealbreaker, there's someone out there for whom the new rule is exactly what they needed and the change got them to come back to the game or open up a previously closed wallet.
I just cannot figure out this vicious push to forestall any and all errata, updates, or design refreshes for the game Forever And In Eternal Perpetuity. If video games - which, I remind people, are collectively hundreds of times more successful than tabletop games despite having been created around roughly the same time - assumed this idea that touching the code even once after a game launches was Literally Worse Than [Godwin's Law]...would they be hundreds of times as successful as tabletop games?
I don't think so. And I remain baffled by this dramatic resistance to any and all forms of updates and corrections so many people here evince.
Tangential perhaps, but a question I'd like some outside perspective on.
Why is everyone so absolutely blood-boiling gut-churning seeing-red furious at the thought of Wizards "changing" a book after publication?
Modern video games have done extremely will with post-launch support and patching to correct egregious issues with a launch title. The whole public perception of rangers, sorcerers, and monks all being pointless wouldn't matter for spit if Wizards was allowed to just issue updated, corrected redesigns without having to wait ten years and essentially issue a 5.5 update to the game which is a video game patch they could've done years ago for free if people weren't so violently, explosively hostile top the idea of Books Changing.
I get that a few folks don't like The New Direction(TM) with the game and they want to stick to R5e exactly as it appeared in 2014. They can totally still do that. The text exists on the Internet in perpetuity. Plus, for every person for whom rules updates are a total dealbreaker, there's someone out there for whom the new rule is exactly what they needed and the change got them to come back to the game or open up a previously closed wallet.
I just cannot figure out this vicious push to forestall any and all errata, updates, or design refreshes for the game Forever And In Eternal Perpetuity. If video games - which, I remind people, are collectively hundreds of times more successful than tabletop games despite having been created around roughly the same time - assumed this idea that touching the code even once after a game launches was Literally Worse Than [Godwin's Law]...would they be hundreds of times as successful as tabletop games?
I don't think so. And I remain baffled by this dramatic resistance to any and all forms of updates and corrections so many people here evince.
It's the issue of physical media vs digital media. Let's say you redesign a class. In a video game you patch and everyone is using the same version all at once. With a book, you are now left with people having access to different versions. Which version is correct and allowed in organized play? If the old books are not, how do you compensate those players to get new books in their hands?
I can only speak for myself. I like online tools. They are convenient for record keeping, and thinking about DnD when I only have my phone on me.
But I prefer books.
I buy the books. I have them all on the shelf right beside me when I run games. I pull them out as needed for reference during games. I give them to players to make their characters. Books are so much easier to read. They have great art. I remember exactly where everything is in them. I can bookmark dozens of pages and look at more than one at a time during the game. Running an adventure from a book is a thousand times better than a mobile site. I can see the map and all the room descriptions on a couple pages instead of clicking links and the back button over and over.
I use online tools to track characters and to check my work on building them correctly. For everything else I want the books. I'm not vehemently opposed to active updates. I was thrilled for Tasha's and the fixes it offered. But for me, I know that I won't use a game if it requires a version of the rules that's highly modified from the printed book. I can keep up with a few changes like clarifications to statuses or spells. But I just know I won't be crossreferencing every detail online when I play.
Whatever the last edition is that they print in physical form, that's the one I'll play. I'm looking forward to the new rules. I'll buy all the books. I'll just live without the potential online updates. In fact, if they came out with annual paperbacks that compile rules updates for the year, I might even buy those. But I just know I'm not going to even attempt to be aware of every online 'patch.' That's why I'm doing so much work with my own free time to contribute to the playtesting of the next edition. I want it to be mostly usable out of the gate.
Heck, I would even buy updated versions of the Players Handbook for the current edition every few years in book format.
TLDR - online updates are fine, I just know I won't be using them, so I want good books first.
Hm. Fair enough, and something of a difference in fundamental approach. A.) I do not get to play at a physical, in-person table, at all. The only D&D I will ever get is online D&D with a group scattered across Creation. No DDB, no digital tools? I don't get to play, at all.
And even where that not the case, B.) I hate dealing with physical books at the table. They're heavy and bulky, take up tons of room for an already clutter-prone game, they're vastly harder to search through than the digital toolset with a 'Search' function, they're harder to share, and just everything about a physical book is more difficult to work with in a game than the digital tools. Yeah, a paper character sheet is easier* to modify and do off-book stuff with, but that is literally the only advantage of physical media.
I'm one of those who strongly believes the digital version of the toolset should have primacy over the print version; the print books are basically collector's pieces for people who enjoy physical relics of the hobby to me, they're not proper tools for running a for-real game. I know part of that is familiarity - I'm much more familiar with the use and operation of digital tools than I am with pawing through a murdered tree for a single specific rule I can find with fifteen seconds' searching tops on the website. Other people often seem to prefer books in large part because they know the books, they know where everything is in those books, and they don't know where it is or how to find it in the digital toolset. On top of the oft-repeated "I don't like electronic devices at the table" issue.
I could talk for hours on some of those tangents (news flash, "No-Distractions' DMs - having fidget devices and other minor, harmless 'distractions' at your table can increase focus on your games), but I think that might be a core argument, Steg. For you, what's in the physical books is "the real game". The online frippery is just distracting nonsense for between sessions. For me? The online digital ecosystem is "the real game"; dead-tree editions are uncontrolled documents you get because books are nice to have on the shelf and occasionally read on the pot if you decide to leave your phone behind for some reason. And those viewpoints are pretty diametrically opposed and impossible to reconcile.
Which sucks for me, I guess, because the dead tree people will always have primacy in D&D. Blegh.
Hm. Fair enough, and something of a difference in fundamental approach. A.) I do not get to play at a physical, in-person table, at all. The only D&D I will ever get is online D&D with a group scattered across Creation. No DDB, no digital tools? I don't get to play, at all.
And even where that not the case, B.) I hate dealing with physical books at the table. They're heavy and bulky, take up tons of room for an already clutter-prone game, they're vastly harder to search through than the digital toolset with a 'Search' function, they're harder to share, and just everything about a physical book is more difficult to work with in a game than the digital tools. Yeah, a paper character sheet is easier* to modify and do off-book stuff with, but that is literally the only advantage of physical media.
I'm one of those who strongly believes the digital version of the toolset should have primacy over the print version; the print books are basically collector's pieces for people who enjoy physical relics of the hobby to me, they're not proper tools for running a for-real game. I know part of that is familiarity - I'm much more familiar with the use and operation of digital tools than I am with pawing through a murdered tree for a single specific rule I can find with fifteen seconds' searching tops on the website. Other people often seem to prefer books in large part because they know the books, they know where everything is in those books, and they don't know where it is or how to find it in the digital toolset. On top of the oft-repeated "I don't like electronic devices at the table" issue.
I could talk for hours on some of those tangents (news flash, "No-Distractions' DMs - having fidget devices and other minor, harmless 'distractions' at your table can increase focus on your games), but I think that might be a core argument, Steg. For you, what's in the physical books is "the real game". The online frippery is just distracting nonsense for between sessions. For me? The online digital ecosystem is "the real game"; dead-tree editions are uncontrolled documents you get because books are nice to have on the shelf and occasionally read on the pot if you decide to leave your phone behind for some reason. And those viewpoints are pretty diametrically opposed and impossible to reconcile.
Which sucks for me, I guess, because the dead tree people will always have primacy in D&D. Blegh.
Haha, well maybe not forever. I suspect the day will come when digital tools reign supreme. WotC seems to be banking on it with the DDB acquisition and VTT development.
I like what you said about 'uncontrolled documents' too, mostly because I work with 'controlled documents' in my job, so I can see the principle applied. For things like health and safety documents, that's pretty important. I'm not sure it matters quite so much for DnD. Many people still play the old Basic rules with beat up paperbacks. But that is a good explanation of the difference between old books and live updates. The only problem with it in DnD is that we aren't all using the same document control database.
Kaynadin has a good point about video game patches applying to everyone simultaneously. If you play a group game like Overwatch, and they update Genji's damage, it just happens. Everyone automatically gets the patch and doesn't have to think about it. No one is accidentally playing by the old rules. That fits in with what you are saying about playing digitally. If that is how you play the game, the patches are seemless. For others, they're a nightmare to juggle.
Like you say, there's two broad ways to pay the game, in person and digital. Neither is inherently better than the other. And I'll be honest, I will occasionally pull out my phone to search a rule real fast in games rather than pull another book off the shelf, for one-off situations. It's convenient. I'm good with computers and digital documents, but I work with them 50 hours a week. The last thing I want cluttering my table on game night is that darn laptop.
But for people like you playing 100% online, they are invaluable tools. Regular updates make the game easier to play.
I'm all for a new edition. But I also play Warhammer. DnD's release schedule is like a gentle stroll through the park by comparison. I don't mind buying the core books every 5 years. But I also have a comfortable adult income, and I know that's not true for everyone. I still remember being young and saving all my money for a year to buy a new book. I suspect if I was 13 now and just started, I'd do it all online. Warhammer is attempting regular 'patches' with annual rule book updates and online balance updates. But they have it easy from a rule standpoint. Most people play one army. They build their 'characters' every game, using mostly digital tools. If the points value for one unit changes this month, it's easy to reflect and distribute. And they only matter in competitive play anyway.
Both of us play the game the way that's right for us. WotC has to find the right balance. It can't be easy. I'm happy to meet them halfway, so I look forward to changes to the rules even if it relegates some books to the 'collector shelf.' I also hope they make some nice new ones to replace them. And I hope they make great online tools for the millions of players that get together with friends that way instead. :)
Honestly, I prefer the physical version of books for a number of reasons; I tend to play my games in-person with people I know from real life, since I find that while playing with random strangers online can be great, there are... Well... Plenty of horror stories about times where it didn't work out. Anyways, it is often considered rude, especially when you're DM, to have your phone or computer out and scroll through tabs during the middle of the game. Not only that, but I find it distracts me from doing faces for my monsters, NPCs, and PCs.
Really, there are pros and cons to both DDB and the physical version of books. While I prefer the latter option, some people enjoy the former of the two, and there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own. If your table is having fun, then whether or not the table is virtual or physical, then you must be doing something right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I'm less concerned with physical vs. digital than I am with trying to understand why a significant percentage of DDB users - who are, by dint of being on this website, presumably using the digital toolset in at least some capacity - are not simply opposed to alterations to their books, but seem to consider it a vicious and virulent violation of volition for which the only verdict is vengeance. Or at least vociferous venting of a vain and vulgar variety most vexatious to those who know the score with digital goods and understand that patching the bugs, glitches, and in the case of games design and balance passes/revisions is part of the game.
Like, people know what this website is about, and yet we're all either out fifty bucks for M3 or we don't have access to The New Stuff because people screamed so loud you could hear it from Mars. Wuhtuhfuh?
I'm less concerned with physical vs. digital than I am with trying to understand why a significant percentage of DDB users - who are, by dint of being on this website, presumably using the digital toolset in at least some capacity - are not simply opposed to alterations to their books, but seem to consider it a vicious and virulent violation of volition for which the only verdict is vengeance. Or at least vociferous venting of a vain and vulgar variety most vexatious to those who know the score with digital goods and understand that patching the bugs, glitches, and in the case of games design and balance passes/revisions is part of the game.
Like, people know what this website is about, and yet we're all either out fifty bucks for M3 or we don't have access to The New Stuff because people screamed so loud you could hear it from Mars. Wuhtuhfuh?
Well, if you spent enough time around things like MMO's and other things that are regularly updated and patched and are expected to receive balance updates. There is ALWAYS a subsection of the players of those game that cry "this is ruining this game" Every single time a patch updates the game. This is not new to games video or otherwise.
I'm less concerned with physical vs. digital than I am with trying to understand why a significant percentage of DDB users - who are, by dint of being on this website, presumably using the digital toolset in at least some capacity - are not simply opposed to alterations to their books, but seem to consider it a vicious and virulent violation of volition for which the only verdict is vengeance. Or at least vociferous venting of a vain and vulgar variety most vexatious to those who know the score with digital goods and understand that patching the bugs, glitches, and in the case of games design and balance passes/revisions is part of the game.
Like, people know what this website is about, and yet we're all either out fifty bucks for M3 or we don't have access to The New Stuff because people screamed so loud you could hear it from Mars. Wuhtuhfuh?
Honestly, I don't think there is a strong and clear explanation for this. Normally, I'd say that a game with 50+ million players is bound to have anomalies, but the amount of people who believe that editing books is immoral honestly baffles me. Sure, every game will have anomalies, and that is part of it, but if you look at the "thank" count (thanks are usually a good indicator of agreement) for the top viewed posts about people expressing outrage over the editing of the Spelljammer bundle, which was done largely to remove racist and offensive content from the book, then there was 1 person who agreed that editing books was immoral for every 6.22 people to disagree.
My guess is that some people have a very odd definition of morality, and that those people get extremely frustrated when that definition is violated. I understand that editing books may be annoying, but it is not something that people should be so upset about. Another factor is what I mentioned above, there is a very small but loud portion of people who hate change for the sake of hating it, and it seems that these people may join forces with anyone who complains about change in general to amplify there numbers and voice.
As for M3, I strongly dislike it because not only did they edit a book, but they made massive changes to the previous versions of content, and then stopped anyone and everyone who wanted that version and only used DDB from getting it. In short, my philosophy is that major changes should not come at the cost of the previous content being forever lost or for access to it being strictly limited, unless that content is hurtful and/or offensive. "But new players would be confused if they saw two different versions of the same content." Not really, especially not if you stick a massive "Legacy" version on every old thing and a "Revised" label on all the new content.
Anyways, happy Halloween to you all.🎃 This conversation has spun wildly off-topic, so to get it back on the rails, I'll ask this: What do you guys think about 1DD overall? There are some things I really disliked, but overall, I've found that the playtests are mostly making positive changes. So what do you guys think? With what you've seen of it so far, do you think that 1DD has mostly improved upon 5e, or vice versa?
Ah, I forgot about things like older sourcebooks like Xanathar's being phased out here. I don't have a stake in that part of the discussion since I use the physical copies, but it sounds like BoringBard has some good points. I'm here because this is where the playtest UA is being released and discussed.
So to help bring it back on track, overall I'm pretty happy with the changes! I really dislike the actions with static DCs instead of opposed checks and weird movement rules. That's probably my biggest complaint. After actually playing the rules, the rest of them are pretty solid. There are some balance issues, but nothing that they can't adjust for. They mention that is going to be part of it.
My playtest party consists of only these new Expert classes. One of each, and multiclass ranger/rogue. I don't think it's worth worrying about how they fare against other classes that haven't been released yet. I just wanted to see how they feel with each other. Almost all of my concerns faded when actually playing the rules. They're good, and they generally work well.
The ranger is a beast. Maybe too strong. The Bard is pretty close to just right. The rogue is underwhelming. But these can be brought in line. A lot of the feats are great and most feel equally useful. Honestly, I'm glad they evened the power out between them. First level characters are a little more capable, which is good. But there's not too much power creep and it feels like a more linear progression.
One big takeaway I have over a small spell, is Guidance. They can seriously just remove the limitation of once per person, per day. It's not needed. It's annoying to track and just doesn't come into play enough. Over the course of 7 long rests, there were literally only 3 rolls that could have been made with Guidance but the character had already used it.
Overall, the content of 1DD, so far, is good. Not without its warts, but that's to be expected in a massive playtest like this. There's more good than bad by a pretty wide margin, and the design team's brains seem to be in the right places even if they haven't fine-tuned their targeting yet.
The community's violently icy disposition towards the playtest, their vicious and vociferous denouncement and decrying of the content? The community rejecting the entire idea and effectively throwing the entire 1DD concept out entirely in favor of NO REMAKE CORE BOOKS(!!!!!1!)? The intense and deeply angry pushback against every last single feature in 1DD, across both current documents?
THAT has me dispirited, disappointed, depressed, and almost makes me want to give up on the entire thing. We're not going to get a splendid new revision of the game out of this - we're going to get an anemic, watered-down, tepid mass of utter suck that doesn't dare to lay one single finger on one single thing that ACTUALLY REQUIRES REPAIR! Instead it'll be a new book consisting mostly of an art refresh and a layout update for each of the three books with no substantive changes save to just directly rip out systems and mechanics that people deem "Tooo Complukayted!" in favor of restricting and eliminating player choice and freedoms as much as possible so nobody ever has to dare think when playing their D&D. And by 'player' I also mean DM, in this instance. Everything needs to be Simplified More(C), prebaked, put on rails, and fashioned in such a way that even a JRPG video game developer would look at it and say "guys, where's the gameplay?"
So yeah. That's where my brain's at. It hasn't been nice, lemme tell ye. I was massively excited for 1DD at the beginning of all this, but now it's all just ash in my mouth. Y'all have thoroughly ruined it, and I absolutely hate that.
Try to take solace in the fact that there are only a handful of people who are very vocal about not wanting any changes. The vast majority just say 'I like the new stuff, ' and move on. Or don't comment at all.
The game will be updated. It will be mostly good. Each new edition has learned from the last.
I strongly suggest that everyone playtest the rules. Even if it is just making a few characters or rolling some mock combats. You'll see it's pretty nice. And it's not so different from what you are used to. I ran LMoP with all the new rules and had to make almost no adjustments. In fact, I'd say it was a better experience than playing the same module with 5e rules.
Overall, the content of 1DD, so far, is good. Not without its warts, but that's to be expected in a massive playtest like this. There's more good than bad by a pretty wide margin, and the design team's brains seem to be in the right places even if they haven't fine-tuned their targeting yet.
The community's violently icy disposition towards the playtest, their vicious and vociferous denouncement and decrying of the content? The community rejecting the entire idea and effectively throwing the entire 1DD concept out entirely in favor of NO REMAKE CORE BOOKS(!!!!!1!)? The intense and deeply angry pushback against every last single feature in 1DD, across both current documents?
THAT has me dispirited, disappointed, depressed, and almost makes me want to give up on the entire thing. We're not going to get a splendid new revision of the game out of this - we're going to get an anemic, watered-down, tepid mass of utter suck that doesn't dare to lay one single finger on one single thing that ACTUALLY REQUIRES REPAIR! Instead it'll be a new book consisting mostly of an art refresh and a layout update for each of the three books with no substantive changes save to just directly rip out systems and mechanics that people deem "Tooo Complukayted!" in favor of restricting and eliminating player choice and freedoms as much as possible so nobody ever has to dare think when playing their D&D. And by 'player' I also mean DM, in this instance. Everything needs to be Simplified More(C), prebaked, put on rails, and fashioned in such a way that even a JRPG video game developer would look at it and say "guys, where's the gameplay?"
So yeah. That's where my brain's at. It hasn't been nice, lemme tell ye. I was massively excited for 1DD at the beginning of all this, but now it's all just ash in my mouth. Y'all have thoroughly ruined it, and I absolutely hate that.
Blegh.
If it makes you feel better, it happens every edition change (even changing 4 to 5, when 4 was pretty regularly crapped on, had people complaining). Some baseless hostility, some clinging to the old version even when they haven’t seen the new one yet. And, absolutely, there’s some legitimate criticism.
Its a side effect of how passionate people get about D&D, I think. This game means a lot to a lot of people. People get nervous that if it changes too much, it won’t be fun anymore and they won’t be able to keep playing a favorite character, or in a favorite world. Its one reason why there’s still people out there playing every previous edition. The new one doesn’t fit with how they like to play.
The hostility, I think, comes in part from a risk/reward calculation. Maybe it will still be fun, but what if it’s not, and I can’t find people to play with anymore because everyone else has moved on and I don’t like this new version and then I don’t get to play anymore.
I'm less concerned with physical vs. digital than I am with trying to understand why a significant percentage of DDB users - who are, by dint of being on this website, presumably using the digital toolset in at least some capacity - are not simply opposed to alterations to their books, but seem to consider it a vicious and virulent violation of volition for which the only verdict is vengeance. Or at least vociferous venting of a vain and vulgar variety most vexatious to those who know the score with digital goods and understand that patching the bugs, glitches, and in the case of games design and balance passes/revisions is part of the game.
Like, people know what this website is about, and yet we're all either out fifty bucks for M3 or we don't have access to The New Stuff because people screamed so loud you could hear it from Mars. Wuhtuhfuh?
Verily.
Don't be distracted by the screaming, it's just a loud minority. There's always luddites - and they always lose in the end. Progress is inevitable.
The hostility, I think, comes in part from a risk/reward calculation. Maybe it will still be fun, but what if it’s not, and I can’t find people to play with anymore because everyone else has moved on and I don’t like this new version and then I don’t get to play anymore.
Tough luck. That is karma. It is only fair that those hostile people get to experience the pain and suffering that others had to go through. I do not want to play with people with an extremely rigid and narrow view of the rules. Honestly, people who are so self centered and get bitter about others having fun are not the best people to play with anyways, so it is best that they do not move on with the rest of the community.
So, because I, hypothetically, don't like 1D&D over 5e I'm a horrible bitter person who doesn't deserve to play D&D? That I wish pain and suffering on other people?
I really hope that 1D&D works well and that I enjoy it. We don't have enough information to even speculate on whether that will be the case or not, the game experience comes from the holistic experience, and we've only seen glimpses of very small parts that may or may not even be part of the game. All we have is WotC's history to judge them by, and do their recent efforts really look particularly reassuring? I'm remembering Spelljammer, a cut length publication, sold at a pretty high premium, only to have a massive uproar over what content there was.
Sorry, I'm anxious about this change. I have a lot of money invested in the game and I'm having to wait until 2024 to know whether it has a future (for me) or not. While I point out the bits I do like and praise it, I'm unwilling to just gloss over the bits that I don't, and I refuse to believe that makes me a bad person.
It's apparent that I'm not welcome in this community.
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.
You're fine, Linklite. It's this frenetic, frenzied snapping some other people are doing, this awful push to just discard the entire idea and "stick with the good game because it's good and anyone who doesn't think it's good needs to just shut up and leave" that has me disheartened. For, frankly, much the same reason you cited. My group and I are heavily restricted in what we can change or fix about R5e due to our reliance on online tools such as DDB, which do not offer us the flexibility to make sweeping alterations to things like core rules, character classes, resolution, or anything else. Hell, it's been over four years and I still don't have the ability to do GOD DAMNED SLOW NATURAL HEALING, DDB!
We need this to work. If the yaybos, grognards, luddites and yahoos win and "One D&D" becomes nothing more than R5e with a new logo and even less 'complexity'/depth? I dunno how much longer my group will last past that point, and unlike y'all, I don't get to build another one. Link ain't the only person whose D&D is hanging in the balance here, and I can't help but be alternately (or concurrently) dismayed and infuriated by people pushing pushing pushing pushing PUSHING to make all the wrong decisions and do all the wrong things because they're trying to turn 1DD into a freaking White Wolf or Fate game. I sucked down an unpleasant number of infraction points in a counter-frenzy of trying to convince people that this is a GOOD thing we're getting and the potential is limitless, only to get smacked down by website staff as well as an endless seething sea of grognards. When even the website staff is telling you to shut the **** up and stop being excited, that is a bit of a breaking point.
So, because I, hypothetically, don't like 1D&D over 5e I'm a horrible bitter person who doesn't deserve to play D&D? That I wish pain and suffering on other people?
I really hope that 1D&D works well and that I enjoy it. We don't have enough information to even speculate on whether that will be the case or not, the game experience comes from the holistic experience, and we've only seen glimpses of very small parts that may or may not even be part of the game. All we have is WotC's history to judge them by, and do their recent efforts really look particularly reassuring? I'm remembering Spelljammer, a cut length publication, sold at a pretty high premium, only to have a massive uproar over what content there was.
Sorry, I'm anxious about this change. I have a lot of money invested in the game and I'm having to wait until 2024 to know whether it has a future (for me) or not. While I point out the bits I do like and praise it, I'm unwilling to just gloss over the bits that I don't, and I refuse to believe that makes me a bad person.
It's apparent that I'm not welcome in this community.
Linklite, you have expressed real, important, and valid concerns about things that were in 1DD that made the game worse. You're fine. That being said, there are some people on these very forums (not you) who seem to hate every part of 1DD just so they can hate it, as opposed to expressing actual concerns over problems with the playtests. Those people are the problem. People like you who have expressed legitimate concerns and prefer 5e to 1DD for legitimate reasons are not the problem; they are just people who have their own opinions and preferences and are giving feedback on things they think need to be fixed to help steer the future of the game in the right direction.
Linklite, there are two users on all of DDB who if they said something, even if I strongly disagreed, I would re-evaluate my position and rethink my thought process on the subject they commented on just because of how much I respect those two users. Those users are you and Caerwyn. You are welcome in this community Linklite; we all want you here.
I think everyone would benefit from taking a step back and realizing we all just want the game we love to have a good future. And that can mean different things for different people. Wishing misfortune on someone, name calling, and characterizing each other as monsters doesn't help the conversation at all. DnD should be for everyone, not a reason to drive each other away.
Hopefully by listening to each other and seeing different points of view, we can work together to make the best game we can. A lot of people don't get this opportunity for so much involvement in their favorite game's direction. We're pretty lucky. Let's make the most of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Especially WotC.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Tangential perhaps, but a question I'd like some outside perspective on.
Why is everyone so absolutely blood-boiling gut-churning seeing-red furious at the thought of Wizards "changing" a book after publication?
Modern video games have done extremely will with post-launch support and patching to correct egregious issues with a launch title. The whole public perception of rangers, sorcerers, and monks all being pointless wouldn't matter for spit if Wizards was allowed to just issue updated, corrected redesigns without having to wait ten years and essentially issue a 5.5 update to the game which is a video game patch they could've done years ago for free if people weren't so violently, explosively hostile top the idea of Books Changing.
I get that a few folks don't like The New Direction(TM) with the game and they want to stick to R5e exactly as it appeared in 2014. They can totally still do that. The text exists on the Internet in perpetuity. Plus, for every person for whom rules updates are a total dealbreaker, there's someone out there for whom the new rule is exactly what they needed and the change got them to come back to the game or open up a previously closed wallet.
I just cannot figure out this vicious push to forestall any and all errata, updates, or design refreshes for the game Forever And In Eternal Perpetuity. If video games - which, I remind people, are collectively hundreds of times more successful than tabletop games despite having been created around roughly the same time - assumed this idea that touching the code even once after a game launches was Literally Worse Than [Godwin's Law]...would they be hundreds of times as successful as tabletop games?
I don't think so. And I remain baffled by this dramatic resistance to any and all forms of updates and corrections so many people here evince.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's the issue of physical media vs digital media. Let's say you redesign a class. In a video game you patch and everyone is using the same version all at once. With a book, you are now left with people having access to different versions. Which version is correct and allowed in organized play? If the old books are not, how do you compensate those players to get new books in their hands?
I can only speak for myself. I like online tools. They are convenient for record keeping, and thinking about DnD when I only have my phone on me.
But I prefer books.
I buy the books. I have them all on the shelf right beside me when I run games. I pull them out as needed for reference during games. I give them to players to make their characters. Books are so much easier to read. They have great art. I remember exactly where everything is in them. I can bookmark dozens of pages and look at more than one at a time during the game. Running an adventure from a book is a thousand times better than a mobile site. I can see the map and all the room descriptions on a couple pages instead of clicking links and the back button over and over.
I use online tools to track characters and to check my work on building them correctly. For everything else I want the books. I'm not vehemently opposed to active updates. I was thrilled for Tasha's and the fixes it offered. But for me, I know that I won't use a game if it requires a version of the rules that's highly modified from the printed book. I can keep up with a few changes like clarifications to statuses or spells. But I just know I won't be crossreferencing every detail online when I play.
Whatever the last edition is that they print in physical form, that's the one I'll play. I'm looking forward to the new rules. I'll buy all the books. I'll just live without the potential online updates. In fact, if they came out with annual paperbacks that compile rules updates for the year, I might even buy those. But I just know I'm not going to even attempt to be aware of every online 'patch.' That's why I'm doing so much work with my own free time to contribute to the playtesting of the next edition. I want it to be mostly usable out of the gate.
Heck, I would even buy updated versions of the Players Handbook for the current edition every few years in book format.
TLDR - online updates are fine, I just know I won't be using them, so I want good books first.
Hm. Fair enough, and something of a difference in fundamental approach. A.) I do not get to play at a physical, in-person table, at all. The only D&D I will ever get is online D&D with a group scattered across Creation. No DDB, no digital tools? I don't get to play, at all.
And even where that not the case, B.) I hate dealing with physical books at the table. They're heavy and bulky, take up tons of room for an already clutter-prone game, they're vastly harder to search through than the digital toolset with a 'Search' function, they're harder to share, and just everything about a physical book is more difficult to work with in a game than the digital tools. Yeah, a paper character sheet is easier* to modify and do off-book stuff with, but that is literally the only advantage of physical media.
I'm one of those who strongly believes the digital version of the toolset should have primacy over the print version; the print books are basically collector's pieces for people who enjoy physical relics of the hobby to me, they're not proper tools for running a for-real game. I know part of that is familiarity - I'm much more familiar with the use and operation of digital tools than I am with pawing through a murdered tree for a single specific rule I can find with fifteen seconds' searching tops on the website. Other people often seem to prefer books in large part because they know the books, they know where everything is in those books, and they don't know where it is or how to find it in the digital toolset. On top of the oft-repeated "I don't like electronic devices at the table" issue.
I could talk for hours on some of those tangents (news flash, "No-Distractions' DMs - having fidget devices and other minor, harmless 'distractions' at your table can increase focus on your games), but I think that might be a core argument, Steg. For you, what's in the physical books is "the real game". The online frippery is just distracting nonsense for between sessions. For me? The online digital ecosystem is "the real game"; dead-tree editions are uncontrolled documents you get because books are nice to have on the shelf and occasionally read on the pot if you decide to leave your phone behind for some reason. And those viewpoints are pretty diametrically opposed and impossible to reconcile.
Which sucks for me, I guess, because the dead tree people will always have primacy in D&D. Blegh.
Please do not contact or message me.
Haha, well maybe not forever. I suspect the day will come when digital tools reign supreme. WotC seems to be banking on it with the DDB acquisition and VTT development.
I like what you said about 'uncontrolled documents' too, mostly because I work with 'controlled documents' in my job, so I can see the principle applied. For things like health and safety documents, that's pretty important. I'm not sure it matters quite so much for DnD. Many people still play the old Basic rules with beat up paperbacks. But that is a good explanation of the difference between old books and live updates. The only problem with it in DnD is that we aren't all using the same document control database.
Kaynadin has a good point about video game patches applying to everyone simultaneously. If you play a group game like Overwatch, and they update Genji's damage, it just happens. Everyone automatically gets the patch and doesn't have to think about it. No one is accidentally playing by the old rules. That fits in with what you are saying about playing digitally. If that is how you play the game, the patches are seemless. For others, they're a nightmare to juggle.
Like you say, there's two broad ways to pay the game, in person and digital. Neither is inherently better than the other. And I'll be honest, I will occasionally pull out my phone to search a rule real fast in games rather than pull another book off the shelf, for one-off situations. It's convenient. I'm good with computers and digital documents, but I work with them 50 hours a week. The last thing I want cluttering my table on game night is that darn laptop.
But for people like you playing 100% online, they are invaluable tools. Regular updates make the game easier to play.
I'm all for a new edition. But I also play Warhammer. DnD's release schedule is like a gentle stroll through the park by comparison. I don't mind buying the core books every 5 years. But I also have a comfortable adult income, and I know that's not true for everyone. I still remember being young and saving all my money for a year to buy a new book. I suspect if I was 13 now and just started, I'd do it all online. Warhammer is attempting regular 'patches' with annual rule book updates and online balance updates. But they have it easy from a rule standpoint. Most people play one army. They build their 'characters' every game, using mostly digital tools. If the points value for one unit changes this month, it's easy to reflect and distribute. And they only matter in competitive play anyway.
Both of us play the game the way that's right for us. WotC has to find the right balance. It can't be easy. I'm happy to meet them halfway, so I look forward to changes to the rules even if it relegates some books to the 'collector shelf.' I also hope they make some nice new ones to replace them. And I hope they make great online tools for the millions of players that get together with friends that way instead. :)
Honestly, I prefer the physical version of books for a number of reasons; I tend to play my games in-person with people I know from real life, since I find that while playing with random strangers online can be great, there are... Well... Plenty of horror stories about times where it didn't work out. Anyways, it is often considered rude, especially when you're DM, to have your phone or computer out and scroll through tabs during the middle of the game. Not only that, but I find it distracts me from doing faces for my monsters, NPCs, and PCs.
Really, there are pros and cons to both DDB and the physical version of books. While I prefer the latter option, some people enjoy the former of the two, and there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own. If your table is having fun, then whether or not the table is virtual or physical, then you must be doing something right.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I'm less concerned with physical vs. digital than I am with trying to understand why a significant percentage of DDB users - who are, by dint of being on this website, presumably using the digital toolset in at least some capacity - are not simply opposed to alterations to their books, but seem to consider it a vicious and virulent violation of volition for which the only verdict is vengeance. Or at least vociferous venting of a vain and vulgar variety most vexatious to those who know the score with digital goods and understand that patching the bugs, glitches, and in the case of games design and balance passes/revisions is part of the game.
Like, people know what this website is about, and yet we're all either out fifty bucks for M3 or we don't have access to The New Stuff because people screamed so loud you could hear it from Mars. Wuhtuhfuh?
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, if you spent enough time around things like MMO's and other things that are regularly updated and patched and are expected to receive balance updates. There is ALWAYS a subsection of the players of those game that cry "this is ruining this game" Every single time a patch updates the game. This is not new to games video or otherwise.
Honestly, I don't think there is a strong and clear explanation for this. Normally, I'd say that a game with 50+ million players is bound to have anomalies, but the amount of people who believe that editing books is immoral honestly baffles me. Sure, every game will have anomalies, and that is part of it, but if you look at the "thank" count (thanks are usually a good indicator of agreement) for the top viewed posts about people expressing outrage over the editing of the Spelljammer bundle, which was done largely to remove racist and offensive content from the book, then there was 1 person who agreed that editing books was immoral for every 6.22 people to disagree.
My guess is that some people have a very odd definition of morality, and that those people get extremely frustrated when that definition is violated. I understand that editing books may be annoying, but it is not something that people should be so upset about. Another factor is what I mentioned above, there is a very small but loud portion of people who hate change for the sake of hating it, and it seems that these people may join forces with anyone who complains about change in general to amplify there numbers and voice.
As for M3, I strongly dislike it because not only did they edit a book, but they made massive changes to the previous versions of content, and then stopped anyone and everyone who wanted that version and only used DDB from getting it. In short, my philosophy is that major changes should not come at the cost of the previous content being forever lost or for access to it being strictly limited, unless that content is hurtful and/or offensive. "But new players would be confused if they saw two different versions of the same content." Not really, especially not if you stick a massive "Legacy" version on every old thing and a "Revised" label on all the new content.
Anyways, happy Halloween to you all.🎃 This conversation has spun wildly off-topic, so to get it back on the rails, I'll ask this: What do you guys think about 1DD overall? There are some things I really disliked, but overall, I've found that the playtests are mostly making positive changes. So what do you guys think? With what you've seen of it so far, do you think that 1DD has mostly improved upon 5e, or vice versa?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Ah, I forgot about things like older sourcebooks like Xanathar's being phased out here. I don't have a stake in that part of the discussion since I use the physical copies, but it sounds like BoringBard has some good points. I'm here because this is where the playtest UA is being released and discussed.
So to help bring it back on track, overall I'm pretty happy with the changes! I really dislike the actions with static DCs instead of opposed checks and weird movement rules. That's probably my biggest complaint. After actually playing the rules, the rest of them are pretty solid. There are some balance issues, but nothing that they can't adjust for. They mention that is going to be part of it.
My playtest party consists of only these new Expert classes. One of each, and multiclass ranger/rogue. I don't think it's worth worrying about how they fare against other classes that haven't been released yet. I just wanted to see how they feel with each other. Almost all of my concerns faded when actually playing the rules. They're good, and they generally work well.
The ranger is a beast. Maybe too strong. The Bard is pretty close to just right. The rogue is underwhelming. But these can be brought in line. A lot of the feats are great and most feel equally useful. Honestly, I'm glad they evened the power out between them. First level characters are a little more capable, which is good. But there's not too much power creep and it feels like a more linear progression.
One big takeaway I have over a small spell, is Guidance. They can seriously just remove the limitation of once per person, per day. It's not needed. It's annoying to track and just doesn't come into play enough. Over the course of 7 long rests, there were literally only 3 rolls that could have been made with Guidance but the character had already used it.
And Happy Halloween!
Overall, the content of 1DD, so far, is good. Not without its warts, but that's to be expected in a massive playtest like this. There's more good than bad by a pretty wide margin, and the design team's brains seem to be in the right places even if they haven't fine-tuned their targeting yet.
The community's violently icy disposition towards the playtest, their vicious and vociferous denouncement and decrying of the content? The community rejecting the entire idea and effectively throwing the entire 1DD concept out entirely in favor of NO REMAKE CORE BOOKS(!!!!!1!)? The intense and deeply angry pushback against every last single feature in 1DD, across both current documents?
THAT has me dispirited, disappointed, depressed, and almost makes me want to give up on the entire thing. We're not going to get a splendid new revision of the game out of this - we're going to get an anemic, watered-down, tepid mass of utter suck that doesn't dare to lay one single finger on one single thing that ACTUALLY REQUIRES REPAIR! Instead it'll be a new book consisting mostly of an art refresh and a layout update for each of the three books with no substantive changes save to just directly rip out systems and mechanics that people deem "Tooo Complukayted!" in favor of restricting and eliminating player choice and freedoms as much as possible so nobody ever has to dare think when playing their D&D. And by 'player' I also mean DM, in this instance. Everything needs to be Simplified More(C), prebaked, put on rails, and fashioned in such a way that even a JRPG video game developer would look at it and say "guys, where's the gameplay?"
So yeah. That's where my brain's at. It hasn't been nice, lemme tell ye. I was massively excited for 1DD at the beginning of all this, but now it's all just ash in my mouth. Y'all have thoroughly ruined it, and I absolutely hate that.
Blegh.
Please do not contact or message me.
Try to take solace in the fact that there are only a handful of people who are very vocal about not wanting any changes. The vast majority just say 'I like the new stuff, ' and move on. Or don't comment at all.
The game will be updated. It will be mostly good. Each new edition has learned from the last.
I strongly suggest that everyone playtest the rules. Even if it is just making a few characters or rolling some mock combats. You'll see it's pretty nice. And it's not so different from what you are used to. I ran LMoP with all the new rules and had to make almost no adjustments. In fact, I'd say it was a better experience than playing the same module with 5e rules.
If it makes you feel better, it happens every edition change (even changing 4 to 5, when 4 was pretty regularly crapped on, had people complaining). Some baseless hostility, some clinging to the old version even when they haven’t seen the new one yet. And, absolutely, there’s some legitimate criticism.
Its a side effect of how passionate people get about D&D, I think. This game means a lot to a lot of people. People get nervous that if it changes too much, it won’t be fun anymore and they won’t be able to keep playing a favorite character, or in a favorite world. Its one reason why there’s still people out there playing every previous edition. The new one doesn’t fit with how they like to play.
The hostility, I think, comes in part from a risk/reward calculation. Maybe it will still be fun, but what if it’s not, and I can’t find people to play with anymore because everyone else has moved on and I don’t like this new version and then I don’t get to play anymore.
Verily.
Don't be distracted by the screaming, it's just a loud minority. There's always luddites - and they always lose in the end. Progress is inevitable.
Tough luck. That is karma. It is only fair that those hostile people get to experience the pain and suffering that others had to go through. I do not want to play with people with an extremely rigid and narrow view of the rules. Honestly, people who are so self centered and get bitter about others having fun are not the best people to play with anyways, so it is best that they do not move on with the rest of the community.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
So, because I, hypothetically, don't like 1D&D over 5e I'm a horrible bitter person who doesn't deserve to play D&D? That I wish pain and suffering on other people?
I really hope that 1D&D works well and that I enjoy it. We don't have enough information to even speculate on whether that will be the case or not, the game experience comes from the holistic experience, and we've only seen glimpses of very small parts that may or may not even be part of the game. All we have is WotC's history to judge them by, and do their recent efforts really look particularly reassuring? I'm remembering Spelljammer, a cut length publication, sold at a pretty high premium, only to have a massive uproar over what content there was.
Sorry, I'm anxious about this change. I have a lot of money invested in the game and I'm having to wait until 2024 to know whether it has a future (for me) or not. While I point out the bits I do like and praise it, I'm unwilling to just gloss over the bits that I don't, and I refuse to believe that makes me a bad person.
It's apparent that I'm not welcome in this community.
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.
You're fine, Linklite. It's this frenetic, frenzied snapping some other people are doing, this awful push to just discard the entire idea and "stick with the good game because it's good and anyone who doesn't think it's good needs to just shut up and leave" that has me disheartened. For, frankly, much the same reason you cited. My group and I are heavily restricted in what we can change or fix about R5e due to our reliance on online tools such as DDB, which do not offer us the flexibility to make sweeping alterations to things like core rules, character classes, resolution, or anything else. Hell, it's been over four years and I still don't have the ability to do GOD DAMNED SLOW NATURAL HEALING, DDB!
We need this to work. If the yaybos, grognards, luddites and yahoos win and "One D&D" becomes nothing more than R5e with a new logo and even less 'complexity'/depth? I dunno how much longer my group will last past that point, and unlike y'all, I don't get to build another one. Link ain't the only person whose D&D is hanging in the balance here, and I can't help but be alternately (or concurrently) dismayed and infuriated by people pushing pushing pushing pushing PUSHING to make all the wrong decisions and do all the wrong things because they're trying to turn 1DD into a freaking White Wolf or Fate game. I sucked down an unpleasant number of infraction points in a counter-frenzy of trying to convince people that this is a GOOD thing we're getting and the potential is limitless, only to get smacked down by website staff as well as an endless seething sea of grognards. When even the website staff is telling you to shut the **** up and stop being excited, that is a bit of a breaking point.
Please do not contact or message me.
Linklite, you have expressed real, important, and valid concerns about things that were in 1DD that made the game worse. You're fine. That being said, there are some people on these very forums (not you) who seem to hate every part of 1DD just so they can hate it, as opposed to expressing actual concerns over problems with the playtests. Those people are the problem. People like you who have expressed legitimate concerns and prefer 5e to 1DD for legitimate reasons are not the problem; they are just people who have their own opinions and preferences and are giving feedback on things they think need to be fixed to help steer the future of the game in the right direction.
Linklite, there are two users on all of DDB who if they said something, even if I strongly disagreed, I would re-evaluate my position and rethink my thought process on the subject they commented on just because of how much I respect those two users. Those users are you and Caerwyn. You are welcome in this community Linklite; we all want you here.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think everyone would benefit from taking a step back and realizing we all just want the game we love to have a good future. And that can mean different things for different people. Wishing misfortune on someone, name calling, and characterizing each other as monsters doesn't help the conversation at all. DnD should be for everyone, not a reason to drive each other away.
Hopefully by listening to each other and seeing different points of view, we can work together to make the best game we can. A lot of people don't get this opportunity for so much involvement in their favorite game's direction. We're pretty lucky. Let's make the most of it.