At this point, considering the complete lack of UAs of late, my biggest concern is it’ll be a half-baked mess.
I beg to differ, The delay probably means they are actually working on the product. Considering the ogl derail they probably have to incorporate feedback more than they were intending in the next release. (For "good will" reasons). They also received enough feedback from louder community voices"that there wasn't enough to platest". This probably reorganized the release schedule and scope of the next packet.
Back to the main topic: My biggest concern is actually catering to the general community to a degree where interesting outliers no longer exist. I believe in breadth of appeal ove general appeal. Every one should have a viable playstyle opportunity but by the nature of it some people will not like Every option.
Frankly I think the disagreements on classes/subclasses actually fed the community growth of 5e. It gave people something to invest in, something to homebrew, something to study/understand, and it gave a platform for searching social media topics. Basically to some extent theoretical "bad" parts actually created good game mechanics interaction. Especially since there is enough support(monk and phb ranger fans) to show such parts can function within the 5e scope.
You do know there are many video games out there without microtransactions, right? Nor every computer game is a browser game and not all browser games are equally bad.
WotC's main product is still Magic the Gathering, which has been all about microtransactions from before computer games were doing that kind of thing.
It's like saying that ethnic purges are not so bad, because you're not in the target demographic. Yet.
DnD is undermonetized. And something has to be done about it.
No, it's like saying that me & my friends are gathering at the Capitol today. Sometimes it's a elementary school field trip, and sometimes it's a riot invading the building to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Bringing in video game people & increasing monetization does not inherently mean any changes to the TTRPG. It's far more likely to mean a increase in attention to Idle Champions, the Neverwinter MMO, Baldur's Gate 3, and the like, as well as merchandizing. WotC already makes / licenses D&D video games. It's already been shown how to increase monetization / microtransactions within video games. Why should WotC go thru all the effort (and expense) to radically change the TTRPG / 1DD when there is a much easier & well developed path to fame & fortune thru video games? As to the VTT, I haven't seen any reason to believe that the model will be radically different from what we've seen before. Charge the GM for a Master account & books, charge individuals for cosmetics & flashy effects. The barrier to entry has to be very low since it's a convenience purchase for most people (as most players can choose to play without a VTT), and there is established competition in the market.
Ah, so, yeah, just idle speculation without evidence.
cool, cool, carry on, carry on.
Is the past decade of gaming industry not evidence enough? And the people who came to handle DnD are, in fact, from videogame industry. Which means the same approach, same practices.
Past decade/ Let me see...
new Consoles across three major competitors, lots of major titles that have come out including my favorite Horizon Series. Consolidation and desperation, even as the industry as a whole grows, with few major revenue sources being microtransaction based save for a couple, Mobile gaming going insane behind the push of one company that thinks it shouldn't have to abide by the rules they agreed to, massive IP auctions...
Nope, not enough. None of that is anything more than idle speculation without evidence.
The people who came to the company came from administrative and operational spaces, whereas microtransactions are a development mechanic used primarily to ensure a steady stream to enable continued development of the game since it has no major external other revenue sources.
You might mention Destiny, which shifted to a microtransaction model and while a lot of the old players did leave (myself included), the game actually grew in popularity and interest and managed to avoid being shut down because there were not enough sales of fuzzy ghosts.
Wait, let me dig into the job openings for the past two years...
Ok, sorry that took so long, I went to bed after. So, it turns out that they aren't hiring an entire team for microtransactions, which means it will be relatively minor and limited to existing staff, so modelers and skinners, meaning yeah, very much just little changes to color, or possibly a design studio similar to hero forge. Additionally, in this case, the notion of microtransactions is going to likely follow a similar layout and function as a way to keep development of the TT going -- much like a Kickstarter, only over time instead of all at once.
Seriously, this doesn't even rise to the level of "well, that's concerning" and barely deserves more than a moment of thought.
Especially since the VTT will be absolutely limited in scope and function and only useful for folks who use their published setting s and modules.
Now, if you want a potential risk, then perhaps that might be a microtransaction to get homebrew into the VTT. But just the *thought* of that and what would be necessary to do in a small space, even under an unreal engine, with a limited staff, is so mind numbingly huge a project that while it might seem like a possibility at first glance, *any depth of thought* on it with something other than speculation to support it would show that the idea is ludicrous and asinine and I should be ashamed for even entertaining it this long.
so you want to yell and rant and scream and rage at Wizards for some slight you felt about them. Cool. More power to you.
Get that rant out.
Stop making it seem like it is the end of the world. Especially around people who actually spend their off time creating band new worlds, campaigns, monsters, magical items and more and use very little of the stuff that is even available here on DDB.
Or did you think that "everyone" uses it? That there ae some kind of mythical "well, the rich folks", the whales can be sucked dry for it.
Guess what: that's not how things work. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You do know there are many video games out there without microtransactions, right? Nor every computer game is a browser game and not all browser games are equally bad.
WotC's main product is still Magic the Gathering, which has been all about microtransactions from before computer games were doing that kind of thing.
It's like saying that ethnic purges are not so bad, because you're not in the target demographic. Yet.
DnD is undermonetized. And something has to be done about it.
Woah woah woah. Slow the **** down. It is in no way like saying that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Now you are comparing anything they might possibly do with genocide? Pardon???
Kind of hard not to Godwin a thing when you're arguing in the internet. Anyway I don't see a point in this really. It's not like any one of us had any degree of control over the executives of Hasbro corporation and their investors. Things will go the way they'll go and it's anyone's choice to be wary or optimistic about what's coming to the industry. I've seen good franchises fall prey to "optimization", Assassin's Creed turning into a ridiculous politicized plotless grindfest that sold you "timesavers", I've seen Diablo devolve into Diablo Immoral, and studios like Bioware turn from makers of Baldur's Gate into makers of Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem. It's your right to be optimistic and think nothing bad is going to happen to DnD, like the OGL situation never happened and it was just a bad dream or a scandal blown out of proportion, but I've seen the same thing happen before. It never led to any good. Maybe tabletop specifics will help DnD outlive this, but it's in my nature to prepare for the worst.
My biggest concern is that the homebrew options will be too limiting for my taste with the class level progressions and their build options as they progress
I have expressed on another thread that I really think they should create epic levels for 1D&D, and the general feedback has been that this is only desirable to a minority fanbase. That said, it is just one example of how I am concerned.
Allow me to loop the name debate in here. If they really want to call it 1D&D, then I think they should make it truly 1D&D.
When playing with books, homebrew is not an issue. A DM can take whatever rules, lore, classes, etc... that they want from any of the editions and use them interchangeably. This is what really makes D&D so special, is that there is so much material to utilize, and if we can't find anything we like then we can simply make it up. When you utilize online tools like DDB character sheets, then you are limited to using what the software allows. For 5e, this seems to work pretty well. However, what if we want to use rules from other editions instead. This is where homebrew comes in right? Ok, but honestly, If the homebrew options are just completely open to do whatever without any help, then I can homebrew just as easily with an excel spreadsheet. So what would be a middle ground that would benefit everyone, or at least come close.
I think what has been done on DDB for 5e should be done for each of the prior editions. Too big of a task? I dunno, maybe, I'm not a computer programmer, but lets at least consider this for now. Then when a PC first begins to create their character, the first question they answer is what edition to select as their base edition. They then create their character within those parameters. The DM creates the game with that same base edition and should be able to set the game up to allow and/or disallow specified parameters.. Then, players go through and select between rulesets (selecting what is allowed in the game they intend to play in) that are cross compatible. For example: Let's say that I create a game in 5e, but I want to use skills from 3.x, this should be an option as the rules are similar enough to easily adapt it. Adding 3.x skills to a 1e base rule set would be more difficult as they did not exist in 1e. That said, it may still be possible and they should allow it if they can.
Basically, step one create each edition as selectable. Step two, break each edition down into categorical rule sets. Step three, make it as homebrew friendly as possible for people to pick and choose what they want for their game and character creation/progression. We can do all of this with an excel spreadsheet already, but it is a lot of work. What I think we need is for WotC to build this kind of plug and play option into their 6e. If they do this, then I believe they will have earned the name 1D&D.
Why should we worry about something like this when roughly 40% of people taking this poll say they are happy enough with 5e? My answer to this would be because 60% are not happy enough with 5e and I think that there are many fans that prefer some rules, character builds, etc.... from any given edition and by unifying the editions into interchangeable rule sets, it may just help to unify the fanbase.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
I sincerely doubt they’ll call it “DnD,” they have waayy too much invested in and brand recognition with that ampersand. They’ll call it “D&D.”
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
are you sure? the character power curve will not work well with some 5e campaighns. its not as backwards compatible as you might think. 5e monsters were desighned to fight 5e PCS, not 6e PCs. most of those campaighns took into account race and class abilitys races and classes now have NEW abilitys. its not going to be backwards compatible for the most part.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions? Because I haven't.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it.
Respectfully, I think that is not helpful.
Additionally, in my opinion, correcting Aquilontune's use of "DnD" to "D&D" was also not helpful. "DnD" is essentially slang/shorthand for D&D. If you want to continue correcting everyone on little things then that is your right, but in my opinion it clogs up the thread with information that doesn't really help much.
Further, on a thread like this with 6 pages and counting, most people do not want to read all the posts. So a minor correcting post just pushes the prior post up giving it less visibility.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it.
Respectfully, I think that is not helpful.
Additionally, in my opinion, correcting Aquilontune's use of "DnD" to "D&D" was also not helpful. "DnD" is essentially slang/shorthand for D&D. If you want to continue correcting everyone on little things then that is your right, but in my opinion it clogs up the thread with information that doesn't really help much.
Further, on a thread like this with 6 pages and counting, most people do not want to read all the posts. So a minor correcting post just pushes the prior post up giving it less visibility.
You do you though.
Pedantry has its place. This isn't it.
Expecting, or even hoping, for WotC to somehow unify the rules for every edition of D&D under one ruleset just isn't practical or feasible. That said, you can still purchase some of those old books. You just can't do it here.
As a professional pedant with a purpose, I would argue pedantry always has a place. I would also argue pedantry has a bad rap, like rhetoric, due to colloquial demonization and an anti-authoritarian bent to many of the targeted population (on display here, often).
I do think it is relatively unrealistic an ask, but one that I wouldn't mind in any case. The resources and time to do so would be a huge drain and would be unlikely to gain approval from bean counters.
But I think a doable version of that would be to begin bringing back some of the elements that were useful in the past and could fit herein relatively easily (even if they conflict with some parts of the philosophy) and make them optional.
Do I think it is likely to happen? Nah. They haven't even put in Sanity and Spell points. They are struggling just to keep up with the problems of what they have.
But doing so would make the overall experience of DDB much more useful to far more folks than the relative few that pop up here and might help to bring in some of the folks who are intentionally playing older versions of the game (a not insubstantial number) as it would enable them to have more value for the tools offered here (thus driving traffic, use, and improving overall value of the site, blah blah)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it.
Respectfully, I think that is not helpful.
Why not? I only commented on the part of your post that I had anything relevant to comment on. You made statements about the name, and I informed you that your concerned were unwarranted. Since I had no other comments I wished to make, I made no additional comments.
Additionally, in my opinion, correcting Aquilontune's use of "DnD" to "D&D" was also not helpful. "DnD" is essentially slang/shorthand for D&D. If you want to continue correcting everyone on little things then that is your right, but in my opinion it clogs up the thread with information that doesn't really help much.
Clearly my mild attempt at humor fell flat. That being said, how is an acronym consisting of 3 characters “shorthand” for another acronym that also consists of only 3 characters, and ⅔ of those characters are identical? Isn’t shorthand supposed to be, y'know, shorter…?
Further, on a thread like this with 6 pages and counting, most people do not want to read all the posts. So a minor correcting post just pushes the prior post up giving it less visibility.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
As a professional pedant with a purpose, I would argue pedantry always has a place. I would also argue pedantry has a bad rap, like rhetoric, due to colloquial demonization and an anti-authoritarian bent to many of the targeted population (on display here, often).
I do think it is relatively unrealistic an ask, but one that I wouldn't mind in any case. The resources and time to do so would be a huge drain and would be unlikely to gain approval from bean counters.
But I think a doable version of that would be to begin bringing back some of the elements that were useful in the past and could fit herein relatively easily (even if they conflict with some parts of the philosophy) and make them optional.
Do I think it is likely to happen? Nah. They haven't even put in Sanity and Spell points. They are struggling just to keep up with the problems of what they have.
But doing so would make the overall experience of DDB much more useful to far more folks than the relative few that pop up here and might help to bring in some of the folks who are intentionally playing older versions of the game (a not insubstantial number) as it would enable them to have more value for the tools offered here (thus driving traffic, use, and improving overall value of the site, blah blah)
Unfortunately, I totally agree that it is unlikely that they will do it for all the reasons you mentioned and maybe others as well.
That said, I think it is a case of long term vs. short term thinking (at least in part, but there are likely other factors to consider as well). Short term with business is always all about the bottom line and making more money than prior year to increase overall stock value, etc.... Long term though, if something like this could be done, I think it would be well worth it for them and result in greater overall potential revenue and growth by increasing their fanbase.
Even if they just did this starting with 3.x and after for now, I think that would really be a huge step in the right direction.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
are you sure? the character power curve will not work well with some 5e campaigns. its not as backwards compatible as you might think. 5e monsters were designed to fight 5e PCS, not 6e PCs. most of those campaigns took into account race and class abilities races and classes now have NEW abilities. its not going to be backwards compatible for the most part.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions? Because I haven't.
If you go from the original 5E to Dragonlance, they've added 2 feats (at 1st & 4th). Even with the newer non-DL backgrounds also giving a feat, it's a decent free bump in power (worst case, it's +4 attribute points). It will still be compatible, but given that most everyone agrees that CRs already didn't keep up with the players, it's going to be markedly worse in 2024. Definitely in re-doing the CR formula territory for me.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
are you sure? the character power curve will not work well with some 5e campaigns. its not as backwards compatible as you might think. 5e monsters were designed to fight 5e PCS, not 6e PCs. most of those campaigns took into account race and class abilities races and classes now have NEW abilities. its not going to be backwards compatible for the most part.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions? Because I haven't.
If you go from the original 5E to Dragonlance, they've added 2 feats (at 1st & 4th). Even with the newer non-DL backgrounds also giving a feat, it's a decent free bump in power (worst case, it's +4 attribute points). It will still be compatible, but given that most everyone agrees that CRs already didn't keep up with the players, it's going to be markedly worse in 2024. Definitely in re-doing the CR formula territory for me.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked about the playtest, not Dragonlance. Or any other setting, but I'm more than happy to tackle them.
The Dragonlance adventure is special because every player character gets bonus feats. This is intended to be unique to the setting, since characters living and surviving through war are hardier than normal.
Similarly, each of the Magic: The Gathering sourcebooks are special. They intentionally give more than other adventures and settings.
Each of the guild backgrounds from Ravnica, in addition to the typical trappings, grants an expanded spell list.
All player characters in Theros start with some kind of Supernatural Gift, and the Anvilwrought can even be used to play a race species not found in the book.
The five backgrounds from Strixhaven all come with a bonus feat in place of the typical "ribbon" feature. There's also an expanded spell list, but they aren't as expansive as the ones in Ravnica.
I'm asking for experience, not hyperbole and theory-crafting. And since you're here, I'll pose to you the same question.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I beg to differ, The delay probably means they are actually working on the product. Considering the ogl derail they probably have to incorporate feedback more than they were intending in the next release. (For "good will" reasons). They also received enough feedback from louder community voices"that there wasn't enough to platest". This probably reorganized the release schedule and scope of the next packet.
Back to the main topic: My biggest concern is actually catering to the general community to a degree where interesting outliers no longer exist. I believe in breadth of appeal ove general appeal. Every one should have a viable playstyle opportunity but by the nature of it some people will not like Every option.
Frankly I think the disagreements on classes/subclasses actually fed the community growth of 5e. It gave people something to invest in, something to homebrew, something to study/understand, and it gave a platform for searching social media topics. Basically to some extent theoretical "bad" parts actually created good game mechanics interaction. Especially since there is enough support(monk and phb ranger fans) to show such parts can function within the 5e scope.
No, it's like saying that me & my friends are gathering at the Capitol today. Sometimes it's a elementary school field trip, and sometimes it's a riot invading the building to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Bringing in video game people & increasing monetization does not inherently mean any changes to the TTRPG. It's far more likely to mean a increase in attention to Idle Champions, the Neverwinter MMO, Baldur's Gate 3, and the like, as well as merchandizing. WotC already makes / licenses D&D video games. It's already been shown how to increase monetization / microtransactions within video games. Why should WotC go thru all the effort (and expense) to radically change the TTRPG / 1DD when there is a much easier & well developed path to fame & fortune thru video games? As to the VTT, I haven't seen any reason to believe that the model will be radically different from what we've seen before. Charge the GM for a Master account & books, charge individuals for cosmetics & flashy effects. The barrier to entry has to be very low since it's a convenience purchase for most people (as most players can choose to play without a VTT), and there is established competition in the market.
Past decade/ Let me see...
new Consoles across three major competitors, lots of major titles that have come out including my favorite Horizon Series. Consolidation and desperation, even as the industry as a whole grows, with few major revenue sources being microtransaction based save for a couple, Mobile gaming going insane behind the push of one company that thinks it shouldn't have to abide by the rules they agreed to, massive IP auctions...
Nope, not enough. None of that is anything more than idle speculation without evidence.
The people who came to the company came from administrative and operational spaces, whereas microtransactions are a development mechanic used primarily to ensure a steady stream to enable continued development of the game since it has no major external other revenue sources.
You might mention Destiny, which shifted to a microtransaction model and while a lot of the old players did leave (myself included), the game actually grew in popularity and interest and managed to avoid being shut down because there were not enough sales of fuzzy ghosts.
Wait, let me dig into the job openings for the past two years...
Ok, sorry that took so long, I went to bed after. So, it turns out that they aren't hiring an entire team for microtransactions, which means it will be relatively minor and limited to existing staff, so modelers and skinners, meaning yeah, very much just little changes to color, or possibly a design studio similar to hero forge. Additionally, in this case, the notion of microtransactions is going to likely follow a similar layout and function as a way to keep development of the TT going -- much like a Kickstarter, only over time instead of all at once.
Seriously, this doesn't even rise to the level of "well, that's concerning" and barely deserves more than a moment of thought.
Especially since the VTT will be absolutely limited in scope and function and only useful for folks who use their published setting s and modules.
Now, if you want a potential risk, then perhaps that might be a microtransaction to get homebrew into the VTT. But just the *thought* of that and what would be necessary to do in a small space, even under an unreal engine, with a limited staff, is so mind numbingly huge a project that while it might seem like a possibility at first glance, *any depth of thought* on it with something other than speculation to support it would show that the idea is ludicrous and asinine and I should be ashamed for even entertaining it this long.
so you want to yell and rant and scream and rage at Wizards for some slight you felt about them. Cool. More power to you.
Get that rant out.
Stop making it seem like it is the end of the world. Especially around people who actually spend their off time creating band new worlds, campaigns, monsters, magical items and more and use very little of the stuff that is even available here on DDB.
Or did you think that "everyone" uses it? That there ae some kind of mythical "well, the rich folks", the whales can be sucked dry for it.
Guess what: that's not how things work. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Woah woah woah. Slow the **** down. It is in no way like saying that.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Kind of hard not to Godwin a thing when you're arguing in the internet. Anyway I don't see a point in this really. It's not like any one of us had any degree of control over the executives of Hasbro corporation and their investors. Things will go the way they'll go and it's anyone's choice to be wary or optimistic about what's coming to the industry. I've seen good franchises fall prey to "optimization", Assassin's Creed turning into a ridiculous politicized plotless grindfest that sold you "timesavers", I've seen Diablo devolve into Diablo Immoral, and studios like Bioware turn from makers of Baldur's Gate into makers of Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem. It's your right to be optimistic and think nothing bad is going to happen to DnD, like the OGL situation never happened and it was just a bad dream or a scandal blown out of proportion, but I've seen the same thing happen before. It never led to any good. Maybe tabletop specifics will help DnD outlive this, but it's in my nature to prepare for the worst.
My biggest concern is that the homebrew options will be too limiting for my taste with the class level progressions and their build options as they progress
I have expressed on another thread that I really think they should create epic levels for 1D&D, and the general feedback has been that this is only desirable to a minority fanbase. That said, it is just one example of how I am concerned.
Allow me to loop the name debate in here. If they really want to call it 1D&D, then I think they should make it truly 1D&D.
When playing with books, homebrew is not an issue. A DM can take whatever rules, lore, classes, etc... that they want from any of the editions and use them interchangeably. This is what really makes D&D so special, is that there is so much material to utilize, and if we can't find anything we like then we can simply make it up. When you utilize online tools like DDB character sheets, then you are limited to using what the software allows. For 5e, this seems to work pretty well. However, what if we want to use rules from other editions instead. This is where homebrew comes in right? Ok, but honestly, If the homebrew options are just completely open to do whatever without any help, then I can homebrew just as easily with an excel spreadsheet. So what would be a middle ground that would benefit everyone, or at least come close.
I think what has been done on DDB for 5e should be done for each of the prior editions. Too big of a task? I dunno, maybe, I'm not a computer programmer, but lets at least consider this for now. Then when a PC first begins to create their character, the first question they answer is what edition to select as their base edition. They then create their character within those parameters. The DM creates the game with that same base edition and should be able to set the game up to allow and/or disallow specified parameters.. Then, players go through and select between rulesets (selecting what is allowed in the game they intend to play in) that are cross compatible. For example: Let's say that I create a game in 5e, but I want to use skills from 3.x, this should be an option as the rules are similar enough to easily adapt it. Adding 3.x skills to a 1e base rule set would be more difficult as they did not exist in 1e. That said, it may still be possible and they should allow it if they can.
Basically, step one create each edition as selectable. Step two, break each edition down into categorical rule sets. Step three, make it as homebrew friendly as possible for people to pick and choose what they want for their game and character creation/progression. We can do all of this with an excel spreadsheet already, but it is a lot of work. What I think we need is for WotC to build this kind of plug and play option into their 6e. If they do this, then I believe they will have earned the name 1D&D.
Why should we worry about something like this when roughly 40% of people taking this poll say they are happy enough with 5e? My answer to this would be because 60% are not happy enough with 5e and I think that there are many fans that prefer some rules, character builds, etc.... from any given edition and by unifying the editions into interchangeable rule sets, it may just help to unify the fanbase.
1DD is just the code name for the playtest, the actual edition will be named something like 5.5 or 6:0 or something.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well from what they have talked about they are probably just going to call it DnD. We have a new DnD product and everything they produce for DnD will be compatible with the new PHB, DMG and MM and most of 5e content.
I sincerely doubt they’ll call it “DnD,” they have waayy too much invested in and brand recognition with that ampersand. They’ll call it “D&D.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions? Because I haven't.
Ok, I'm sure you are probably correct here, but you are completely missing the main point of my post.
I looped the name debate into my post tangentially because it fit together nicely, but the main point I was making had to do with unifying the editions so that people can use the DDB resources to better facilitate their game and customize it to fit their preferred system. Ultimate homebrew flexibility.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Respectfully, I think that is not helpful.
Additionally, in my opinion, correcting Aquilontune's use of "DnD" to "D&D" was also not helpful. "DnD" is essentially slang/shorthand for D&D. If you want to continue correcting everyone on little things then that is your right, but in my opinion it clogs up the thread with information that doesn't really help much.
Further, on a thread like this with 6 pages and counting, most people do not want to read all the posts. So a minor correcting post just pushes the prior post up giving it less visibility.
You do you though.
Pedantry has its place. This isn't it.
Expecting, or even hoping, for WotC to somehow unify the rules for every edition of D&D under one ruleset just isn't practical or feasible. That said, you can still purchase some of those old books. You just can't do it here.
As a professional pedant with a purpose, I would argue pedantry always has a place. I would also argue pedantry has a bad rap, like rhetoric, due to colloquial demonization and an anti-authoritarian bent to many of the targeted population (on display here, often).
I do think it is relatively unrealistic an ask, but one that I wouldn't mind in any case. The resources and time to do so would be a huge drain and would be unlikely to gain approval from bean counters.
But I think a doable version of that would be to begin bringing back some of the elements that were useful in the past and could fit herein relatively easily (even if they conflict with some parts of the philosophy) and make them optional.
Do I think it is likely to happen? Nah. They haven't even put in Sanity and Spell points. They are struggling just to keep up with the problems of what they have.
But doing so would make the overall experience of DDB much more useful to far more folks than the relative few that pop up here and might help to bring in some of the folks who are intentionally playing older versions of the game (a not insubstantial number) as it would enable them to have more value for the tools offered here (thus driving traffic, use, and improving overall value of the site, blah blah)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Why not? I only commented on the part of your post that I had anything relevant to comment on. You made statements about the name, and I informed you that your concerned were unwarranted. Since I had no other comments I wished to make, I made no additional comments.
Clearly my mild attempt at humor fell flat. That being said, how is an acronym consisting of 3 characters “shorthand” for another acronym that also consists of only 3 characters, and ⅔ of those characters are identical? Isn’t shorthand supposed to be, y'know, shorter…?
Okay chief, whatever you say.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hard to explain, perhaps this will help.
Unfortunately, I totally agree that it is unlikely that they will do it for all the reasons you mentioned and maybe others as well.
That said, I think it is a case of long term vs. short term thinking (at least in part, but there are likely other factors to consider as well). Short term with business is always all about the bottom line and making more money than prior year to increase overall stock value, etc.... Long term though, if something like this could be done, I think it would be well worth it for them and result in greater overall potential revenue and growth by increasing their fanbase.
Even if they just did this starting with 3.x and after for now, I think that would really be a huge step in the right direction.
If you go from the original 5E to Dragonlance, they've added 2 feats (at 1st & 4th). Even with the newer non-DL backgrounds also giving a feat, it's a decent free bump in power (worst case, it's +4 attribute points). It will still be compatible, but given that most everyone agrees that CRs already didn't keep up with the players, it's going to be markedly worse in 2024. Definitely in re-doing the CR formula territory for me.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked about the playtest, not Dragonlance. Or any other setting, but I'm more than happy to tackle them.
racespecies not found in the book.I'm asking for experience, not hyperbole and theory-crafting. And since you're here, I'll pose to you the same question.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?