My largest concern is that in their attempt to appease the Corporate Homogeny that every corporation seems to strive for, they will remove any sense of fun or individuality in the game in the sake of the name of 'being inclusive' when removing that stuff wasn't being inclusive, it was just removing any potential thing that someone might use in a bad faith argument to misconstrue something that wasn't actually unwelcoming - and that's not to say people haven't found bad stuff in RPG books, I know it's out there, but the appropriate response is to simply go 'Oh wow that's not what we wanted/meant/stand for, we're changing that right now.' and you edit things and move on. The current approach is more of a ultra-sanitization of overdoing it so that it goes so far left it becomes a joke in and of itself - and I'm literally a gay woman who would love a game that didn't make me feel unwelcome. I also don't want a joke of a game that simply uses PC buzzwords like 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'safe spaces' to have some checklist while they completely neglect to actually make the meat and potatoes of the game.
I have seen this pattern happen in Corpo-culture over and over now - they try SO HARD to make something that no one can have any issue with and they just end up sucking the life out of it entirely - largely because all that's really left is a sort of hollow ghostly shell of trendy buzzwords that they think will shield them from any form of judgment, because they'd rather fall back on THAT than just... make a decent product and not get so easily derailed by bad faith arguments on twitter like somehow they need to react to -everything- rather than just addressing deeper or more relevant issues. And I'm not even saying I should be the one to decide what is and isn't per se, but like everything in life it is a scale - if you give the blowhard who will find issue with anything and everything just as much weight as everyone else at the table, you're going to wind up finding issue with anything and everything. That's just how it is. They need to make a product and stand by it, and if there are real issues with it, fix them.
White wolf managed to do it with aplomb and they had a literal secret nazi in there; I think WotC can manage to endure some people freaking out about the historical implication of goblins without turning them into an entirely different species with no discernable traits so they look nothing at all like the fantasy goblins purely so that they can avoid the possibility of judgment - but I'm very much worried that's where they're going to go and we're going to end up with a whole lot of... nothing, since their prior choices show their corporate overreach is in mega-overdrive atm and the people driving the bus are... Unwise?
Like even if the people making D&D one are creative enough to understand what I'm talking about (and I acknowledge it's a sort of ephemeral concept and probably a lot of people's eyes have long since glazed over) they're likely going to have been picked apart and taken down by the Execs over time, and those creative ideas that make each class, location, race, whatever feel special are going to sort of be sanded down into a more generic, wal-mart esque experience.
That and they're going to try and overmonetize the crap out of it and probably not have much actual content out for it and then be surprised when no one jumps over to it even though there's only like, one or two adventure books out for it and no ttrpg campaigns or any big media push because they didn't think to do ANY kind of social media or community involvement with like Dimension 20 or Critical Role, they just plopped it out there and expected everyone to snap it up and then they'll blame the game system itself and not their PR pooper they just shot out for the last month, and the system might be perfectly fine just not adequately supported by WotC or it's marketing department. That seems like another big possibility to me.
Spells not critting was one specific thing in one specific playtest. Rogues honestly were largely untouched and the changes to Thief made sense. Clerics getting its subclass at 3 is a good thing, because it prevents multiclass stuff from a pure power gamer standpoint. By current rules, there are no limitations to the amount of short rests. Things being changed to PB times per day makes sense gives a way of natural power scaling as you get stronger and imposes a limit that stops people from just taking naps except for those features that really syngerize with other people, or Warlocks. I don't think the Magic Item system is broken, can you give an example?
Multiclasses are becoming less optimal in favor of being a more meaningful character choice. A 2 level dip into Hexblade is just the right choice a LOT of the time for a LOT of martial classes. I honestly hope they make the Warlock Subclass at Level 3 too, but bring invocations to level 1 to compensate.
So OGL is a tool for people to make money or share ideas using content owned by WoTC. As a company, everyone should agree, they have every right to owned what they create and should be able to control the rules and direction of the game. Saying this, OneDnD memo made a lot of peoples reaction to this send a clear message to the corporate side of the equation. My personal view point is that "Has"bro should count themselves lucky for having the level of fans the DnD and MTG have. They pretty much took a look at the revenue stream and wanted to create a larger one. WoTC need not try and follow on the path that GW is on and they need to make it right with people. For instance DDB should be cheaper for the content or actually put out a site that mirrors the price paid. Also work with the third party people and have them have the ability to create content and share that content without a huge monetary loss. They should embrace it. They should work with Kobold Press and the like. Anyway two cents and all
Honestly, the concern I have that probably has the most chance of coming true is that enough of OD&D will be better than and enough will be worse than 5e that I’ll want to be playing one whenever I’m playing the other.
Mostly just concerned they're going to homogenize spellcasters too much. Bards got screwed hard so far, and it just ruins the distinct class roles for me if Arcane casters are prepping spells Divine style now. Don't particularly care if Rangers prep, maybe people will finally stop with the overdone "lol, Rangerz suc" memes if nothing else. And I don't even know what they think the Wizard niche is going to be if Wizards and Sorcerers are now prepping the exact same number of spells from the exact same list in the exact same way.
Also not a fan of them locking in your preps by spell slot, just because I like having some more fluidity to my array.
My largest concern is that in their attempt to appease the Corporate Homogeny that every corporation seems to strive for, they will remove any sense of fun or individuality in the game in the sake of the name of 'being inclusive' when removing that stuff wasn't being inclusive, it was just removing any potential thing that someone might use in a bad faith argument to misconstrue something that wasn't actually unwelcoming - and that's not to say people haven't found bad stuff in RPG books, I know it's out there, but the appropriate response is to simply go 'Oh wow that's not what we wanted/meant/stand for, we're changing that right now.' and you edit things and move on. The current approach is more of a ultra-sanitization of overdoing it so that it goes so far left it becomes a joke in and of itself - and I'm literally a gay woman who would love a game that didn't make me feel unwelcome. I also don't want a joke of a game that simply uses PC buzzwords like 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'safe spaces' to have some checklist while they completely neglect to actually make the meat and potatoes of the game.
I have seen this pattern happen in Corpo-culture over and over now - they try SO HARD to make something that no one can have any issue with and they just end up sucking the life out of it entirely - largely because all that's really left is a sort of hollow ghostly shell of trendy buzzwords that they think will shield them from any form of judgment, because they'd rather fall back on THAT than just... make a decent product and not get so easily derailed by bad faith arguments on twitter like somehow they need to react to -everything- rather than just addressing deeper or more relevant issues. And I'm not even saying I should be the one to decide what is and isn't per se, but like everything in life it is a scale - if you give the blowhard who will find issue with anything and everything just as much weight as everyone else at the table, you're going to wind up finding issue with anything and everything. That's just how it is. They need to make a product and stand by it, and if there are real issues with it, fix them.
White wolf managed to do it with aplomb and they had a literal secret nazi in there; I think WotC can manage to endure some people freaking out about the historical implication of goblins without turning them into an entirely different species with no discernable traits so they look nothing at all like the fantasy goblins purely so that they can avoid the possibility of judgment - but I'm very much worried that's where they're going to go and we're going to end up with a whole lot of... nothing, since their prior choices show their corporate overreach is in mega-overdrive atm and the people driving the bus are... Unwise?
Like even if the people making D&D one are creative enough to understand what I'm talking about (and I acknowledge it's a sort of ephemeral concept and probably a lot of people's eyes have long since glazed over) they're likely going to have been picked apart and taken down by the Execs over time, and those creative ideas that make each class, location, race, whatever feel special are going to sort of be sanded down into a more generic, wal-mart esque experience.
That and they're going to try and overmonetize the crap out of it and probably not have much actual content out for it and then be surprised when no one jumps over to it even though there's only like, one or two adventure books out for it and no ttrpg campaigns or any big media push because they didn't think to do ANY kind of social media or community involvement with like Dimension 20 or Critical Role, they just plopped it out there and expected everyone to snap it up and then they'll blame the game system itself and not their PR pooper they just shot out for the last month, and the system might be perfectly fine just not adequately supported by WotC or it's marketing department. That seems like another big possibility to me.
Reminds me of the Dragon Prince season 4. Waited 3 years for it, and wow was it ever terrible.
Luckily, the D&D community just made WotC wake up an take notice of the rest of us. We don't want that, and they know it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
for those that are whining about the name. Remember 5th edition was called D&D Next during playtest, OneD&D is highly unlikely going to be the final name. its just what the playtest is called.
There is clearly a lot of concern out in the Community about the direction that WotC is taking DnD and what 6E will mean to the game. WotC must know this by now so they are just keeping that to themselves, if anything the OGL debacle should have taught them is that this isn't the way to go. If the WotC Execs really don't know that there are significant differences between a computer game, MTG Competitive Card Game, Competitive Wargame (i.e. WH40k) and a TTRPG experience then we really are all heading for trouble.
It stands to reason that once they release 6E then all the material they release will be 6E compatible and you'll need a new PHB as a minimum (and probably the full set of 3 books) to use them. It's what they've done on any previous edition. 5E hasn't been about all that long in the great scheme of things, in my opionion it doesn't need replacing at the moment, I'd rather WotC put their effort in some more creative efforts (new adventures, settings, expanding existing settings lore etc..).
for those that are whining about the name. Remember 5th edition was called D&D Next during playtest, OneD&D is highly unlikely going to be the final name. its just what the playtest is called.
I certainly hope so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
5e got a ton right, but continued two bad trends inherited from 4e:
- PCs are more superhero than heroic mortals. Way too much power creep
- Combat is a disjointed 1 to 2 hour mess that breaks story continuity and momentum, and leave some players board / distracted while waiting for their turn. Primary reason for the combat bloat are hp creep for all combatants, and a plethora of powers that leads most players to analysis paralysis.
I am extremely concerned that WotC doesn’t recognize either of these issues and will continue 6E further along this path.
5e got a ton right, but continued two bad trends inherited from 4e:
- PCs are more superhero than heroic mortals. Way too much power creep
- Combat is a disjointed 1 to 2 hour mess that breaks story continuity and momentum, and leave some players board / distracted while waiting for their turn. Primary reason for the combat bloat are hp creep for all combatants, and a plethora of powers that leads most players to analysis paralysis.
I am extremely concerned that WotC doesn’t recognize either of these issues and will continue 6E further along this path.
All of these seem either like problems of a DM who can’t balance combat (especially since monster HP is laughably low RAW, so not even sure how you got that as a problem) or a player who is trying to play something they don’t understand (there are plenty of super linear classes you can’t get decision paralysis on - if you’re getting paralysis, that’s on the player for choosing something that doesn’t mesh with them).
If anything, 5e suffers from too few choices, especially on level up. The issues you address, however, are a player/DM problem, not a system one.
If you want esoteric and heretical, go Warlock. I'm pretty sure the Hogwarts alumnus vibe is a deliberate design choice, and I'd say it's a good one. Being a wizard is a respected profession in a lot of settings.
I said it's the name. "ONE" DND definitely sounds like something that the crackerjack team of Microsoft transplants that brought us the OGL mess came up with. It basically screams "walled garden" which essentially means I'm out. I don't care enough to try to climb that wall.
Im not even a little interested in anything OneD&D related right now and I doubt ill change my mind. The contempt they have for us with all the recent shenanigans shows thats blatantly obvious.
My only real worries are, that they try to shoehorn in too much of their MMO OneDND-VTT stuff including microtransactions for players and thus make mechanics worse for the "print only" community.
Most of my concerns have already been voiced, so I won’t repeat those. What I haven’t seen mentioned is that I’m concerned about the mechanics. I don’t like that all casters are becoming “prepared spellcasters,” it feels wrong and samesamey to me. I don’t like how they’re doing away with class spell lists and dividing things up by school of magic instead. And I’m really not sold on all classes getting their subclass features at 3rd, 6th, 10th & 14th levels; it feels like they’re gonna hafta shoehorn stuff into those levels for classes like Clerics and Warlocks who have traditionally chosen their subclasses at 1st level for example, or fighters who have had 5 subclass features to offset their more simple base class features. And it really makes the game nowhere near as backwards compatible as WotC is claiming.
Between all that and the price increases, combined with the deteriorating quality of the recent releases…. I’m just not convinced it will actually be any “improvement” whatsoever.
5e got a ton right, but continued two bad trends inherited from 4e:
- PCs are more superhero than heroic mortals. Way too much power creep
- Combat is a disjointed 1 to 2 hour mess that breaks story continuity and momentum, and leave some players board / distracted while waiting for their turn. Primary reason for the combat bloat are hp creep for all combatants, and a plethora of powers that leads most players to analysis paralysis.
I am extremely concerned that WotC doesn’t recognize either of these issues and will continue 6E further along this path.
All of these seem either like problems of a DM who can’t balance combat (especially since monster HP is laughably low RAW, so not even sure how you got that as a problem) or a player who is trying to play something they don’t understand (there are plenty of super linear classes you can’t get decision paralysis on - if you’re getting paralysis, that’s on the player for choosing something that doesn’t mesh with them).
If anything, 5e suffers from too few choices, especially on level up. The issues you address, however, are a player/DM problem, not a system one.
No need to be insulting - you can disparage our players and Dm, but that is not a route I will go down. Our group has been playing for 40 years, so I would say we know how to play the game.
Earlier editions integrated combat into the overall story. Our groups experience has been that combat takes too long and detracts from the story, is not very challenging RAW and that HP bloat is a primary factor for this. I’ve olayed in multiple groups since 5e came out, and this is a consistent issue from what I’ve experienced.
It may be as simple as what you want from the game and what I want are vastly different. That’s ok, but there’s no reason to disparage a group for having a different viewpoint. It makes you look intolerant and elitist.
5e is designed around a single adventuring day lasting 6-8 encounters. To me, the game engine should be designed to fit these encounters into a 3-4 hour playing window. Unfortunately, given the duration for combat encounters, it generally takes 2 to 3 sessions to achieve that number of encounters based on all of the groups I’ve played with.
The system would be better served by streamlining the mechanics, reducing the hit points and simplifying player options to better align the 6-8 encounter adventuring day with the average amount of time an average quality group gets together to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My largest concern is that in their attempt to appease the Corporate Homogeny that every corporation seems to strive for, they will remove any sense of fun or individuality in the game in the sake of the name of 'being inclusive' when removing that stuff wasn't being inclusive, it was just removing any potential thing that someone might use in a bad faith argument to misconstrue something that wasn't actually unwelcoming - and that's not to say people haven't found bad stuff in RPG books, I know it's out there, but the appropriate response is to simply go 'Oh wow that's not what we wanted/meant/stand for, we're changing that right now.' and you edit things and move on. The current approach is more of a ultra-sanitization of overdoing it so that it goes so far left it becomes a joke in and of itself - and I'm literally a gay woman who would love a game that didn't make me feel unwelcome. I also don't want a joke of a game that simply uses PC buzzwords like 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'safe spaces' to have some checklist while they completely neglect to actually make the meat and potatoes of the game.
I have seen this pattern happen in Corpo-culture over and over now - they try SO HARD to make something that no one can have any issue with and they just end up sucking the life out of it entirely - largely because all that's really left is a sort of hollow ghostly shell of trendy buzzwords that they think will shield them from any form of judgment, because they'd rather fall back on THAT than just... make a decent product and not get so easily derailed by bad faith arguments on twitter like somehow they need to react to -everything- rather than just addressing deeper or more relevant issues. And I'm not even saying I should be the one to decide what is and isn't per se, but like everything in life it is a scale - if you give the blowhard who will find issue with anything and everything just as much weight as everyone else at the table, you're going to wind up finding issue with anything and everything. That's just how it is. They need to make a product and stand by it, and if there are real issues with it, fix them.
White wolf managed to do it with aplomb and they had a literal secret nazi in there; I think WotC can manage to endure some people freaking out about the historical implication of goblins without turning them into an entirely different species with no discernable traits so they look nothing at all like the fantasy goblins purely so that they can avoid the possibility of judgment - but I'm very much worried that's where they're going to go and we're going to end up with a whole lot of... nothing, since their prior choices show their corporate overreach is in mega-overdrive atm and the people driving the bus are... Unwise?
Like even if the people making D&D one are creative enough to understand what I'm talking about (and I acknowledge it's a sort of ephemeral concept and probably a lot of people's eyes have long since glazed over) they're likely going to have been picked apart and taken down by the Execs over time, and those creative ideas that make each class, location, race, whatever feel special are going to sort of be sanded down into a more generic, wal-mart esque experience.
That and they're going to try and overmonetize the crap out of it and probably not have much actual content out for it and then be surprised when no one jumps over to it even though there's only like, one or two adventure books out for it and no ttrpg campaigns or any big media push because they didn't think to do ANY kind of social media or community involvement with like Dimension 20 or Critical Role, they just plopped it out there and expected everyone to snap it up and then they'll blame the game system itself and not their PR pooper they just shot out for the last month, and the system might be perfectly fine just not adequately supported by WotC or it's marketing department. That seems like another big possibility to me.
Spells not critting was one specific thing in one specific playtest. Rogues honestly were largely untouched and the changes to Thief made sense. Clerics getting its subclass at 3 is a good thing, because it prevents multiclass stuff from a pure power gamer standpoint. By current rules, there are no limitations to the amount of short rests. Things being changed to PB times per day makes sense gives a way of natural power scaling as you get stronger and imposes a limit that stops people from just taking naps except for those features that really syngerize with other people, or Warlocks. I don't think the Magic Item system is broken, can you give an example?
Multiclasses are becoming less optimal in favor of being a more meaningful character choice. A 2 level dip into Hexblade is just the right choice a LOT of the time for a LOT of martial classes. I honestly hope they make the Warlock Subclass at Level 3 too, but bring invocations to level 1 to compensate.
So OGL is a tool for people to make money or share ideas using content owned by WoTC. As a company, everyone should agree, they have every right to owned what they create and should be able to control the rules and direction of the game. Saying this, OneDnD memo made a lot of peoples reaction to this send a clear message to the corporate side of the equation. My personal view point is that "Has"bro should count themselves lucky for having the level of fans the DnD and MTG have. They pretty much took a look at the revenue stream and wanted to create a larger one. WoTC need not try and follow on the path that GW is on and they need to make it right with people. For instance DDB should be cheaper for the content or actually put out a site that mirrors the price paid. Also work with the third party people and have them have the ability to create content and share that content without a huge monetary loss. They should embrace it. They should work with Kobold Press and the like. Anyway two cents and all
Honestly, the concern I have that probably has the most chance of coming true is that enough of OD&D will be better than and enough will be worse than 5e that I’ll want to be playing one whenever I’m playing the other.
Mostly just concerned they're going to homogenize spellcasters too much. Bards got screwed hard so far, and it just ruins the distinct class roles for me if Arcane casters are prepping spells Divine style now. Don't particularly care if Rangers prep, maybe people will finally stop with the overdone "lol, Rangerz suc" memes if nothing else. And I don't even know what they think the Wizard niche is going to be if Wizards and Sorcerers are now prepping the exact same number of spells from the exact same list in the exact same way.
Also not a fan of them locking in your preps by spell slot, just because I like having some more fluidity to my array.
Reminds me of the Dragon Prince season 4. Waited 3 years for it, and wow was it ever terrible.
Luckily, the D&D community just made WotC wake up an take notice of the rest of us. We don't want that, and they know it.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satiefor those that are whining about the name. Remember 5th edition was called D&D Next during playtest, OneD&D is highly unlikely going to be the final name. its just what the playtest is called.
If they try to overmonetize, they know our answer ;)
If they cut the DnDbeyond API, who gives us such amazings digital tools, they will know the answer.
If they launch a new restrictive OGL for OneDnD,, wel...
The question is: Do Wizards want us to boicot, worldwide, the next edition?
There is clearly a lot of concern out in the Community about the direction that WotC is taking DnD and what 6E will mean to the game. WotC must know this by now so they are just keeping that to themselves, if anything the OGL debacle should have taught them is that this isn't the way to go. If the WotC Execs really don't know that there are significant differences between a computer game, MTG Competitive Card Game, Competitive Wargame (i.e. WH40k) and a TTRPG experience then we really are all heading for trouble.
It stands to reason that once they release 6E then all the material they release will be 6E compatible and you'll need a new PHB as a minimum (and probably the full set of 3 books) to use them. It's what they've done on any previous edition. 5E hasn't been about all that long in the great scheme of things, in my opionion it doesn't need replacing at the moment, I'd rather WotC put their effort in some more creative efforts (new adventures, settings, expanding existing settings lore etc..).
I certainly hope so.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieThe continued homogenization and a tighter power band from what I can currently tell.
5e got a ton right, but continued two bad trends inherited from 4e:
- PCs are more superhero than heroic mortals. Way too much power creep
- Combat is a disjointed 1 to 2 hour mess that breaks story continuity and momentum, and leave some players board / distracted while waiting for their turn. Primary reason for the combat bloat are hp creep for all combatants, and a plethora of powers that leads most players to analysis paralysis.
I am extremely concerned that WotC doesn’t recognize either of these issues and will continue 6E further along this path.
All of these seem either like problems of a DM who can’t balance combat (especially since monster HP is laughably low RAW, so not even sure how you got that as a problem) or a player who is trying to play something they don’t understand (there are plenty of super linear classes you can’t get decision paralysis on - if you’re getting paralysis, that’s on the player for choosing something that doesn’t mesh with them).
If anything, 5e suffers from too few choices, especially on level up. The issues you address, however, are a player/DM problem, not a system one.
If you want esoteric and heretical, go Warlock. I'm pretty sure the Hogwarts alumnus vibe is a deliberate design choice, and I'd say it's a good one. Being a wizard is a respected profession in a lot of settings.
I said it's the name. "ONE" DND definitely sounds like something that the crackerjack team of Microsoft transplants that brought us the OGL mess came up with. It basically screams "walled garden" which essentially means I'm out. I don't care enough to try to climb that wall.
Im not even a little interested in anything OneD&D related right now and I doubt ill change my mind.
The contempt they have for us with all the recent shenanigans shows thats blatantly obvious.
Why would I support that?.
My only real worries are, that they try to shoehorn in too much of their MMO OneDND-VTT stuff including microtransactions for players and thus make mechanics worse for the "print only" community.
Most of my concerns have already been voiced, so I won’t repeat those. What I haven’t seen mentioned is that I’m concerned about the mechanics. I don’t like that all casters are becoming “prepared spellcasters,” it feels wrong and samesamey to me. I don’t like how they’re doing away with class spell lists and dividing things up by school of magic instead. And I’m really not sold on all classes getting their subclass features at 3rd, 6th, 10th & 14th levels; it feels like they’re gonna hafta shoehorn stuff into those levels for classes like Clerics and Warlocks who have traditionally chosen their subclasses at 1st level for example, or fighters who have had 5 subclass features to offset their more simple base class features. And it really makes the game nowhere near as backwards compatible as WotC is claiming.
Between all that and the price increases, combined with the deteriorating quality of the recent releases…. I’m just not convinced it will actually be any “improvement” whatsoever.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No need to be insulting - you can disparage our players and Dm, but that is not a route I will go down. Our group has been playing for 40 years, so I would say we know how to play the game.
Earlier editions integrated combat into the overall story. Our groups experience has been that combat takes too long and detracts from the story, is not very challenging RAW and that HP bloat is a primary factor for this. I’ve olayed in multiple groups since 5e came out, and this is a consistent issue from what I’ve experienced.
It may be as simple as what you want from the game and what I want are vastly different. That’s ok, but there’s no reason to disparage a group for having a different viewpoint. It makes you look intolerant and elitist.
Let me build upon my previous post.
5e is designed around a single adventuring day lasting 6-8 encounters. To me, the game engine should be designed to fit these encounters into a 3-4 hour playing window. Unfortunately, given the duration for combat encounters, it generally takes 2 to 3 sessions to achieve that number of encounters based on all of the groups I’ve played with.
The system would be better served by streamlining the mechanics, reducing the hit points and simplifying player options to better align the 6-8 encounter adventuring day with the average amount of time an average quality group gets together to play.