# What is positive?



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 2, 2022)

Okay so someone pointed out that there are more positive answers then negative to choose from on the surveys.  I don't remember the exact answers but I think it was like very satisfied, satisfied, slightly satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied... (Please correct me especially if anyone has screen shots)

If this is true, how does that effect the survey results being 70% 80% ect positive? 

I don't know statistics (but I mean mark twain said it was the third type of lie) but if you are given any qustion then given 4 or 5 options and all but 1 are positive wont that make MOST things come out 70%+ positive?

Now having said that, they said they drop things at 50/50... so how BAD would it need to be 50% or 60%    Any math guys have an insight? I know at least one guy on here does surveys for a living...


----------



## aco175 (Dec 2, 2022)

I do not know the answer on how they do the math but I feel that they look at the answers.  A lot of people vote 0 or 100 either way on surveys and not in the middle (unless it is a EnWorld survey).  I also think Wizards would not keep things that go over terrible since they are trying to sell product, and I think most may actually play the game and want to make it good.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 2, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't remember the exact answers but I think it was like very satisfied, satisfied, slightly satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied... (Please correct me especially if anyone has screen shots)



That sounds wrong to me, but memory is unreliable. We should definitely try to dig up a screenshot if we can.


----------



## mellored (Dec 2, 2022)

I missed the poll.  But generally..

Strongly disagree, Disagree, and neutral are not considered positive.

Agree and Strongly agree are.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That sounds wrong to me, but memory is unreliable. We should definitely try to dig up a screenshot if we can.



yeah I wish I had taken one... maybe I will remember next time cause it is bugging me now.


----------



## payn (Dec 2, 2022)

Protons?


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 3, 2022)

mellored said:


> I missed the poll.  But generally..
> 
> Strongly disagree, Disagree, and neutral are not considered positive.
> 
> Agree and Strongly agree are.



I recall this type of poll assigns numbers to the results, usually a simple 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then divides the total by the number of participants to get an average. Multiplying the results by 20 gives us a percentage of approval.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 3, 2022)

We need a survey guy! Not a math guy!
Hopefully Wotc should have some guy pretty expert in the domain by now, since they made 2014 Ed based on playtest and survey and they have continue to do survey for the last 10 years.
And much better they can cross previous survey result with usage in DnD beyond.
Survey is an art and some science. But I guess they practice enough to be good at it.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2022)

Having been involved with surveys and enlisted the help of market researchers, there is a bunch of science behind it. 70% being a 'yes' is the same number we used, as people generally skew slightly high. They only used a 5 point scale but on our 10-point, we'd have to clean up the data a bit and you'd generally trim off the extremes (which wouldn't apply in this one). There was other stuff, too, but it's a little out of my personal wheelhouse.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 3, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Okay so someone pointed out that there are more positive answers then negative to choose from on the surveys.  I don't remember the exact answers but I think it was like very satisfied, satisfied, slightly satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied... (Please correct me especially if anyone has screen shots)
> 
> If this is true, how does that effect the survey results being 70% 80% ect positive?
> 
> ...




It's hard to say.  

There are things that were solidly nixed on the original playtest that the creators of the game feel SO STRONGLY NEED TO BE INCLUDED that they have basically reintroduced those ideas over the past 3 years. 

They REALLY WANT those ideas in the next iteration.

Period.

Dot.

I would not be surprised if it means they are twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring what they want to have it answered as.

They said they had 40K+ respondents.  That would be 2 million dollars of sales for their next PHB on that basis.

I know I've checked out for the most part.  I see a lot of stuff being introduced that I really don't care for.  It's not that I already have 2-3 copies of 5e and most of the books already (I'd still have normally gotten the next ones if I didn't check out) that will cause me not to buy the next ones.

It's from the plain fact that I feel that they are going to do whatever they feel they WANT to do regardless of any input they get.  If that means they have to twist questions to get the answers they want...they'll do it.  If they have to twist the data to get what they want...they'll do that.

In the long run, I'm inconsequential.  I've already checked out in that way.  The differences are going to be too vast and they are changing what I think I like and keeping some things I don't.  I could be the only one that feels that way.  I don't think my voice would be heeded, even if I answered the surveys...so I haven't.

If there are more like me...well...40K+ is still a LOT of people responding.

If they are on the right track, 1D&D will sell like hotcakes.  If they aren't...well...the numbers will speak for themselves when it comes out.  

In the long run, does it even really matter anymore.  For those who like what they see being published (and that is 80% according to what they said) than...more power for them.  Good for them and hope they sell out like never before.  The more people buying the better overall for me in that way.

If they don't sell all that great, well, hopefully they learn the lesson before it gets too late.   Perhaps they'll actually try to figure out what turned off people like me.  I doubt it with the current mindset, but you could always hope.  Eventually though, they'll still publish D&D in some form, even if it means they have to go back to the drawing board.  

I expect that they have some iota of what they are doing though and it will either sell really well and bring in more money than 5e did when it was first released, or at least sell decently enough to justify them to keep going.


----------



## broghammerj (Dec 5, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Perhaps they'll actually try to figure out what turned off people like me.  I doubt it with the current mindset, but you could always hope.  Eventually though, they'll still publish D&D in some form, even if it means they have to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> I expect that they have some iota of what they are doing though and it will either sell really well and bring in more money than 5e did when it was first released, or at least sell decently enough to justify them to keep going.




Name your top 3 things that turned you off and top 3 things you would like them to do?  I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 5, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> In the long run, I'm inconsequential.  I've already checked out in that way.  The differences are going to be too vast and they are changing what I think I like and keeping some things I don't.  I could be the only one that feels that way.  I don't think my voice would be heeded, even if I answered the surveys...so I haven't.




This was exactly my feeling of pathfinder 1st edition. At that time 4e was the way better alternative for me.
There was that little game Trailblazer, that actually did fix 3e in a way I really liked (but it did not get a chance, because when I was ready to try it, the next playtest started).


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> There are things that were solidly nixed on the original playtest that the creators of the game feel SO STRONGLY NEED TO BE INCLUDED that they have basically reintroduced those ideas over the past 3 years.
> 
> They REALLY WANT those ideas in the next iteration.
> 
> ...




Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something _has to_ be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 5, 2022)

delericho said:


> Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something _has to_ be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.



I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway.  If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz.  It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 5, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway.  If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz.  It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.



maybe so, but it would not surprise me that they will adjust and try to "balance" things right up to 5mins before "save&print" click.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 5, 2022)

delericho said:


> Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something _has to_ be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.



Playtesting isn't just to playtest these days.

It's for advertising...and in some cases that's the primary focus.



CleverNickName said:


> I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway.  If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz.  It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.




I should have read a little further down first.  You beat me to it.

Sure, there are some things they aren't positive about and that is malleable according to responses, but there are somethings they are absolutely dedicated to making sure that they are in.  Those things aren't going to change regardless of what surveys say (well, overall, if 99% of the people said they hated it...well...then they MIGHT consider it).


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 5, 2022)

broghammerj said:


> Name your top 3 things that turned you off and top 3 things you would like them to do?  I'm genuinely curious.




I probably can name one that encompasses a LOT of stuff.

The big thing I do not like...

1. Added complexity  - An example of this is making feats something that are mandatory at first level, or the default now.  Simple is good.  Simple helps people get into the game better.  Making it more complex is not always better.  It's a problem they learned from AD&D to 3e (20 million to 5 million players...granted...many had stopped playing already, but WotC failed to garner back those lost players) and from 3e to 4e (4e was a simpler system at it's core, but the powers made it a LOT more complex so went from 5 million to 2-3 million players).

5e went simpler again.  Did away with mandatory feats (not that there weren't some designers that REALLY WANTED them in there).  The more complex the bigger obstacle for new players.  It can also be seen as unbalancing in regards to backwards compatibility.  

And that's just talking about feats...

Things I like

2.  That's been added to it thus far?  I haven't actually seen anything that they've ADDED to the game that I would prefer over what was already there thus far.  That's thus far....of course.

3.  If we are talking about what I'd see added, I haven't really thought about that.  It's supposed to be the same edition and backwards compatible.  Why would I think about what I would like added?

Thinking on it NOW...perhaps an even easier start up version (aka...basic) with even easier character creation for those trying to pick it up for themselves via the free online basic rules.  That probably could encompass far more than 3 things though if one thought about it more deeply.


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Playtesting isn't just to playtest these days.
> 
> It's for advertising...and in some cases that's the primary focus.



Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 5, 2022)

delericho said:


> Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?




Advertising, once again.  How will people know about this wonderful new feature unless they get a taste?

And, interestingly enough, they don't release the entire packet or the entirety of the rules for free.

Other marketing ideas that tell you that it's more for marketing than playtesting to see if it actually works...they sell you the rules (only the most dedicated are going to buy the rules which will sway your playtest already).  WotC isn't doing that, but there are many other ways.

Playtests these days are one of the most popular marketing and PR stunts available for RPGs it seems.  It is a VERY POPULAR thing to do to promote your product these days, or at least that's how it looks to me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> maybe so, but it would not surprise me that they will adjust and try to "balance" things right up to 5mins before "save&print" click.




Really? Seems kinda dumb.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 6, 2022)

delericho said:


> Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?




Because that does not fit into the narrative of "big bad evil company".


----------



## Horwath (Dec 6, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Really? Seems kinda dumb.



If you want to squeeze max amount of time developing before deadline it's not.
And I assume the print HAS to go out before holiday season in 2024.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> If you want to squeeze max amount of time developing before deadline it's not.
> And I assume the print HAS to go out before holiday season in 2024.




It is dumb to change balance without testing. As a teacher I can say, what you completely redo 5 min before the end has an at least 50% chance of being worse than what you had before.

If they are clever, and this is what I assume is, that they already have a good sense of balance, mathematical formulas that work well enough and they just have to do fine tuning in the end.

The big things should be done by the end of next year. Which seems to allign with their timeline for the playtest.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 6, 2022)

delericho said:


> Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?



Plausible deniability.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 6, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I think the books are already written for the most part



Yeah... they were written back in 2012-2014.   

Most of the 2024 book's mechanics are going to be exactly the same as we already have.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 6, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yeah... they were written back in 2012-2014.
> 
> Most of the 2024 book's mechanics are going to be exactly the same as we already have.



Except the classes, species, subclasses, monsters, and some of the combat and skill rules.  And who knows what they're going to do with the DMG.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 6, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except the classes, species, subclasses, monsters, and some of the combat and skill rules.  And who knows what they're going to do with the DMG.



Of which almost all mechanics will be exactly the same.  Some of the top-level stuff might have different names or different organization... but the actual game will be the same.

Species will all get like 3 to 5 abilities, of which many will be the same as we already have.  Combat will still be d20+STR or DEX+prof bonus versus AC.  Spells will be DC 8 + ability mod + prof bonus.  Saves are the same... damage is the same... the process of skill checks the same... the Classes we've seen have had most of the same abilities except the level acquired might be a little different on some.  How and when you get Feats and ASIs are the same.  Monster stat blocks will look virtually the same except for perhaps if they add a few more monster abilities to each block like other companies have done.  Actions are virtually the same except some name changes and reorganization.  Conditions mostly the same except for a few things from the game previous that are now being called "conditions".  The equipment lists will have all the same stuff in it for the most part, the armors and weapons lists will look the same as we have except there might be some additional mechanics and features added to them.

Need I go on?  I mean its no different than Level Up being considered the same game as 5E except for a lot of extra stuff layered across it.  But the underlying system chugs along the exact same way.  Same game... just looks a bit different on the surface.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 6, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except the classes, species, subclasses, monsters, and some of the combat and skill rules.  And who knows what they're going to do with the DMG.



Crossing my fingers that they are able to organize it this time.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 6, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of which almost all mechanics will be exactly the same.  Some of the top-level stuff might have different names or different organization... but the actual game will be the same.
> 
> Species will all get like 3 to 5 abilities, of which many will be the same as we already have.  Combat will still be d20+STR or DEX+prof bonus versus AC.  Spells will be DC 8 + ability mod + prof bonus.  Saves are the same... damage is the same... the process of skill checks the same... the Classes we've seen have had most of the same abilities except the level acquired might be a little different on some.  How and when you get Feats and ASIs are the same.  Monster stat blocks will look virtually the same except for perhaps if they add a few more monster abilities to each block like other companies have done.  Actions are virtually the same except some name changes and reorganization.  Conditions mostly the same except for a few things from the game previous that are now being called "conditions".  The equipment lists will have all the same stuff in it for the most part, the armors and weapons lists will look the same as we have except there might be some additional mechanics and features added to them.
> 
> Need I go on?  I mean its no different than Level Up being considered the same game as 5E except for a lot of extra stuff layered across it.  But the underlying system chugs along the exact same way.  Same game... just looks a bit different on the surface.



Level Up is just as much a different edition than the 2024 game will be, albeit in very, very different ways. 

The math of the game is _ not_ the only thing that matters.


----------



## NotAYakk (Dec 6, 2022)

How tall are you?

under 0.5 feet
under 1.0 feet
under 1.5 feet
under 2.0 feet
under 2.5 feet
under 3.0 feet
under 3.5 feet
under 4.0 feet
under 4.5 feet
under 10 feet

Now, this is a 10 choice multiple choice question.  But most people will answer the same answer.

A bunch of "no, that doesn't describe me" options doesn't suddenly make them more popular.  Any such effect is not that big, unless the answers are poorly labelled.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up is just as much a different edition than the 2024 game will be, albeit in very, very different ways.
> 
> The math of the game is _ not_ the only thing that matters.



It does when the question is "When was the 2024 book written?"

@CleverNickName is trying to downplay the playtest because they think and keep saying essentially that the books are already all done... and thus implying the playtest isn't real and is merely just for show.  Well... they are "correct" in that most of the game (including all the baseline mechanics) ARE in fact already written, because the baseline game is still going to be using everything that was designed for the 2014 books and ain't being changed.  Level Up was the same way-- which is why it was designed and marketed to be an expansion of the 2014 5E, with the entire foundation of the game and how it works already handed to Morrus on a platter and thus everyone who buys it will know pretty much how the game plays except for all the added bells and whistles (like it is for every single 3rd Party designer and company.)

The stuff that is getting changed for 2024 is all the same top-level bells and whistles stuff... little rules issues being cleaned up, underwritten things from 2014 getting deeper dives, balance issues being brought better into line.  And none of that stuff is or needs to be completely written right now.  All that surface-level stuff can be tweaked, adjusted, and shined up real pretty for all the players who submit their surveys about what they like and don't like because doing so isn't a big deal.  _"You all really want the 'Use An Object' Action added back into the Thief's 'Cunning Action?'  Really?  Uh... okay... fine.  We think the Action doesn't work very well and think there's probably a better design there... but if you all REALLY want it... we can put it back in if it means that much to you.  It ain't hard to do and ain't gonna affect anything."_ 

And the people who think there's no point in testing or submitting surveys?  They say that because they know that the baseline game is staying just how it is, and since they don't like it or are bored with it or want it changed greater than what they know WotC intends to do... there's no reason for them to bother.  The playtest is all lipstick on a pig for all of them.  Which is fine.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 7, 2022)

Level Up is written to be _compatible _with 5e, not to be an expansion of it.  It is its own game and is primarily designed to be played as such, although certainly compatibility with "the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game" was an important consideration.  Including conversion material in the books is just good marketing, and expands their player base to those who may not want to go "all-in" on Level Up.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> @CleverNickName is trying to downplay the playtest because they think and keep saying essentially that the books are already all done... and thus implying the playtest isn't real and is merely just for show.  Well... they are "correct" in that most of the game (including all the baseline mechanics) ARE in fact already written, because the baseline game is still going to be using everything that was designed for the 2014 books and ain't being changed.
> 
> ...
> 
> And the people who think there's no point in testing or submitting surveys?  They say that because they know that the baseline game is staying just how it is, and since they don't like it or are bored with it or want it changed greater than what they know WotC intends to do... there's no reason for them to bother.  The playtest is all lipstick on a pig for all of them.



I mean...that's a bit of an overstatement.  I said they aren't looking for sweeping changes in the final product, and that the playtests are more likely a marketing tool.  This isn't a harebrained theory that I dreamed up out of spite; the survey was mostly questions about demographics and general satisfaction--questions which are quite useful for marketing and branding, but not all that helpful for game design.

I don't think the playtest is "just for show," as you suggest.  I think it's for marketing.  _And marketing is important._


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 7, 2022)

About the notion of survey answers - consider the 2 sets of questions below

Very SatisfiedvsVery SatisfiedSatisfiedvs
Satisfied
Slightly Satisfiedvs
Slightly Satisfied
Neutralvs
Neutral
Slightly UnsatisfiedvsUnsatisfiedvs
Unsatisfied
Very UnsatisfiedvsVery Unsatisfied

If all they care about are knowing the satisfieds, then removing the option of slightly unsatisfied won't change the results of what they are wanting to know at all.  Those people would have either chosen unsatisfied or neutral.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> About the notion of survey answers - consider the 2 sets of questions below
> 
> Very SatisfiedvsVery SatisfiedSatisfiedvs
> Satisfied
> ...



Couldn't we god just number rating?

from 0 to 10?

5 being; so-so.
10 being; You could not do it any better then you did. Even with *MY* help.
0 being; you wasted extra oxygen for mental effort while doing this.

average of 7.0 needed for "pass"


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Couldn't we god just number rating?
> 
> from 0 to 10?
> 
> ...



I think that tells you even less than what they did.


----------



## NotAYakk (Dec 12, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And the people who think there's no point in testing or submitting surveys?  They say that because they know that the baseline game is staying just how it is, and since they don't like it or are bored with it or want it changed greater than what they know WotC intends to do... there's no reason for them to bother.  The playtest is all lipstick on a pig for all of them.  Which is fine.



But the "baseline game" is much smaller than that.

Like, literally "fighters get 4th attack at level 20" vs "fighters deal an extra set of weapon damage dice at 17" is within the level of tweaking that could occur even close to the last minute (last year?) for a game.

And that level of difference is something people are going to care about.

Now, the difference between "PCs power is roughly linear with level" vs "PCs power doubles every 2 levels" would be much, much harder to fit in.  But, honestly, adding optional rules that make power level grow much steeper, and even alternative encounter building rules for steeper power growth, is something they could add quite close to publication.  They wouldn't be as polished as the baseline game, but neither was 3.5e.  ;P


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 12, 2022)

Folks need to keep in mind that they are expressly NOT writing a new edition. They are writing an updated 5e PHB. These are very different design and marketing goals. Their aim is not to have everyone rush out to replace their books, but to maintain the managed growth of the D&D brand. 

Why would we assume that they are _not_ trying to get the most accurate data they can? That would be a strange goal for them to have.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 12, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Folks need to keep in mind that they are expressly NOT writing a new edition. They are writing an updated 5e PHB. These are very different design and marketing goals. Their aim is not to have everyone rush out to replace their books, but to maintain the managed growth of the D&D brand.



I don't think that these two fact can be taken as a given... if you believe it is or is not a new edition (or a new .5 edition) aside, of course they want to have everyone rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM... I see no reason to believe they don't.

The very fact that the rewrites we have seen so far are whole new versions of races, whole new versions of classes (that will need errata to use previous subclasses) and whole new versions of feats shows' that the game (as of info we have today dec 2022) is going to change.

The example I give all the time is a Mtn dwarf with +2 str +2 Con showing up to a table in 2024 is most likely being told to redraw there species (not even a race anymore) and a bard is going to be told to redraw there class (we can add cleric to that list too) Anyone that has Lucky, or Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Mastery are most likely to be told to change the way those feats work...

the 2014 PHB just (from what we know as of today in dec 2022) not going to work as building a character at most tables...

and weather you call it an edition or a .5 edition you will HAVE to call it something. You will call it what rules you are using. Is exhaustion 5 or 10 levels? is daze a thing? What version of haste and ranger are you... oh wait that was 3e to 3.5


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 12, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't think that these two fact can be taken as a given... if you believe it is or is not a new edition (or a new .5 edition) aside, of course they want to have everyone rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM... I see no reason to believe they don't.
> 
> The very fact that the rewrites we have seen so far are whole new versions of races, whole new versions of classes (that will need errata to use previous subclasses) and whole new versions of feats shows' that the game (as of info we have today dec 2022) is going to change.
> 
> ...



This is what I'm talking about.  It doesn't matter to most fans that the math is the same in both editions.  What they care about is how the pieces of the game they will actually engage with are going to be different.   And it looks like a lot of those things are going to change.  Given that fact, it is unreasonable for WotC to expect people to just accept that this is not a new edition.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 12, 2022)

They are calling it something: D&D. Honestly, did people even watch the OneD&D announcement? They will no longer be referring to it in the context of editions.

"...of course they want to have everyone rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM..." Why is this an "of course"? The whole point of moving away from editions is to move away from boom/bust cycles. Because when everyone feels pressured to "rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM," that's when you give folks a great jumping off place and wind up dividing your fan base, as we have seen happen repeatedly.

Instead of relying on having folks "rush out to replace" their books (or simply quitting instead, as often happens), the goal for D&D is to keep the core books evergreen, trading periodic booms for managed growth. Large corporations do not like to rely on a "rush" of business, they like to have well-established brands that they can build predictable budgets and investment around.

And we have emphatically not seen "whole new versions" of pretty much anything. We have seen exactly _one_ new species mooted, Ardlings, and everything else is minor tweaks, compatible with the existing game. I have seen nothing in the test packets thus far that is more revolutionary than anything I saw in _Tasha's_ or _Multiverse_.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> They are calling it something: D&D. Honestly, did people even watch the OneD&D announcement? They will no longer be referring to it in the context of editions.



why yes we DID all hear what they said... but that doesn't mean it's the way it will work. an edition change by a new name is still a duck/rose...


Clint_L said:


> "...of course they want to have everyone rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM..." Why is this an "of course"?



so you think that they are putting 2 years of work into something to keep the exact same sales amount they are currently gettin?!? I don't even understand your argument.

IF they DIDN'T want to replace the books these would be tasha's like books but no they are changing the PHB.


Clint_L said:


> The whole point of moving away from editions is to move away from boom/bust cycles.



that is the spin, now what is the truth?  The truth is they want people useing the 2024 PHB/DMG/MM and going forward will support only those. This will lead to a boom/bust cycle again... BUT they want to claim it's different. 


Clint_L said:


> Because when everyone feels pressured to "rush out to replace there PHB/DMG/MM," that's when you give folks a great jumping off place and wind up dividing your fan base, as we have seen happen repeatedly.



yup and that is what we see happening already with the playtest, just look at the posters all around you saying they are sticking with 2014 or a modification of 2014.


Clint_L said:


> Instead of relying on having folks "rush out to replace" their books (or simply quitting instead, as often happens), the goal for D&D is to keep the core books evergreen, trading periodic booms for managed growth. Large corporations do not like to rely on a "rush" of business, they like to have well-established brands that they can build predictable budgets and investment around.



then why not relase an updated cleric in a new 'Players Options Divine'? Why change everything all at once instead of taking the next 2 years to slowly parcel it out organically 


Clint_L said:


> And we have emphatically not seen "whole new versions" of pretty much anything.



Bard
Cleric
Exhaustion
Race
Sharp Shooter
Lucky
Backgrounds
feat no longer being optional
new conditions (dazed, slowed)
Spells (bark skin, guidance, resistance, aide)


Clint_L said:


> We have seen exactly _one_ new species mooted, Ardlings, and everything else is minor tweaks, compatible with the existing game.



Mtn dwarf no longer gets +2 str +2 con now they get no stat mod but a background that gives a floating +1/+2


Clint_L said:


> I have seen nothing in the test packets thus far that is more revolutionary than anything I saw in _Tasha's_ or _Multiverse_.



then go compare bards and what bardic inspiration means and when they get subclasses


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 13, 2022)

We have posters claiming that OneD&D is obviously a new edition, and others claiming that it is not worth buying because there is so little change and they want a new edition.

Folks are so stuck in the old "editions" paradigm that they do not understand what Hasbro/WotC is trying to do. And what they are trying to do is not remotely unusual, except in the context of D&D's previous weird "editions" model of sales. What they are trying to do is create a consistent brand identity. They are satisfied that they have a strong basis in 5e, so now they are just making that "D&D." Period, full stop. No edition added. Changes will still happen as the game slowly evolves with the culture of D&D in particular and the wider culture in general. But no more throwing the baby out with the bathwater as in the old editions.

That is why they don't want you rushing out to replace all your books. Because that is a sucker's game, a short term tactic originally concocted by amateurs at TSR who were in a perpetual financial crisis from 1984 onwards. Like every other big corporation, they want to create lifelong customers with loyalty to the brand, not to one particular edition. They can make a lot more money _in the long term_ by keeping you around, occasionally updating your PHB when you feel like it is time, rather than feeling coerced to do it because it is time for the new edition.

This is how brands are managed. McDonalds doesn't chuck their whole menu every 5-10 years and suddenly become a taco place, then a chicken place, then a pizza place. They might tinker at the edges (value meals, larger sizes, now you can get a salad), but the core product, the items that define them, are settled.

All Hasbro is trying to do is move D&D off the short-sighted TSR strategy (you know, the one that doomed the company) and towards conventional brand management. It's not really complicated.

The things you are citing as significant changes are not. They can happen and little will change at my tabletop. I could still run "Last Mine of Phandelver" with them and have zero problems. Do you think a new rule for Great Weapon Master will fundamentally change the game? And if it does make you uncomfortable, you can still use the old one - it's all built off the same chassis. Nothing will stop working.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> We have posters claiming that OneD&D is obviously a new edition, and others claiming that it is not worth buying because there is so little change and they want a new edition.



hey look at that... a split, just like an edition change. 


Clint_L said:


> Folks are so stuck in the old "editions" paradigm that they do not understand what Hasbro/WotC is trying to do.



pretending that people that disagree with you 'just don't understand' is a weak argument.


Clint_L said:


> They are satisfied that they have a strong basis in 5e,



if they were satisficed why all the changes?


Clint_L said:


> so now they are just making that "D&D." Period, full stop. No edition added. Changes will still happen as the game slowly evolves with the culture of D&D in particular and the wider culture in general. But no more throwing the baby out with the bathwater as in the old editions.



they can change the terms all they want (although I bet it wont stick anyway) but you need a term for the new version and one for the old version (notice I avoided the word edition) and right now that is 5e vs 1D&D. 


Clint_L said:


> That is why they don't want you rushing out to replace all your books. Because that is a sucker's game, a short term tactic originally concocted by amateurs at TSR who were in a perpetual financial crisis from 1984 onwards. Like every other big corporation, they want to create lifelong customers with loyalty to the brand, not to one particular edition.



that;s great... that is what they wanted in 2000 with the d20 system
that is what they wanted with a 'new but still the same' 4e
and they actually SAID they wanted that in 2014 with 5e.
but here we are 8 years after 2014 5e came out and we are testing 1D&D. 

I don't think they lied, I think they wanted to make it just D&D each of those times (maybe an argument can be made that in 2000 they already had a .5 in mind).  but they will not be the same people in power for ever, and sooner or later there will be new ideas and sales will look like they could use a boost, and a New D&D will form... now maybe they call it 2D&D, or D&D Eternal, or 7e, or 17e (an argument can be made that is close to right) or maybe something we can't imagine today...

Either way at some point there will be a new D&D PHB and there will be a way to identify it against 5e, 4e, 3.5, 3e and even 1D&D ect.


Clint_L said:


> They can make a lot more money _in the long term_ by keeping you around, occasionally updating your PHB when you feel like it is time, rather than feeling coerced to do it because it is time for the new edition.



that is just a new edition by a diffrent term... if the new PHB is new rules, new ways to do classes new concept like daze and how feats work... then what ever term you use it is a split. It is a start point for some and an end point for others. Why not just call it what we have called it since the 90;s?


Clint_L said:


> This is how brands are managed. McDonalds doesn't chuck their whole menu every 5-10 years and suddenly become a taco place, then a chicken place, then a pizza place. They might tinker at the edges, but the core product, the items that define them, are settled.



but notice D&D is STILL chucking Bard, CLeric, Ranger, feats, races, backgrounds ect ect ect...


Clint_L said:


> All Hasbro is trying to do is move D&D off the short-sighted TSR strategy (you know, the one that doomed the company) and towards conventional brand management. It's not really complicated.



then why make large sweeping changes in 2024?


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 13, 2022)

New edition vs .5 is really number and severity of the changes. 

 If they're rewriting all the classes, races, monsters and tweaking other stuff that's a bigger change than say OD&D to Basic or 1E to 2E. Or possibly Basic to 1E ymmv. 

 3.5 is mostly a cut and paste from 3.0 it's a .5 edition. The Basic line essentially is a few .1 editions. OD&D us 0 edition, Holmes is 0.5, Moldvay 0.51, Mentzer 0.52 etc. 

WotC is just spinning things to head off an edition war. By any sane metric it's a new edition regardless of what WotC calls it. 

 That or your paying for expensive errata. Take your pick.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 17, 2022)

To be fair, based on all their backward compatibility talk I initially assumed it would be 99% 5e with a few minor tweaks.  The more we see from the playtest the more it looks like it's quite a bit more than that.  Of course the initial Next playtest had quite a few packets that look nearly nothing like the final version so there's a chance it could end up drastically different than what we are seeing - I don't think it will based on timeframes left for playtesting but it's possible IMO.

The other thing I note is that most of the design decisions seem to already be made.  Like them touting the subclasses as 3rd level - which ends up killing alot of thematic flavor for clerics and likely warlocks as well.


----------



## codo (Dec 17, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> New edition vs .5 is really number and severity of the changes.
> 
> If they're rewriting all the classes, races, monsters and tweaking other stuff that's a bigger change than say OD&D to Basic or 1E to 2E. Or possibly Basic to 1E ymmv.
> 
> ...



Who cares if it is a new "edition".  Edition is a vague term that has numerous different meaning in different context. 

In the past, new editions of D&D have meant that the new books are not compatible with old content.  The designers have flat out stated they intend for the old adventures and supplements with be compatible with the new books.  You don't see why they don't call 1dnd a new edition?  Using the definition of edition the d&d has always used, the is NOT a new edition.  Not calling it a new edition is actually more useful, and conveys more information about the game, than calling it a new edition would.  Calling it a new edition would actually be MORE confusing.

Just because WotC is using a different definition of edition than someone prefers it doesn't mean they are lying to you, or  are trying to trick you.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 17, 2022)

codo said:


> Who cares if it is a new "edition".  Edition is a vague term that has numerous different meaning in different context.
> 
> In the past, new editions of D&D have meant that the new books are not compatible with old content.  The designers have flat out stated they intend for the old adventures and supplements with be compatible with the new books.  You don't see why they don't call 1dnd a new edition?  Using the definition of edition the d&d has always used, the is NOT a new edition.  Not calling it a new edition is actually more useful, and conveys more information about the game, than calling it a new edition would.  Calling it a new edition would actually be MORE confusing.
> 
> Just because WotC is using a different definition of edition than someone prefers it doesn't mean they are lying to you, or  are trying to trick you.



They're not lying, but they are trying to change the narrative by making a multitude of small to medium changes to the aspects of the game that players engage with, and then claiming it's still 5e because the core math is the same.


----------



## codo (Dec 17, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> They're not lying, but they are trying to change the narrative by making a multitude of small to medium changes to the aspects of the game that players engage with, and then claiming it's still 5e because the core math is the same.



Trying to change the narrative from what?  What is it exactly that you think they game designers are trying to do?

What I see is game designers trying their best to explain what their goals and expectations are for the new "version" of the game.  They don't want to call it a new "edition" because in the past new editions of D&D where not compatible with older editions.  They designers have been telling us over and over again, that their intention is that 5e adventures and supplements will work with the new version.  Calling it a new edition would actually cause more confusion and lead to people making incorrect assumptions about the game.

WotC/Hasbro doesn't actually care what version of D&D the game someone is playing.  Just that they are playing D&D.  D&D is fundamentally a ridiculously cheap hobby.  My current D&D group has probably bought under a dozen book between them over the 5 years we have played. 

If the new D&D movie is successful it will easily make more money than every D&D book ever sold.    All editions ever, combined.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 17, 2022)

codo said:


> Trying to change the narrative from what?  What is it exactly that you think they game designers are trying to do?
> 
> What I see is game designers trying their best to explain what their goals and expectations are for the new "version" of the game.  They don't want to call it a new "edition" because in the past new editions of D&D where not compatible with older editions.  They designers have been telling us over and over again, that their intention is that 5e adventures and supplements will work with the new version.  Calling it a new edition would actually cause more confusion and lead to people making incorrect assumptions about the game.
> 
> ...



You don't think they want people to buy their new corebooks?

And the movie looks pretty good, but that's very much putting their eggs in one basket if they're counting on it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 17, 2022)

codo said:


> Trying to change the narrative from what?  What is it exactly that you think they game designers are trying to do?
> 
> What I see is game designers trying their best to explain what their goals and expectations are for the new "version" of the game.  They don't want to call it a new "edition" because in the past new editions of D&D where not compatible with older editions.  They designers have been telling us over and over again, that their intention is that 5e adventures and supplements will work with the new version.  Calling it a new edition would actually cause more confusion and lead to people making incorrect assumptions about the game.
> 
> ...




 Only way it would do that is rack in 2 billion and that's debable on all the previous editions combined. 

 I have my suspicions about the movie the key clue is March release.


----------



## codo (Dec 18, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> You don't think they want people to buy their new corebooks?
> 
> And the movie looks pretty good, but that's very much putting their eggs in one basket if they're counting on it.



I am sure the designers would _like_ it if everyone buys their new books.  They are working hard on the new rules, and I am sure they are proud of them.  They don't however, _need _everyone to like or buy the new books.  I know one of the designers, I think it was Crawford, has repeatedly said  that they know they can't please everyone, and ultimately don't care if you are playing 5e, and older edition, or even a different game system completely.  The important thing is that you are playing rpgs in the first place.  Ultimately the actual book sales are chump change, the real money is in movies, toys, and video games.  



Zardnaar said:


> Only way it would do that is rack in 2 billion and that's debable on all the previous editions combined.
> 
> I have my suspicions about the movie the key clue is March release.



So one D&D movie being being as popular as Spiderman: No way Home, could arguably make more money than every D&D book sold in fifty years?  I am not saying it will, but it is certainly possible.  The movie looks fun, and that owlbear is awfully cute.  You never know.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 18, 2022)

codo said:


> I am sure the designers would _like_ it if everyone buys their new books.  They are working hard on the new rules, and I am sure they are proud of them.  They don't however, _need _everyone to like or buy the new books.  I know one of the designers, I think it was Crawford, has repeatedly said  that they know they can't please everyone, and ultimately don't care if you are playing 5e, and older edition, or even a different game system completely.  The important thing is that you are playing rpgs in the first place.  Ultimately the actual book sales are chump change, the real money is in movies, toys, and video games.
> 
> 
> So one D&D movie being being as popular as Spiderman: No way Home, could arguably make more money than every D&D book sold in fifty years?  I am not saying it will, but it is certainly possible.  The movie looks fun, and that owlbear is awfully cute.  You never know.




 D&D broke one or two billion dollars a few years back I can't remember the exact number. If it's the latter number the D&D movie has 0 chance.


----------



## codo (Dec 18, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> D&D broke one or two billion dollars a few years back I can't remember the exact number. If it's the latter number the D&D movie has 0 chance.



The exact details don't mater.  It was just an example I pulled out of my ass to show how insignificant the amount of money the game books actually bring in to a company the size of Hasbro.

The fact that a movie _could_ bring in more money than every game book ever, shows why they don't ultimately care if you are playing 5e, 1D&D, or even a completely different rpg.  They just care that you care enough about D&D to buy a ticket to the new movie... and maybe a stuffed owlbear, oooh, and those new D&D lego sets look pretty cool... and maybe I will buy one of the new Funco Pops... but just one.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 18, 2022)

codo said:


> The exact details don't mater.  It was just an example I pulled out of my ass to show how insignificant the amount of money the game books actually bring in to a company the size of Hasbro.
> 
> The fact that a movie _could_ bring in more money than every game book ever, shows why they don't ultimately care if you are playing 5e, 1D&D, or even a completely different rpg.  They just care that you care enough about D&D to buy a ticket to the new movie... and maybe a stuffed owlbear, oooh, and those new D&D lego sets look pretty cool... and maybe I will buy one of the new Funco Pops... but just one.



I think Perkins may be ok with people engaging in D&D however they want, but the corporation he works for definitely wants you to buy their new books.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 18, 2022)

codo said:


> The exact details don't mater.  It was just an example I pulled out of my ass to show how insignificant the amount of money the game books actually bring in to a company the size of Hasbro.
> 
> The fact that a movie _could_ bring in more money than every game book ever, shows why they don't ultimately care if you are playing 5e, 1D&D, or even a completely different rpg.  They just care that you care enough about D&D to buy a ticket to the new movie... and maybe a stuffed owlbear, oooh, and those new D&D lego sets look pretty cool... and maybe I will buy one of the new Funco Pops... but just one.




 Remember D&D Kreo? 

 So yeah good luck with that.


----------



## codo (Dec 18, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I think Perkins may be ok with people engaging in D&D however they want, but the corporation he works for definitely wants you to buy their new books.



Sure "the corporation" wants you to buy their new books. (Ignoring the philosophical implications in discussing what a corporation "wants".)
"They" also understand that you can never make a product that will please everyone.  They make the best book they can that they think will appeal to the most people and brings in the largest number of new people.   

It is much more important to them that you identify as a D&D player and that you buy D&D stuff (Movies, Books, Videogames, Toys, etc.), than it is that you play the most currant version.  It wouldn't surprise me if they expect 95%+ of their revenue to come from non-game sources.


----------



## codo (Dec 18, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Remember D&D Kreo?
> 
> So yeah good luck with that.



Vaguely. It's kind of amazing how much D&D's status has risen in the last decade isn't it.  10 years ago the best we got was knock-off legos.  Now the _decade old _core rule books are crack the top 10 in amazon of _all books!  _My sister was out at a bar a couple of weekends ago and she ran into a bunch of college girls, with their books, sitting in a booth leveling up their characters.  _ Dungeons and Dragons is Actually Cool! _

D&D is cool, what a world!  So, yes I think the D&D movie might do a bit better than you think.  Not to mention it actually looks like a lot of fun.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 18, 2022)

codo said:


> Sure "the corporation" wants you to buy their new books. (Ignoring the philosophical implications in discussing what a corporation "wants".)
> "They" also understand that you can never make a product that will please everyone.  They make the best book they can that they think will appeal to the most people and brings in the largest number of new people.
> 
> It is much more important to them that you identify as a D&D player and that you buy D&D stuff (Movies, Books, Videogames, Toys, etc.), than it is that you play the most currant version.  It wouldn't surprise me if they expect 95%+ of their revenue to come from non-game sources.



When has that ever happened?


----------



## codo (Dec 18, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> When has that ever happened?



It hasn't happened yet, but that is the strategy.  Ask me again in six months.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 19, 2022)

Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D?  Heh heh.  That's funny!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D?  Heh heh.  That's funny!



i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Some of you people STILL getting all bent out of shape over what WotC is or isn't calling OneD&D?  Heh heh.  That's funny!




*Mod Note:*
Please take the insulting threadcrapping to some other venue.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.



To the contrary, I am not mad when people say it. I am just impressed at the degree to which paradigms inform how we see the world. WotC: "We need a new paradigm; editions aren't working because XYZ." Response: "Not possible."

That said, I _am_  slightly resentful of your assertion that, in effect, I am lying when I state that I don't think this is a new edition, and I think what WotC is attempting is, in fact, possible. Let me be clear: I do not "know" that this is a "edition (or half edition)." _I really, truly, disagree with you and that does not make me a liar._ I think that a new edition, in any form, is exactly the opposite of what WotC is trying to achieve (they have explicitly stated as much), though whether they succeed remains an open question.

Again, I refer folks to about 1:20 into the OneD&D announcement when Chris Perkins addresses this issue directly. I have no reason to believe that he is not being truthful, or that he is an idiot who doesn't understand what the word "editions" means in the context of D&D. Ergo, my conclusion is that WotC fully understand what the "editions" paradigm has meant in the context of D&D, and that they are being honest and forthright about why they are trying to move past it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> To the contrary, I am not mad when people say it. I am just impressed at the degree to which paradigms inform how we see the world. WotC: "We need a new paradigm; editions aren't working because XYZ." Response: "Not possible."



the problem is they say they don't like the paradigm of new editions... then go on to state there plan as what we would call a new edition. Call it a version, maybe that will help with it being a slightly different word... this shows (so far) to be on the player side a new version of the game.


Clint_L said:


> That said, I _am_  slightly resentful of your assertion that, in effect, I am lying when I state that I don't think this is a new edition, and I think what WotC is attempting is, in fact, possible.



You don't have to be lying. You may be and you jumping to that instead of thinking we disagree does make me question it though. 


Clint_L said:


> Let me be clear: I do not "know" that this is a "edition (or half edition)." _I really, truly, disagree with you and that does not make me a liar._



_the only person using liar is you._


GMforPowergamers said:


> i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.






Clint_L said:


> I think that a new edition, in any form, is exactly the opposite of what WotC is trying to achieve (they have explicitly stated as much), though whether they succeed remains an open question.



except again, they have said they don't want to have this be a new edition, and yet changed classes races feats statuses... basicly making it so you need the new PHB to replace the old OR stay behind with the old 2014 PHB or house rule some amalgam of the two.
so yea it's a new version


Clint_L said:


> Again, I refer folks to about 1:20 into the OneD&D announcement when Chris Perkins addresses this issue directly. I have no reason to believe that he is not being truthful, or that he is an idiot who doesn't understand what the word "editions" means in the context of D&D.



then what makes 1e different then 2e?
what makes 3e different then 3.5?

see because by the old paradigm they are editions (or versions if you prefer)


Clint_L said:


> Ergo, my conclusion is that WotC fully understand what the "editions" paradigm has meant in the context of D&D, and that they are being honest and forthright about why they are trying to move past it.



then why  rewrite bard and cleric? Why the new status effects? have you seen any reason to think this is just errata for something that didn't work for the last 8 years?


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is they say they don't like the paradigm of new editions... then go on to state there plan as what we would call a new edition. Call it a version, maybe that will help with it being a slightly different word... this shows (so far) to be on the player side a new version of the game.
> 
> You don't have to be lying. You may be and you jumping to that instead of thinking we disagree does make me question it though.
> 
> _the only person using liar is you._



When you assert that I "know" something yet persist in denying it, the clear implication seems to be that I am not being truthful. I see no other way to interpret your statement that "we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it."

I will take you at your word that you were not intentionally accusing me of lying. Thank you for clearing that up. Might I suggest that if you did not assert what other people know or do not know, there would be less likelihood of miscommunication. I am sure that I myself have made this error as well, and will try to be more careful in my own language.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> When you assert that I "know" something yet persist in denying it, the clear implication seems to be that I am not being truthful.



the only thing I am accusing you about being untruthful about is that I called you a liarer... I did no such thing. The comment I made wasn't in response to you it wasn't quoting you or tagin you and at no point did I call ANYONE a liar until you put words in my mouth and I am asking you to stop.

Do not continue to claim I called you a liarer about anything OTHER then me  being called out as having called you a liar.


Clint_L said:


> I see no other way to interpret your statement that "we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it."



You may interpret it as you see fit, but I am not going to be brought into your private conversation with nobody.


Clint_L said:


> I will take you at your word that you were not intentionally accusing me of lying. Thank you for clearing that up. Might I suggest that if you did not assert what other people know or do not know, there would be less likelihood of miscommunication. I am sure that I myself have made this error as well, and will try to be more careful in my own language.


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i know it's the whole "if you call a rose a teltopler, it still is the same thing" we all know it's a new edition (or half edition) but for some reason people get mad when you say it.



I will say - I don't know it is a new edition or half edition - so I don't think saying 'we all know it's a new edition' is correct.    Will further elaborate my thoughts in reply to one of your other posts.


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> then why  rewrite bard and cleric? Why the new status effects? have you seen any reason to think this is just errata for something that didn't work for the last 8 years?



I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind.   So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.

I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen.  If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.

To my mind it is much like how various MMOs go through a lot of updates, such that what WoW or LOTRO look like today, even outside of the expanded areas, are very different to when they first launched in terms of mechanics, how classes work, class skills etc - but is still considered the same game.

On that note, I do think that realistically 1e to 2e could have been similar, just tweaks to the game but still essentially same game, except that I think it likely TSR at the time did try to encourage everyone to buy the latest edition, and helped set the long term expectation that WOTC is trying to tackle now - that ideally only 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e were in their mind genuine edition changes, with 3.5 being quite borderline in that regard, and ones that require people to buy new books.  

I think they would like to keep the old adventurers in print, and reprint as needed like with Tyranny of Dragons, post 2024, which hasn't occurred with previous editions without having to revise them to match the new rules (I'm unsure what happened between 1e and 2e, a little bit before I came in, I was only playing from 2e onwards).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind.   So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.
> 
> I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen.  If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.
> 
> ...



I don't accept that argument.  You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.

Let's look at 5e as it stands now.  It is currently enjoying an unprecedented surge of financial and popular success, for a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into here.  What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> I think they are taking the opportunity to further refine the game, to make sure it still appeals to a large audience going forward as it does today - they fear that perhaps if they left it as it was with only minor errata, they could get left behind.   So trying to keep main focus of game going forward, but tweaking it as they feel is needed to make sure it continues to appeal.



I agree, and from the time I entered the hobby (with 2e) that is what I learned editions were... 1e wasn't radically different it was just 2e with some things not tweaked yet (and over the years I met plenty of people who played 1e and had house rules that lined up a lot with 2e)

This is what I mean by 'they don't want to call it an edition but it is"

now to be fair 3e was VERY different then 2e, but 3.5 (that half edition) it at the time lined up that I was told it was slightly more different then 1e and 2e where, BUT way less then the difference between 2e and 3e. 

Now 4e was a major change again but if we stick pin in this...

5e is a bigger change to 3e then 1e is to 2e and bigger then 3e to 3.5 and smaller then 3.5 to 4e... 

so up until now the term of edition sometimes means a slight version change updateing with popular house rules and modern ideas (1 e to 2 e) or a drastic overhaul (2e to 3e and 3e to 4e I think fit here) or even a half edition change (the .5 modle.

so when I see a new version that is tweaking major parts (like say new versions of cleric bard ext) I see a new edition (or version) of teh game. 


gban007 said:


> I don't agree with some posters that they are expecting or even wanting everyone who owns the core books now to go out and buy new core books - they are likely expecting some to do so, but are mainly wanting to make sure the core books continue to maintain a high position in book selling rankings for years to come, and don't think the rules as they currently stand will allow that to happen.  If everyone does go out to buy new copies, or as many as often happens for past edition changes, then I think they have failed in this regard, as will have failed to shift the paradigm, either by not selling the idea well enough, or making too many changes that people feel they need to anyway, like I think 3.5 was.



so if the 2024 PHB doesn't sell like the 2014 PHB did in 2014 or 2015 that would mean it was a success and not a new edition/version in your mind? 


gban007 said:


> To my mind it is much like how various MMOs go through a lot of updates, such that what WoW or LOTRO look like today, even outside of the expanded areas, are very different to when they first launched in terms of mechanics, how classes work, class skills etc - but is still considered the same game.
> 
> On that note, I do think that realistically 1e to 2e could have been similar, just tweaks to the game but still essentially same game, except that I think it likely TSR at the time did try to encourage everyone to buy the latest edition, and helped set the long term expectation that WOTC is trying to tackle now - that ideally only 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e were in their
> mind genuine edition changes, with 3.5 being quite borderline in that regard, and ones that require people to buy new books.



so as long as we only count the major change editions we can say that...


gban007 said:


> I think they would like to keep the old adventurers in print, and reprint as needed like with Tyranny of Dragons, post 2024, which hasn't occurred with previous editions without having to revise them to match the new rules (I'm unsure what happened between 1e and 2e, a little bit before I came in, I was only playing from 2e onwards).



I agree they plan to reprint the adventures... the 'back compatibility' appears (to me) to be entirely on the adventure side... but not the player side


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.



yeah I think the "if you are doing fine and your book isn't damaged no need to update" argument falls very flat.


Micah Sweet said:


> What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?



I would say the only fear would be if they came out and called it a new edition of the game... but they can't hide it is at least an updated new version of the game. There will be people left behind, and there will be edition waring.


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't accept that argument.  You simply don't go through a multi-year public playtest leading to what is at least a moderate re-write of your core product unless you are trying to get people to buy those books.
> 
> Let's look at 5e as it stands now.  It is currently enjoying an unprecedented surge of financial and popular success, for a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into here.  What in all that would lead anyone to think that they're afraid of losing customers?



I think they want people to buy the books, but I think it is new customers they want to continue buying the books, with some degree of existing customers.  They want it to be a game that the likes of Critical Role and such will continue to play / stream, and might be looking to make changes they think will continue to support that, rather than Critical Role perhaps thinking at some point they could make a game more suited to their needs than 5e.  

Also, on flip side, if they are doing that well with unprecedented surge of success, why even make a change at all?  I think looking ahead, they feel that 2024 offers an opportunity to make changes, and maintain momentum.   

This is based on assumption on my part that most core book sales these days are to new customers - and so it isn't a fear of losing customers as such, but a fear that sometime in next few years they may stop attracting new customers.

It could be glass half full / optimistic thinking on my part, but is just what my thinking is at this point.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> This is based on assumption on my part that most core book sales these days are to new customers - and so it isn't a fear of losing customers as such, but a fear that sometime in next few years they may stop attracting new customers.



I assume that is true of every edition by the 3 year mark... there are not a lot of existing customers buying the PHB year 3, but new people are. (yes some are replacing damaged lost ones, sometimes a person plays for years without a PHB then finally gets one, but I think they are more 1 offs then the regular)


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so if the 2024 PHB doesn't sell like the 2014 PHB did in 2014 or 2015 that would mean it was a success and not a new edition/version in your mind?



Well, depends on how well they can define metrics, but yes, I think if the books continue to sell as well as they are today, having the PHB still strongly up in the book ratings on Amazon etc, I think they could consider that a success.  If they can determine who is buying the books, if they can work out that majority of books sold are to new customers, with not that many to old, then again a success, and I don't think under this paradigm they should be looking to replicate the sales numbers from 5e launch (assuming that today's sales are lower than launch sales).

For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.

I'm willing to give this mindset a go, and consider it not an edition change, and wait to see what happens as to whether that aim is realised or not, and it will come down to whether I feel me and my group need to upgrade to the new player options straight away, or just merge in a bit of the new rules as we see fit (like we've done with the inspiration changes as it felt it made sense), and whether or not we do change, whether we can play the campaigns / adventures we have now readily with or without the 2024 books.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.



I can understand why they may want to use a different word, but again that just comes down to renaming the rose. I imagine that they have not thought through the new player walking up to a game and trying to find out what book the rules are in. The editions titles (IMO) are mostly just a way to lable your game. "Can I bring my 3e phb character?" not to my 4e game.  "Can I bring my 2014 5e PHB character to your table?" not to the one I am playing useing the 2024 phb.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> Well, depends on how well they can define metrics, but yes, I think if the books continue to sell as well as they are today, having the PHB still strongly up in the book ratings on Amazon etc, I think they could consider that a success.  If they can determine who is buying the books, if they can work out that majority of books sold are to new customers, with not that many to old, then again a success, and I don't think under this paradigm they should be looking to replicate the sales numbers from 5e launch (assuming that today's sales are lower than launch sales).
> 
> For the rest of it, I agree that history by TSR / WOTC has trained older players to see this as an edition change, but we may not be the ones WOTC is trying to address, but all the new customers they have got on board with 5e, to try and make it not appear like an edition change to them - if they haven't experienced the past, then they will have less of a trained mindset as such.
> 
> I'm willing to give this mindset a go, and consider it not an edition change, and wait to see what happens as to whether that aim is realised or not, and it will come down to whether I feel me and my group need to upgrade to the new player options straight away, or just merge in a bit of the new rules as we see fit (like we've done with the inspiration changes as it felt it made sense), and whether or not we do change, whether we can play the campaigns / adventures we have now readily with or without the 2024 books.



First of all, I have to wonder how many new players, especially players that apparently haven't yet purchased a PH, are actually going to watch a WotC marketing video.

Secondly, if success is measured as basically the same sales numbers as now, what justifies the expenses and effort of creating the new books in the first place?

These arguments still don't hold water to me.


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> First of all, I have to wonder how many new players, especially players that apparently haven't yet purchased a PH, are actually going to watch a WotC marketing video.
> 
> Secondly, if success is measured as basically the same sales numbers as now, what justifies the expenses and effort of creating the new books in the first place?
> 
> These arguments still don't hold water to me.



Fair enough if doesn't hold water for you, but for me it is like when a company may change it's branding, up to and including brand name, even with companies that are gradually losing market share and continue to do so post brand change, so why go to that expense?  As they believe they would have performed even worse if they didn't do so.   Why do companies like McDonald's / Coca Cola still spend a lot of money in advertising, to have the same sales numbers as previously?  Again, because if didn't, they feel sales would decline.  

Or new printings of books - e.g. the multiple different LOTR book versions you can get - many of which for better or worse have slight tweaks to some of the words in there as various issues seem to crop up from time to time (is quite interesting reading some of the forwards of editions of what changes have been made to the text, and why) - some collectors will be getting every edition, but most of the sales are just to new customers getting LOTR for the first time - why go to expense of creating new art, going back and forth between one volume / 3 volumes etc?  I don't think they are driving more sales for most part by doing so, but believe need to in order to maintain sales.

My main point being that I think WOTC feels if they don't go to this expense, they won't maintain the same sales as today, and will go into decline at some point, so the justification is there to maintain sales through this expense / effort, against not making the effort and having less sales in future.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 19, 2022)

gban007 said:


> Fair enough if doesn't hold water for you, but for me it is like when a company may change it's branding, up to and including brand name, even with companies that are gradually losing market share and continue to do so post brand change, so why go to that expense?  As they believe they would have performed even worse if they didn't do so.   Why do companies like McDonald's / Coca Cola still spend a lot of money in advertising, to have the same sales numbers as previously?  Again, because if didn't, they feel sales would decline.
> 
> Or new printings of books - e.g. the multiple different LOTR book versions you can get - many of which for better or worse have slight tweaks to some of the words in there as various issues seem to crop up from time to time (is quite interesting reading some of the forwards of editions of what changes have been made to the text, and why) - some collectors will be getting every edition, but most of the sales are just to new customers getting LOTR for the first time - why go to expense of creating new art, going back and forth between one volume / 3 volumes etc?  I don't think they are driving more sales for most part by doing so, but believe need to in order to maintain sales.
> 
> My main point being that I think WOTC feels if they don't go to this expense, they won't maintain the same sales as today, and will go into decline at some point, so the justification is there to maintain sales through this expense / effort, against not making the effort and having less sales in future.



Yes, but _why_ would they believe that?  Where is the evidence that justifies that expense?  Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can understand why they may want to use a different word, but again that just comes down to renaming the rose. I imagine that they have not thought through the new player walking up to a game and trying to find out what book the rules are in. The editions titles (IMO) are mostly just a way to lable your game. "Can I bring my 3e phb character?" not to my 4e game.  "Can I bring my 2014 5e PHB character to your table?" not to the one I am playing useing the 2024 phb.



If people can't bring 2014 5e PHB to table using 2024 PHB, then yes there is an issue - I guess from what I have seen of the playtests thus far, I don't think this holds true.  It may require slight tweaks here and there (like getting class ability at different level, not getting stat score from both race and background) but I haven't yet seen stuff to suggest that party can't have both 2014 5e PHB cleric and a 2024 PHB cleric - that is just personal opinion obviously, but that is my feel, like I think ultimately with 1e / 2e I think a 1e Assassin could have gone into a 2e game,  so as long as that holds true, I don't think there is an issue.
If that doesn't hold true, and can't have people with different PHBs able to play same game, then I think it will have failed, and would be a proper edition shift as such.


----------



## gban007 (Dec 19, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, but _why_ would they believe that?  Where is the evidence that justifies that expense?  Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?



I don't know, I don't know what evidence they may be using, a lot of this may be going into prisoner's dilemna sort of such, where it may just be fear of what others may do that drive it.

Why has Cluedo / Clue changed names of characters / locations over time?

Why has Monopoly changed it's playing pieces over time?

Beforehand, was there evidence they needed to?  Or did they have their own internal market research indicating that if they didn't, there would be a problem?

Tunnels and Trolls had 5th edition from 1979 to 2005 - did it maintain consistent sales numbers throughout, or change?  I don't know answer to that myself, perhaps it did hold steady - but there are potentially other games / systems even in other industries that they could perhaps have looked at, to see that ones that didn't change may have eventually been left behind.   I can't think of any off hand, but then ones that may have faded into obscurity aren't ones that would necessarily be front of mind


----------



## codo (Dec 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, but _why_ would they believe that?  Where is the evidence that justifies that expense?  Where are the cautionary tales that show that a successful product needs to re-make its image or sales will just drop, apropos of nothing?



Peoples tastes and sensibilities change over time, and between generations.  The audience for 1D&D is not the same as it was for 5E.  Fifth edition was literally targeted at their _Grandparents!  _Leaving aside the term race, and all of the associated baggage for now. People tastes in fantasy change over time. What each new generation is consuming and are inspired by changes. I don't think it is unreasonable, that after a decade the designers decide to refresh the game to also appeal to the next generation of gamers. Let the kids have their Ardling/Furries. 

I love 5E, my favorite rpg ever, but after playing for close to a decade I can't deny there aren't a few rough edges.  The great thing is that it really seems that what 1D&D is doing is just refining 5E and sanding down some of the rough spots, not making any major changes to the game.  They also seem to be making changes to open up new design space and make adding new classes easier in the future.  

What major changes has 1D&D made to the game so far? (Lets skip the race changes for now, that's it's own issue, unrelated to the strictly mechanical gameplay changes.) 

They have added a level 1 feat, providing individuality and a distinction between lvl 1 PC's of the same class, a common complaint.
They are unifying the levels classes get their subclass abilities. Opens up design space for subclasses to be shared between classes.
2 weapon fighting doesn't use a bonus action.  2 weapon fighting was universally regarded as the worst designed option in the game.
They nerfed the "must have" feats.  The -5/+10 parts of the feats are gone.  They want a PC's power to come from their class, not feats.
All casters are prepared casters (That we have seen so far.  Mages may be different, Different, unique spellcasting is kind of their Schtick)  A common complaint is that the non-prepared 5e casters don't know enough spells
Prepared spells are set by known spells by level.  From my limited experience I think this does a lot more to balance the caster/martial divide than I think a lot of people realize. High level spells being limited to just 1 know per level means cast have to choose between power *or* utility. Casters have to chose at the start of each day if the want to nuke encounters or do cool utility spell stuff, they no longer get to decide on the fly each day.
The switch to unified spell list.  The stated reason for the change is to make it easier to add new classes in the future.
The changes mostly just seem like minor balance and quality of life changes.  As well as changes to make new options and changes in the future.  Overall its mostly the same game with some balance tweaks and a new coat of paint.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 20, 2022)

codo said:


> Peoples tastes and sensibilities change over time, and between generations.  The audience for 1D&D is not the same as it was for 5E.  Fifth edition was literally targeted at their _Grandparents!  _Leaving aside the term race, and all of the associated baggage for now. People tastes in fantasy change over time. What each new generation is consuming and are inspired by changes. I don't think it is unreasonable, that after a decade the designers decide to refresh the game to also appeal to the next generation of gamers. Let the kids have their Ardling/Furries.
> 
> I love 5E, my favorite rpg ever, but after playing for close to a decade I can't deny there aren't a few rough edges.  The great thing is that it really seems that what 1D&D is doing is just refining 5E and sanding down some of the rough spots, not making any major changes to the game.  They also seem to be making changes to open up new design space and make adding new classes easier in the future.
> 
> ...



There is a strong difference of opinion on how significant these changes actually are.  Declaring them as "minor balance and quality of life changes" is an opinion; no more, no less.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would say the only fear would be if they came out and called it a new edition of the game... but they can't hide it is at least an updated new version of the game. There will be people left behind, and there will be edition waring.



Probably they just like their fans to be up in arms, so they change editions once in a while...

... no seriously, you should update while you are going strong or leave it be until it is not sustainable anymore.

The second choice would now mean that they stop producing a lot of stuff and go in to maintenance mode. I don't think they would sell another xanathar's or tasha's... of everything. I would think twice about buying another of those books.


----------

