# The future of edition changes and revisions



## Mercurius

A comment in another thread got me thinking about the nature of edition changes and how they are received. I wanted to tease out a specific element that I haven't heard discussed before, or at least not recently.

If we count major revisions (e.g. 3.5 but not 2E Skills & Powers), the AD&D line, starting in 1977, has had edition changes after 12 years (1989), 11 years (2000), 3 years (2003), 5 years (2008) and 6 years (2014), and _possibly _another 10 years (2024). The first two, 2E and 3E, were--as far as I remember--widely accepted and even embraced. 1989 had no internet except for a few folks on Usenet, so is hard to compare to the others. But I don't remember any _1Ever _folks running around, although I assume there were some. And of course 3E was met with tons of excitement and generally rave reviews, and of course is how some of us discovered site, in the old red-and-black Eric Noah's Third Edition News page.

I do remember a bit of commotion when 3.5 came out, but most seemed to be happy with it. And of course the 4E thing. 5E was also met with general positivity, in a somewhat similar manner to 3E (although less of a "finally, D&D enters the modern era" and more "we're back, baby!").

Which brings me to my point. In every edition change of the past, at least going back to 2E, the D&D community was comparatively small compared to today, and mostly made up of long-term fans. By 1989, the D&D Boom of the early 80s had faded, and those of us who remained were in it for the long-haul. There were still new people coming in, but there was no boom. Even the 2000 boom was relatively small, and much of it was people coming back to the game. Similarly with 2014. 

But now we're in uncharted waters. The player base is allegedly north of 30 million worldwide and growing, most of whom started playing within the last five years or so. Meaning, most of those folks never experienced an edition change, and have only ever known 5E - and all that entails, perhaps most especially the relatively small number of products - far closer to the sparse release schedule of 1E than the glut of 2/3/4E.

Or to compare 5E to 2E, assuming no more products than already announced, through 2022--the ninth year of 5E--by my counting, there have been 44 unique products published - counting only books and box-sets, but not DM screens and other accessories. Those 44 products break down as follows:

Core rule books: 3
Starter sets (including licensed): 5
Splat books: 7
Setting books: 8
Adventure books: 18
Luxury products/other: 3 

_Note: I'm making a couple judgment calls in terms of categorization--e.g. considering Acquisitions a splat--but that is really beside the point; the total count is more important)_

44 products in 5 years is a bit less than 5 products a year.

Now consider that at the height of 2E, there were more distinct products published every _year. _The first few years, 1989-91, had a bit less than that, from about 25 (give or take) in '89 to 35ish in '90 and over 40 in '91. But from 1992-96, there were over 50 products published each year, peaking at about 70 in 1995.

Now granted, many of those products were much smaller (and cheaper) than your typical 5E tome. That includes modules, setting supplements, and other products - a wide range of stuff. And during 2E era, TSR essentially had different product lines within the overall umbrella of D&D, centered around the settings. For instance, in 1995--the year of the 2E revised books, in addition to about 15 core non-setting specific products, there were products published for the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Lankhmar, and even a 2E product for Mystara (by that point, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer were fallow) - and as many as 13 different books just for the one setting, in this case, the Realms.

3E and 4E also had a ton of products published, but rather than 60+ of all types, they focused mostly on hardcovers. 3E peaked in 2006 with over two dozen products, and 4E in 2010 with about the same - but the products tended to be longer and more expensive.

So even if we just compare 5E to the previous two editions, we're talking about a fraction of products. 2019 saw the most products published with 8, although three of those were "non-essential" licensed starter sets and the Tyranny of Dragons re-packaging; in actuality, 2022 is the peak so far, with 7 distinct products, or 6 if you don't count the Dragonlance battle game (and that's assuming there's no surprises). 

I elaborate all of this because an edition change means something different now than it did in previous eras, for two main reasons:


The player base is different - much larger, younger, and generally more casual.
There are far few products in 5E than in previous editions at a similar point, at least going back to 2E.
So my question, or rather open-ended speculation, is how will WotC handle an edition change/revision differently from in the past, and how will the player base respond? Of course we can't know either for certain, although we can speculate. And as to the first, there are signs of gradual rolling out and transition, from the _Monsters of the Multiverse _book, to various things like the stuff they publish on their website to new rules additions or revisions in books like _Tasha's._

And of course they've said that the 50th anniversary will be backwards compatible, but not only have we heard that one before, but that means different things to different people. Some feel that everything before _Tasha's _isn't compatible, while others say that the entire 50 years of D&D products is still essentially compatible - or at least usable. 

So given all the above, and the various factors that make this era unique or different from previous eras, how do you see WotC handling edition changes and revisions going forward, and how do you think the player base will respond? (With the caveat that all of this, to some extent, assumes that the player base will remain large and casual, rather than shrink back down to a small core of diehards - which only time will tell).

While I'm specifically asking about the above, and thus mostly focused on 5.5 and whatever comes after that, feel free to speculate about how you think the player base might change - if you think this is another boom with an eventual contraction, or whether you think we're in an era of continual expansion. Of course with technological and global considerations, it is hard to think about where we might be in a couple decades, but at least we an speculate on the 2024 revision, and perhaps whatever comes down the pike 5-10 years after.

Alright, enough words from me


----------



## Yora

WotC seems to have abandoned the splatbook assembly line that was such a central feature of 2nd and 3rd edition as a commercial product. I don't even remember how things looked in 4th, 5th edition now follows a very different production strategy.
I am sure that has a major impact on how they approach future revisions.


----------



## payn

I hope 5.5E gives the edition some legs. Like another 10 years of legs. Though, who knows?


----------



## DarkCrisis

New D&D players:  "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"

Old D&D players:  "My sweet summer child" _stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out_ _runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books_ Whispers "Ill never let you go."


----------



## overgeeked

Mercurius said:


> If we count major revisions (e.g. 3.5 but not 2E Skills & Powers), the AD&D line, starting in 1977, has had edition changes after 12 years (1989), 11 years (2000), 3 years (2003), 5 years (2008) and 6 years (2014), and _possibly _another 10 years (2024). The first two, 2E and 3E, were--as far as I remember--widely accepted and even embraced. 1989 had no internet except for a few folks on Usenet, so is hard to compare to the others. But I don't remember any _1Ever _folks running around, although I assume there were some.



Hello there. We stuck with AD&D when 2E came out...and when 3E came out...and when 3.5 came out. We still play AD&D. But we also played 4E for the entire lifespan of that edition and have played 5E since the playtest.


Mercurius said:


> Which brings me to my point. In every edition change of the past, at least going back to 2E, the D&D community was comparatively small compared to today, and mostly made up of long-term fans. By 1989, the D&D Boom of the early 80s had faded, and those of us who remained were in it for the long-haul. There were still new people coming in, but there was no boom. Even the 2000 boom was relatively small, and much of it was people coming back to the game. Similarly with 2014.
> 
> But now we're in uncharted waters. The player base is allegedly north of 30 million worldwide and growing, most of whom started playing within the last five years or so. Meaning, most of those folks never experienced an edition change, and have only ever known 5E - and all that entails, perhaps most especially the relatively small number of products - far closer to the sparse release schedule of 1E than the glut of 2/3/4E...
> 
> I elaborate all of this because an edition change means something different now than it did in previous eras, for two main reasons:
> 
> The player base is different - much larger, younger, and generally more casual.
> There are far few products in 5E than in previous editions at a similar point, at least going back to 2E.
> So my question, or rather open-ended speculation, is how will WotC handle an edition change/revision differently from in the past, and how will the player base respond?



Honestly...I think they've learned their lesson with 3X and 4E. They have a winning combination and they're on the absolute top of the heap of the market. They would be stupid to risk that position. The only way they can update the rules and not lose a substantial section of the fanbase is to deliver exactly what they said, a few revisions and tweaks that remain 100% backwards compatible with 2014 5E. Anything like a proper edition change...2E to 3E or 3E to 4E...will cause the fanbase to split in a dramatic way. They still have memory of Pathfinder overtaking the market during 4E. There's no way they'd ever risk that again. 

If the changes are small enough, the fans will get over it. They'll either play the original version of 2014 5E or they'll update to 2022 5E...or 50AE...or 5.5...or whatever we're calling it today. If the changes are big, the fanbase will split and there is potential that some other 3PP will swoop in and dominate the market. It's not likely to happen unless the 5E fanbase shatters into several camps. But even a bifurcation with rough parity between the camps would still leave both utterly dominating the RPG market. Looking at the numbers you can see that many older editions of D&D have more players than non-D&D games. It's wild.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Frankly, I don't know what the future is going to be. It seems to me that the situation we have here may be equal parts "things are going pretty well" and "we're keeping costs low by keeping staff low and licensing." (I may be beating a dead horse, but taking _absolute ages_ just to get out an _extremely simple_ conversion document because ONE PERSON was on jury duty? Yeah, that doesn't speak to a game that is getting the staff it needs to produce the things it could really use.)

My _hope_ is that, between the pretty open calls for _some_ more options just not _as many_ things as had come out for 3e or 4e, and the pretty significant _implied_ changes from stuff like their talk about adding feats to backgrounds, they're going to _slightly_ increase their publication rate. Something like 6-8 products a year, with one _or two_ being heavy on player-facing options, as opposed to the pretty-much-just-one we've been getting. That, plus the potential to streamline and slightly increase the density of options in the PHB, sounds like it would truly hit the sweet spot for most players--light enough on options to be something most folks can still grasp, but dense enough with options that people can feel there's a _richness_ to what one can choose to play.


----------



## Stormonu

Edition changes are messy things.  You'll lose some of your customers who aren't willing to buy into the new edition (I intend to be one, when it happens), while you'll have a small percentage who pick it up BECAUSE they heard of it due to the noise volume about an edition change.

If the 50th year books are a MAJOR change, I think it will be a blow to game's popularity.  If the changes amount to the level of incorporation of Xanather's changes, Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse, there will be some minor grumbling, but the game will keep on.

If anything, I expect this to be on the level of if the 1E UA, Dungeoneers & Wilderness Survival guide info had all been rolled into the original DMG & PHB.  Or about the Black book redux of the PHB, DMG & MC for 2E.  Or 4E to Essentials.  I'm not expecting it to be 3E to 3.5, 3.75 (the 2nd round of Complete, PHB2, DMG2 & To9S) or 3.95 (Pathfinder) level of change.

I'm expecting you will still be able to use the 2014 PHB at the game table, but some of the options won't be as optimal.  I think that's been WotC "evergreen" plan for this edition - tweaks here and there, with new additions or ways of doing things that work with the older material, but may be superseded by new, superior content  (i.e., Eldritch Knight isn't redone, but the new Sorcerous Blade is clearly a superior way to do a Fighter/Wizard).


----------



## DarkCrisis

Every edition (and half edition) from this point on I expect to be advertised as "Fixes the problems of the Previous Ed to try to convinces people to buy it.

Why wouldn't you want 5E but the Classes are so much better and more powerful!?!?!?!?  Abd look Critical Role switched to the new hotness!

"Its like 5E but FIXED and BETTER!"

Ooohhh!!! _Shells out $150_


----------



## JThursby

Mercurius said:


> The player base is different - much larger, younger, and generally more casual.
> There are far few products in 5E than in previous editions at a similar point, at least going back to 2E.



These are two assumptions I want to push back against slightly, if only to highlight some of the nuance in the current D&D scene and why the game is experiencing explosive popularity.

I run 5e professionally for kids sometimes, and I haven't noticed anything casual with their engagement in the game.  They like running complex builds and heavily utilize full casters and strange martial combos.  These are the same kids that will learn how to master many difficult video games, some of my kids having already conquered Elden Ring for instance.  Nor are they casual in the sense that they are only interested in D&D as a peripheral hobby.  All of them are pretty heavily invested in the game and have fairly developed opinions about what they like, dislike and want out of the game.  There's a trend right now where each younger generation is experiencing more and more difficulty gaining and keeping friends. About 1 in 4 twenty-sometimes in the US report as having no friends whatsoever, and those who report having friends have far fewer than previous generations. As a twenty-something myself I struggled with this when I changed colleges and it was a living hell. My only real in to a friend group was through tabletop roleplaying, and the friends I made that way are the ones I have kept for a number of years now. As chronic loneliness gets worse I imagine more and more people will turn to social games like D&D. It isn't particularly more complicated than most popular video games, and it fulfills an ever more vacant niche.

When it comes to the lack of 5e products this is true...for first party products.  The third party publishing scene for D&D 5e is ludicrously expansive.  It enjoys the largest and most frequent kickstarters for new projects, and DMs Guild dwarfs other digital publishing venues for third party content.   So while the product pool might be shallow when it comes to first party products, the third party publishing scene is going to be a factor in what version of 5e they are ultimately going to play, as few truly play a stock version with no alterations.  I would not be surprised if at this point many players decide they do not need a WOTC version of the game and just pick a fan-alteration as their defacto version (ie Morrus' Advanced 5e).


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

In my humble opinion WotC now is worring more about to create new IPs or reanimate old glories, and then some sourcebooks or modules are something like a "pilot episode", or "hidden pilot episode" of potential spin-off. Witchlight could become a new setting, like the anti-Ravenloft.

Other point is the translation of books to other languanges. This time WotC will not licence but they will publish. In some places the translation arrived a lot of years later, and then for players from other country it would be too soon for a new edition. 

And the last years of the edition should be for compilations or to try new ideas, as new game mechanics. A 5.5 Ed is possible, and my theory is 6Ed should be designed to can use the different genres, not only fantasy, but also sci-fi, WWII, Lovecraftian horror, gangsters vs cops, superheroes.. but the softest way could to publish a computer rpg with the new ideas. Like this we could avoid a new edition war.


----------



## Parmandur

I think you misestimate the demographics of many earlier Editions: WotC has said that the main audience reached for 3E and 4E were still teens and twenty somethings (like I was at the time), but spaces like this tend to overrepresnt longetermers. 5E is more successful at brining more people in, but the fluctuating and primarily younger audience was a constant.

I would suggest that thinking about 2014 and 2024 D&D as heirs of AD&D is going to be confusing here, because a better comparison is Basic D&D, the model consistently cited by WotC as their strategy moving forwards. Counting OD&D, Basic saw 6 editions between 1974-1994 prior to being folded into AD&D. I expect thst the 2014 material and the 2024 material will work together like Moldvay B/X, Meltzer BECMi, and Allston Rules Cyclopedia Editions of the game. I will still be able to run a 2024 party through Princes of the Apocalyspe. We already have new Monster and race rules playing right next to the old.


----------



## Li Shenron

I think the gamer base will remain the same.

5.1 will be a smaller update than 3.5 was for 3.0. Even those who bought all 5e books would not have spent a fortune and will probably be able to use at least all the adventures and monsters books, so they won't nearly be in the same situation as someone who invested heavily in 3e or 4e and might have decided not to move to the next edition. Younger gamers who haven't seen an edition change/update yet will be more intrigued than worried. Older grognards already know they'll house rules to their taste and care only relatively for "compliance". And there's a massive amount of non-DMing players who buy only the PHB and maybe a little more, but fundamentally do not care about what edition they are playing. 

I think as long as the current people are in charge at WotC, the rules will keep evolving slowly and next update will be 5.2 for the 60th. Although, IMHO they have already scraped the barrel a bit with character material so something will change in the typical content of supplements, probably more settings and less generic rulesbook. But only when the current directors will quit or retire and someone else takes charge we will see a 6e.


----------



## Mercurius

Teasing out a few things...


Yora said:


> WotC seems to have abandoned the splatbook assembly line that was such a central feature of 2nd and 3rd edition as a commercial product. I don't even remember how things looked in 4th, 5th edition now follows a very different production strategy.
> I am sure that has a major impact on how they approach future revisions.



Yes, agreed - but how do you see it impacting future revisions?


overgeeked said:


> Hello there. We stuck with AD&D when 2E came out...and when 3E came out...and when 3.5 came out. We still play AD&D. But we also played 4E for the entire lifespan of that edition and have played 5E since the playtest.
> 
> Honestly...I think they've learned their lesson with 3X and 4E. They have a winning combination and they're on the absolute top of the heap of the market. They would be stupid to risk that position. The only way they can update the rules and not lose a substantial section of the fanbase is to deliver exactly what they said, a few revisions and tweaks that remain 100% backwards compatible with 2014 5E. Anything like a proper edition change...2E to 3E or 3E to 4E...will cause the fanbase to split in a dramatic way. They still have memory of Pathfinder overtaking the market during 4E. There's no way they'd ever risk that again.



I agree, and don't think they'll risk that. But two things: One, "100% backwards compatible" means different things to different people, as I said in the OP.  Two, to follow along from one, even if they only incorporate stuff from Tasha's and Multiverse, not to mention the tonal changes that have been occurring, we're already essentially at "5.2," so to those for whom "100%" means "5.01," there _might _be backlash. Or not?

As I said elsewhere, I think they'll push the needle as far as they can as far as backwards compatibility is concerned, but it will still end up being something like "5.3" - maybe even "5.4," but definitely shy of "5.5." I think?


overgeeked said:


> If the changes are small enough, the fans will get over it. They'll either play the original version of 2014 5E or they'll update to 2022 5E...or 50AE...or 5.5...or whatever we're calling it today. If the changes are big, the fanbase will split and there is potential that some other 3PP will swoop in and dominate the market. It's not likely to happen unless the 5E fanbase shatters into several camps. But even a bifurcation with rough parity between the camps would still leave both utterly dominating the RPG market. Looking at the numbers you can see that many older editions of D&D have more players than non-D&D games. It's wild.



I actually trust WotC that they'll stop short of doing too much that will split the fan-base, or at least if it happens, it will be minimal. _You'll take Volo's from my cold, dead hands! _

And as someone said elsewhere, which is part of what got me wondering about this, the newer cohort might be less picky granular about the rules, so backwards compatibility might be less of an issue to 80-90% of the fan-base.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Frankly, I don't know what the future is going to be. It seems to me that the situation we have here may be equal parts "things are going pretty well" and "we're keeping costs low by keeping staff low and licensing." (I may be beating a dead horse, but taking _absolute ages_ just to get out an _extremely simple_ conversion document because ONE PERSON was on jury duty? Yeah, that doesn't speak to a game that is getting the staff it needs to produce the things it could really use.)
> 
> My _hope_ is that, between the pretty open calls for _some_ more options just not _as many_ things as had come out for 3e or 4e, and the pretty significant _implied_ changes from stuff like their talk about adding feats to backgrounds, they're going to _slightly_ increase their publication rate. Something like 6-8 products a year, with one _or two_ being heavy on player-facing options, as opposed to the pretty-much-just-one we've been getting. That, plus the potential to streamline and slightly increase the density of options in the PHB, sounds like it would truly hit the sweet spot for most players--light enough on options to be something most folks can still grasp, but dense enough with options that people can feel there's a _richness_ to what one can choose to play.



Yes, this is about what I expect: six core products (splats, settings, adventures) and two special/other/luxury ones ala the Dragonlance Battle Game, new starter sets, and maybe a surprise here and there. But 6+2 seems like a nice sweet-spot between minimalism and glut.


Stormonu said:


> Edition changes are messy things.  You'll lose some of your customers who aren't willing to buy into the new edition (I intend to be one, when it happens), while you'll have a small percentage who pick it up BECAUSE they heard of it due to the noise volume about an edition change.
> 
> If the 50th year books are a MAJOR change, I think it will be a blow to game's popularity.  If the changes amount to the level of incorporation of Xanather's changes, Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse, there will be some minor grumbling, but the game will keep on.
> 
> If anything, I expect this to be on the level of if the 1E UA, Dungeoneers & Wilderness Survival guide info had all been rolled into the original DMG & PHB.  Or about the Black book redux of the PHB, DMG & MC for 2E.  Or 4E to Essentials.  I'm not expecting it to be 3E to 3.5, 3.75 (the 2nd round of Complete, PHB2, DMG2 & To9S) or 3.95 (Pathfinder) level of change.
> 
> I'm expecting you will still be able to use the 2014 PHB at the game table, but some of the options won't be as optimal.  I think that's been WotC "evergreen" plan for this edition - tweaks here and there, with new additions or ways of doing things that work with the older material, but may be superseded by new, superior content  (i.e., Eldritch Knight isn't redone, but the new Sorcerous Blade is clearly a superior way to do a Fighter/Wizard).



As I said earlier in this post, those changes are probably already a 5.2. If they keep to that and maybe add or subtract or revise a bit more, that's 5.3ish (I keep oscillating between 5.3 and 5.4 in my mind).

But yeah, unless this proves to be a boom, and thus is followed by a crash, we won't see a truly new edition (e.g. 6E) - and presumably that's not for _at least _five years, and only then if A) there is an impending crash, and B) 50A is poorly received. 

On one hand, I think it would be foolish not to expect _some _contraction, but AFAICT, D&D is still expanding. So it is one thing to contract from 30 million players, quite another to contract from 50-100 million. My suspicion is that it will continue to grow for a few years, get another bump in 2024, and then the novelty for some will start to wane, but that it will contract down to a higher plateau than in previous contracts. So rather than a 5 million strong diehard base, it might be 10-15 million - but even then, I don't see that happening until 5+ years from now.

(Assuming we survive the next five years relatively intact!)



DarkCrisis said:


> Every edition (and half edition) from this point on I expect to be advertised as "Fixes the problems of the Previous Ed to try to convinces people to buy it.





DarkCrisis said:


> Why wouldn't you want 5E but the Classes are so much better and more powerful!?!?!?!?  Abd look Critical Role switched to the new hotness!
> 
> "Its like 5E but FIXED and BETTER!"
> 
> Ooohhh!!! _Shells out $150_



This is something that I meant to highlight in the OP, but forgot: When considering the newer generation, how will they respond to the "new and shiny?" Everyone likes the new and shiny, of course. But there's also the _new and novel - _meaning, the joy of learning a new version of D&D, which many/most have generally embraced over the decades.

I don't think we'll have that answered in 2024, due to it likely being no more than a 5.3-4 revision, but we might get a glimmer of it.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Predicting for myself:

I started in '78 and played for nearly 30 years straight until 2007 (with some 3E and d20 SW) when I took a hiatus from playing for a while. I still worked on my content, developing my world, and occasionally got into a game, but nothing regular until about 4 years ago (where has the time gone!?) with 5E and a new group.

Now, I can accept 5E _for what it is_, but it ain't your Daddy's D&D folks, at least not IMO. But, hey, times (and people) change--and so do editions--I get that.

So, unless WotC makes some _serious_ design changes, which I am not expecting considering the "backwards compatibility" we're likely to see, I will not be embracing another edition of D&D at all.

I might, when finished with my 5E mod, continue to play 5E as long as I can find players willing to play the "mod edition". If I can find old-school players or new players interested in B/X or AD&D , then I will play that. I will continue to play d20 SW if I get players for that. It is IMO the best d20 game--bar none.

For others:

What will the "5E-only" crowd experience with a new edition? Who knows... It will probably be the same many of experienced with every other edition release: some excitement, some anxiety, some relief, some disappointment, some joy.

One thing I can say is this: with the wide-spread exposure of a new release, WotC had better nail it or they could very well suffer some serious setbacks. I can understand why they might be hesitant to do anything drastic in a new release. Some people embrace change, but most don't IME.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DarkCrisis said:


> Every edition (and half edition) from this point on I expect to be advertised as "Fixes the problems of the Previous Ed to try to convinces people to buy it.
> 
> Why wouldn't you want 5E but the Classes are so much better and more powerful!?!?!?!?  Abd look Critical Role switched to the new hotness!
> 
> "Its like 5E but FIXED and BETTER!"
> 
> Ooohhh!!! _Shells out $150_



in my experience this is it exactly...

2e is hard, math doesn't make sense... imagine no more thac0 or weird roll high/low worries...3e fixes it
3e We know that there are problems the ranger stinks haste is broken and the skills cost too much, but 3.5 will fix it
3.5 so your games are turning into rocket tag with caster supremacy, and some rules (grapple) are too hard don't worry 4e will fix it
4e fixed it but you think we fixxed so much it isn't D&D anymore... don't worry 5e is back to basics

I don't know what 6e will fix or break but there is a pattern


----------



## Sacrosanct

Man, with a post like that, who do you think you are, Snarf?   

All kidding aside, I predict we won't see splatbook churn.  2e did, but for all the wrong reasons (borrowing money to pay for current costs)

I think 2024 will be as compatible with 5e as 2e was with 1e.  That is, we'll see most changes in character options, but you can easily use a 5e campaign in a post 2024 game system.

I predict the future will be less physical splat book releases, and a lot more focus on digital: VTT and digital books via D&DBeyond


----------



## pogre

Man, I am sure I am in the minority on this, but with a couple minor changes I could stick with 5e way past 2024.

I was really ready for a new edition after 3.0 and 3.5. We enjoyed the game, but it was time for something new.

I'm not new edition resistant, but I'm not sure I'm close to done with 5e.


----------



## Mercurius

JThursby said:


> These are two assumptions I want to push back against slightly, if only to highlight some of the nuance in the current D&D scene and why the game is experiencing explosive popularity.
> 
> I run 5e professionally for kids sometimes, and I haven't noticed anything casual with their engagement in the game.  They like running complex builds and heavily utilize full casters and strange martial combos.  These are the same kids that will learn how to master many difficult video games, some of my kids having already conquered Elden Ring for instance.  Nor are they casual in the sense that they are only interested in D&D as a peripheral hobby.  All of them are pretty heavily invested in the game and have fairly developed opinions about what they like, dislike and want out of the game.  There's a trend right now where each younger generation is experiencing more and more difficulty gaining and keeping friends. About 1 in 4 twenty-sometimes in the US report as having no friends whatsoever, and those who report having friends have far fewer than previous generations. As a twenty-something myself I struggled with this when I changed colleges and it was a living hell. My only real in to a friend group was through tabletop roleplaying, and the friends I made that way are the ones I have kept for a number of years now. As chronic loneliness gets worse I imagine more and more people will turn to social games like D&D. It isn't particularly more complicated than most popular video games, and it fulfills an ever more vacant niche.



This is really interesting - thanks for adding this to the mix. I suppose that is part of the larger cultural trends I mentioned, but didn't have the first-hand experience to elaborate on. It is both kind of sad, but also encouraging that some are finding friends through D&D. In fact, it may be that's why D&D has taken off with the "digital natives" - it is something they've been lacking (the social interaction). I'm sure the pandemic plays into this as well.

It does make me wonder, though: how many of the 30 million (or, say 20ish million new players) are serious, like the ones you play with? Meaning, how representative are your players of the incoming cohort? I think this is where we'll eventually see contraction: those who becoming lifelong players, and those for whom it was something they did in their teens and twenties but then "grew up." And of course after that, there's no telling whether the post-Zennials will be drawn to D&D, or to what degree.


JThursby said:


> When it comes to the lack of 5e products this is true...for first party products.  The third party publishing scene for D&D 5e is ludicrously expansive.  It enjoys the largest and most frequent kickstarters for new projects, and DMs Guild dwarfs other digital publishing venues for third party content.   So while the product pool might be shallow when it comes to first party products, the third party publishing scene is going to be a factor in what version of 5e they are ultimately going to play, as few truly play a stock version with no alterations.  I would not be surprised if at this point many players decide they do not need a WOTC version of the game and just pick a fan-alteration as their defacto version (ie Morrus' Advanced 5e).



My assumption is that third party publishers mainly cater to serious/diehard types - that for every Kobold Press hardcover sold, there are dozens--if not hundreds--of WotC hardcovers sold. But I'm just guessing.


----------



## Sacrosanct

pogre said:


> Man, I am sure I am in the minority on this, but with a couple minor changes I could stick with 5e way past 2024.
> 
> I was really ready for a new edition after 3.0 and 3.5. We enjoyed the game, but it was time for something new.
> 
> I'm not new edition resistant, but I'm not sure I'm close to done with 5e.



I honestly think the changes will be relatively minor.

Start at level 1 with a feat tied to a background
Change the lore of many creatures to be less stereotypical and more customizable.


----------



## Mercurius

Parmandur said:


> I think you misestimate the demographics of many earlier Editions: WotC has said that the main audience reached for 3E and 4E were still teens and twenty somethings (like I was at the time), but spaces like this tend to overrepresnt longetermers. 5E is more successful at brining more people in, but the fluctuating and primarily younger audience was a constant.
> 
> I would suggest that thinking about 2014 and 2024 D&D as heirs of AD&D is going to be confusing here, because a better comparison is Basic D&D, the model consistently cited by WotC as their strategy moving forwards. Counting OD&D, Basic saw 6 editions between 1974-1994 prior to being folded into AD&D. I expect thst the 2014 material and the 2024 material will work together like Moldvay B/X, Meltzer BECMi, and Allston Rules Cyclopedia Editions of the game. I will still be able to run a 2024 party through Princes of the Apocalyspe. We already have new Monster and race rules playing right next to the old.



OK, fair enough, as far as overestimating long-termers (with the caveat that older long-termers are replaced by younger long-termers...which is why I coined the phrase "quasi-grognard," as someone who started playing D&D before 2014...like you, Parmandur ). 

But at the least, the current boom is far larger than in past editions, no? Meaning, the percentage of long-termers is much smaller, and the impetus behind edition revisions and changes is different. 5E's main goal was to re-gather the flock - with new players being a bonus. Or rather, I don't think they expected it would be such a huge draw for newbies, and they were very concerned with getting people back that they lost.

So anything going forward will be about keeping and expanding the newer, younger players - and far less about keeping people who started with TSR, although I suppose we won't be forgotten quite yet!

But yeah, good point about Basic/BECMI. I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Sabathius42

I'm going to go on record saying that I fear 5e will be very akin to the Nintendo Wii in that it's massively popular but a large amount of the consumers aren't at all interested in chasing that dragon a second time.

The Wii was one of the most successful consoles of all time in getting new players in on the experience of videogames.  The Wii U was a massive flop giving everyone "slightly nicer more of the same".


----------



## GMforPowergamers

JThursby said:


> I run 5e professionally for kids sometimes, and I haven't noticed anything casual with their engagement in the game.  They like running complex builds and heavily utilize full casters and strange martial combos.  These are the same kids that will learn how to master many difficult video games, some of my kids having already conquered Elden Ring for instance.  Nor are they casual in the sense that they are only interested in D&D as a peripheral hobby.  All of them are pretty heavily invested in the game and have fairly developed opinions about what they like, dislike and want out of the game.



I am no professional, but I have for years run at Cons and Stores (but not since the loc down in 2020) and I have to say this matches my experience.

I have seen a young person that felt they had no place and no friends ask to join a game, first of all the very fact of being they not he/she threw some of us (but we adapted) but by there 4th session they had spells down, feats being rated and tossing up ASI vs feat for customization vs power were asking to reskin a famailr as a creature I had never heard of... and by level 8 was already ALSO DMing there new friends.

I had a preteen girl who I wasn't sure if she could read the book fast enough down load an ap for a die roller (why did she have a better smart phone then me?) and start drawing up a multi classed sorcerer paliden while I was helping another player adjust there equipment. She is driving now and has DMed but last I knew was playing online. (I think she used the other table not roll20)

my niece and nephew saw/heard us playing and were ready to try by 7 and 9.  btw there dad used to play, they correct him on rules and have a better grasp than a guy who was playing 2e before I was...


----------



## DND_Reborn

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am no professional, but I have for years run at Cons and Stores (but not since the loc down in 2020) and I have to say this matches my experience.
> 
> I have seen a young person that felt they had no place and no friends ask to join a game, first of all the very fact of being they not he/she threw some of us (but we adapted) but by there 4th session they had spells down, feats being rated and tossing up ASI vs feat for customization vs power were asking to reskin a famailr as a creature I had never heard of... and by level 8 was already ALSO DMing there new friends.
> 
> I had a preteen girl who I wasn't sure if she could read the book fast enough down load an ap for a die roller (why did she have a better smart phone then me?) and start drawing up a multi classed sorcerer paliden while I was helping another player adjust there equipment. She is driving now and has DMed but last I knew was playing online. (I think she used the other table not roll20)
> 
> my niece and nephew saw/heard us playing and were ready to try by 7 and 9.  btw there dad used to play, they correct him on rules and have a better grasp than a guy who was playing 2e before I was...



LOL what can you say? Kids are sponges when it comes to something they are actually interested in. I remember when I first started I was voracious about the game, reading every rule book I could get several times, learning all the systems, until I knew things better than my sister or her friends who were 5 years older than I was. It is why I took over that group and became the DM when I was just 8...

It happens. 

And I am glad to see so many youngsters interested in the game (even if different) that gave me literally thousands of hours of enjoyment over the decades.


----------



## Mercurius

GMforPowergamers said:


> in my experience this is it exactly...
> 
> 2e is hard, math doesn't make sense... imagine no more thac0 or weird roll high/low worries...3e fixes it
> 3e We know that there are problems the ranger stinks haste is broken and the skills cost too much, but 3.5 will fix it
> 3.5 so your games are turning into rocket tag with caster supremacy, and some rules (grapple) are too hard don't worry 4e will fix it
> 4e fixed it but you think we fixxed so much it isn't D&D anymore... don't worry 5e is back to basics
> 
> I don't know what 6e will fix or break but there is a pattern



Well again, as I implied in another thread in response to you, I think you are equating your own "rules granularity" with the player base as a whole. I mean, in any context, there are people who get really into the nit-and-gritty, and/or really know their stuff. Meaning, experts tend to be more critical of something within their field than casual folks.

For example, an armchair astronomer might come up with a highly speculative theory and among those who care, most will say "Wow, cool," while a smaller number of more technically minded folks (astrophysicists) will say, "That's wrong or unlikely on so many levels."

Or think of audiophiles, who might miss the forest (the sound of the music) for the trees (How accurately the sound is reproduced on a stereo system). Or a casual drinker vs. a wine aficionado...it is a bit of expert's curse: you trade in expertise and a more refined palate for loss of a taste for lower quality (or complexity, or granuality) stuff.

The point being, for the majority of D&D players, there might not be anything to "fix."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm going to go on record saying that I fear 5e will be very akin to the Nintendo Wii in that it's massively popular but a large amount of the consumers aren't at all interested in chasing that dragon a second time.
> 
> The Wii was one of the most successful consoles of all time in getting new players in on the experience of videogames.  The Wii U was a massive flop giving everyone "slightly nicer more of the same".



there is even more working against WotC. I said it isn another thread, but movie theaters and board and card games do well when there are economic down turns... 2020 kicked the ecnomy hard BUT also shut down meeting for board games or going to the movies... BUT at the same time streaming D&D was on the rise (and could be bindged like netflix) and online table tops and amazon meant you could learn and play a game without leaving home.

that lightning may never hit a bottle again


----------



## JThursby

Mercurius said:


> It does make me wonder, though: how many of the 30 million (or, say 20ish million new players) are serious, like the ones you play with? Meaning, how representative are your players of the incoming cohort?



It would be impossible for me to say conclusively, I can only provide my own anecdotal experience.  But I have always found the assumption that children are stupid and engage with things minimally or basically is largely incorrect.  I suspect many people use someone's experience as a measurement for their potential, which gives them a grossly distorted and negative few of those with less experience than them.


Mercurius said:


> My assumption is that third party publishers mainly cater to serious/diehard types - that for every Kobold Press hardcover sold, there are dozens--if not hundreds--of WotC hardcovers sold. But I'm just guessing.



Give than at least 1 person in every group is an active DM, that alone is a lot of people who tend toward a serious engagement with the game and look for additional material.  For every aspirant DM and player looking for character options or ideas that number climbs.  It's more people than you would think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DND_Reborn said:


> became the DM when I was just 8...



my twice a month DM was the younger brother of someone who had played when they were in HS... he was 13 or 14 when he took over DMing for 18-24 year olds...

we are much older now though


----------



## Mercurius

pogre said:


> Man, I am sure I am in the minority on this, but with a couple minor changes I could stick with 5e way past 2024.
> 
> I was really ready for a new edition after 3.0 and 3.5. We enjoyed the game, but it was time for something new.
> 
> I'm not new edition resistant, but I'm not sure I'm close to done with 5e.



Interesting. I wonder if this has something to do with WotC's focus on stories and worlds, and lesser emphasis on crunch.

This is also why I think 5E is more sustainable than past editions. Where 3.5 essentially ran out of new things to print, because it was heavily focused on rules and character customization--or, at least, the law of diminishing returns came into effect--5E is focused on stories and worlds, and there is no end to that.

That said, making the big assumption that the world remains relatively stable, I could see them planning for an every-10-year-anniversary revision. I mean, it is hard to imagine the world in 20 years, but I wouldn't be surprised if the folks at WotC are thinking, "We'll do the 50th anniversary, and then keep going with stories and worlds and maybe be a bit experimental, perhaps exploring another genre or two, and then do another revision in 2034 for the 60th."

Things will change, of course, but I think that's a solid long-term plan, if I'm WotC.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mercurius said:


> Well again, as I implied in another thread in response to you, I think you are equating your own "rules granularity" with the player base as a whole. I mean, in any context, there are people who get really into the nit-and-gritty, and/or really know their stuff. Meaning, experts tend to be more critical of something within their field than casual folks.



in this case I was taking how they pitched them


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> how many of the 30 million (or, say 20ish million new players)



Minor note, the last count we received was 50 million players (back in 2021).


----------



## Mercurius

GMforPowergamers said:


> in this case I was taking how they pitched them



OK, fair enough. My guess is their pitch will be less about fixing rules, and more about bringing D&D more fully into the contemporary context. So I suppose they are "fixing" old socio-cultural norms that are outdated, at least in their mind.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> OK, fair enough, as far as overestimating long-termers (with the caveat that older long-termers are replaced by younger long-termers...which is why I coined the phrase "quasi-grognard," as someone who started playing D&D before 2014...like you, Parmandur ).
> 
> But at the least, the current boom is far larger than in past editions, no? Meaning, the percentage of long-termers is much smaller, and the impetus behind edition revisions and changes is different. 5E's main goal was to re-gather the flock - with new players being a bonus. Or rather, I don't think they expected it would be such a huge draw for newbies, and they were very concerned with getting people back that they lost.
> 
> So anything going forward will be about keeping and expanding the newer, younger players - and far less about keeping people who started with TSR, although I suppose we won't be forgotten quite yet!
> 
> But yeah, good point about Basic/BECMI. I hadn't thought of that.



No, absolutely bigger: as many people have started playing with 5E as had ever played prior to 3E, by WotC numbers.


----------



## Parmandur

@Mercurius  here are the numbers from nearly a year ago, it will be interesting to see if we get another update soon:

"The infographic breaks down stats about the _Dungeons and Dragons_ player base, revealing that the game has achieved more than 50 million players to date. This makes it the seventh year in a row that _Dungeons and Dragons _has seen growth, with the TRPG boasting 33% year-over-year increases, globally."


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

EzekielRaiden said:


> Frankly, I don't know what the future is going to be. It seems to me that the situation we have here may be equal parts "things are going pretty well" and "we're keeping costs low by keeping staff low and licensing." (I may be beating a dead horse, but taking _absolute ages_ just to get out an _extremely simple_ conversion document because ONE PERSON was on jury duty? Yeah, that doesn't speak to a game that is getting the staff it needs to produce the things it could really use.)



How many years ago was that again? Sure, 5E had a fairly small staff at the start since WotC wasn't sure if it would be successful or not, but they've hired tons of people since then.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mercurius said:


> OK, fair enough. My guess is their pitch will be less about fixing rules, and more about bringing D&D more fully into the contemporary context. So I suppose they are "fixing" old socio-cultural norms that are outdated, at least in their mind.



I would bet we will see a 2024 campaign around 'no humanoid is dominated by there race of birth' (I am NOT a copy ad writer but something like that) even though we had good tribes of orcs and good cults of drow as far back as I go (2e mid 90s)
I also expect it to be some how BOTH 'not your fathers D&D' AND 'the same classic game'


----------



## Minigiant

If you look ay older editions, the splat book chain and eventual edition change were built on... the sheer amount of work to homebrew anything significant than didn't become broken or unwieldy.

A lot of books were bought because "doing it yourself was too much work". Paying TSR or WOTC to do the heavy lifting was how it worked.

5e's biggest strength is the ease to houserule and homebrew. But even 5e has a sheketon so there is only so much flexibility.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mercurius said:


> But I don't remember any _1Ever _folks running around, although I assume there were some.



They absolutely did exist.

Literally one of my first experiences with RPGs was being told that I'd made a serious error in buying 2E, even though 1E was no longer in print, and real AD&D players only played 1E. This was in 1989. And when I got on the pre-internet and internet in 1992/1993 there was still no shortage of people declaring 2E to be inferior to 1E, and a lot of grudging stuff about only playing 2E because they'd been forced to. That continued to at least the mid-'90s, at which point I think because people were wondering if D&D would even survive, the negativity went down a lot.

But as late as the early ENworld days we got people saying they'd gone from 1E to 3E and skipped 2E because it sucked.

3E was largely welcomed because it was perceived that it might bring an end to the D&D-is-dying-out era that TSR had presided over. A self-fulfilling prophecy in a good way for D&D. 3.5E was not received as positively as you suggest, I'd say, but most naysayers were pretty annoyed with 3E period by that point - I know I was - so tended to be moving away from D&D.

4E was pre-ruined by WotC's completely demented marketing campaign, insanely ill-advised statements from the WotC person in charge of D&D (who wasn't the lead designer), a meme that it was "basically WoW", which itself was the direct result of the extremely ill-advised statements, the incredibly dumb change from OGL to GSL (and accompanying basic lock-out of 3PPs), and completely mishandled but widely discussed attempts at a VTT. It's like if you planned a campaign to derail the launch of an edition, this is basically what you'd do. It's honestly a tribute to 4E that it did as well as it did.

5E was an apology edition, and very well-received by those it was an apology to, less well by those who it wasn't an apology to. But then it luckily caught a cultural zeitgeist in like 2016 (which had nothing to do with it being 5E, frankly, and everything to do with it being "the current edition of D&D in 2016) and now we have way more people who've never played any other edition playing than those who have, as you say.


Mercurius said:


> While I'm specifically asking about the above, and thus mostly focused on 5.5 and whatever comes after that, feel free to speculate about how you think the player base might change - if you think this is another boom with an eventual contraction, or whether you think we're in an era of continual expansion. Of course with technological and global considerations, it is hard to think about where we might be in a couple decades, but at least we an speculate on the 2024 revision, and perhaps whatever comes down the pike 5-10 years after.



There will inevitably be a contraction at some point, it's just a matter of when.

But in the short-term, an edition change is potentially a smaller deal, you've illustrated it's less of an issue with product, but also the new people playing are very tech-savvy and virtually all of them have played videogames, many of them have played MMOs or MMO-like games, so they're used to new versions of things replacing the old, to things being updated/changed, and so on. They're likely less scared/angry about it than earlier generations too.

So if, as WotC keep imply, 5.5E is basically a 1E to 2E or thereabouts level of change, I don't think we're going to see much turmoil. I particularly don't think we'll see even the 1E/2E level of break, because a lot of the 1E fans clearly liked that 1E was "edgy" and weird, and roughly-made, but 5E is slick and modern, and 5.5E/6E will likely also be slick and modern, so there will be no real point of differentiation there. You'll inevitably get some grogs mad about some ridiculous nonsense, like maybe they hate Feats as an article of faith or whatever, but they're not likely to be a major deal.


----------



## overgeeked

DarkCrisis said:


> Every edition (and half edition) from this point on I expect to be advertised as "Fixes the problems of the Previous Ed to try to convinces people to buy it.
> 
> Why wouldn't you want 5E but the Classes are so much better and more powerful!?!?!?!?  Abd look Critical Role switched to the new hotness!
> 
> "Its like 5E but FIXED and BETTER!"
> 
> Ooohhh!!! _Shells out $150_



That's literally how every edition is sold. Of every game. Since the beginning. Except of course the bit about Critical Role.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Minigiant said:


> If you look ay older editions, the splat book chain and eventual edition change were built on... the sheer amount of work to homebrew anything significant than didn't become broken or unwieldy.
> 
> A lot of books were bought because "doing it yourself was too much work". Paying TSR or WOTC to do the heavy lifting was how it worked.
> 
> 5e's biggest strength is the ease to houserule and homebrew. But even 5e has a sheketon so there is only so much flexibility.



I have to say 2e (IME) was WAY more house ruled then 5e. I remember a dozen diffrent DMs that had made whole classes up.

in 3e I saw less of that but I did see 'this feat chain' or 'these three prestige classes'

4e and 5e I have seen less then that. Even just me, when I home brew I find myself updating a 3e or 4e class/prestige class/ feat half the time


----------



## Staffan

Yora said:


> WotC seems to have abandoned the splatbook assembly line that was such a central feature of 2nd and 3rd edition as a commercial product. I don't even remember how things looked in 4th, 5th edition now follows a very different production strategy.
> I am sure that has a major impact on how they approach future revisions.



4e had dual lines of splatbooks. You had the Player's Handbook line (PHB2, PHB3... not sure if there was a PHB4 or not) that added new classes and explored new power sources (psionics and primal), and the ______ Power line that provided more options for existing classes.


----------



## JThursby

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would bet we will see a 2024 campaign around 'no humanoid is dominated by there race of birth'



I cannot possibly imagine that explicitly baiting fantasy race arguments will be Hasbro's marketing strategy of choice.  If anything they've shown they just want to bury anything that might invite such controversy and pretend it doesn't exist.  That must have been one of the factors motivating them to replace per-existing books with a new, highly abridged one.


Ruin Explorer said:


> So if, as WotC keep imply, 5.5E is basically a 1E to 2E or thereabouts level of change, I don't think we're going to see much turmoil.



I believe that the amount of player turnover will have more to do with the perception of WotC as a company than D&D as a ruleset.  If WotC regularly turns out PR blunders they can expect to lose more and more players during the edition change/update period.  If anything this is what contributed to the 4e fiasco the most - the perception that WotC was out of touch with what their customers wanted and was trying to get rid of them in favor of a new audience to milk.  We will see if WotC has learned their lesson or not in a few years.


----------



## jasper

DarkCrisis said:


> New D&D players:  "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"
> 
> Old D&D players:  "My sweet summer child" _stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out_ _runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books_ Whispers "Ill never let you go."



Older than OLD D&D players. Waving cane around, "Nurs65e change my diaper. Dr DM74 will be coming on the TV SCREEN in fifteen minutes. And it is the yellow button to roll dice. "

Nurse65E, "No patient 127-721. The yellow button flushes your waste.  The red button rolls the dice.  It is a flat screen monitor not whatever a TV Screen is. And all editions you own have be inserted into your brain chip."


----------



## Mercurius

Ruin Explorer said:


> They absolutely did exist.
> 
> Literally one of my first experiences with RPGs was being told that I'd made a serious error in buying 2E, even though 1E was no longer in print, and real AD&D players only played 1E. This was in 1989. And when I got on the pre-internet and internet in 1992/1993 there was still no shortage of people declaring 2E to be inferior to 1E, and a lot of grudging stuff about only playing 2E because they'd been forced to. That continued to at least the mid-'90s, at which point I think because people were wondering if D&D would even survive, the negativity went down a lot.



That's kind of funny, at least in hindsight. I never experienced any of that, but I also didn't really range widely in terms of gaming in those years, and just played with a few high school friends - none of whom, if I remember correctly, even played 1E. So for them, 2E was D&D.


Ruin Explorer said:


> But as late as the early ENworld days we got people saying they'd gone from 1E to 3E and skipped 2E because it sucked.
> 
> 3E was largely welcomed because it was perceived that it might bring an end to the D&D-is-dying-out era that TSR had presided over. A self-fulfilling prophecy in a good way for D&D. 3.5E was not received as positively as you suggest, I'd say, but most naysayers were pretty annoyed with 3E period by that point - I know I was - so tended to be moving away from D&D.
> 
> 4E was pre-ruined by WotC's completely demented marketing campaign, insanely ill-advised statements from the WotC person in charge of D&D (who wasn't the lead designer), a meme that it was "basically WoW", which itself was the direct result of the extremely ill-advised statements, the incredibly dumb change from OGL to GSL (and accompanying basic lock-out of 3PPs), and completely mishandled but widely discussed attempts at a VTT. It's like if you planned a campaign to derail the launch of an edition, this is basically what you'd do. It's honestly a tribute to 4E that it did as well as it did.
> 
> 5E was an apology edition, and very well-received by those it was an apology to, less well by those who it wasn't an apology to. But then it luckily caught a cultural zeitgeist in like 2016 (which had nothing to do with it being 5E, frankly, and everything to do with it being "the current edition of D&D in 2016) and now we have way more people who've never played any other edition playing than those who have, as you say.



Good stuff. All of this reminds me of politics, and how much of it is perception, association, and imprinting. D&D is to an individual whatever edition/version they first started playing with. Some adapt from that, some don't. 

Furthermore, it is hard to separate out the intangible influences--marketing, impressions, hearsay, reputation, label, etc--from the thing itself. People--as in politics--have a knee-jerk and instant reaction to an idea, depending upon what "tribe" they associate it coming from, regardless of what the actual thing itself is. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> There will inevitably be a contraction at some point, it's just a matter of when.
> 
> But in the short-term, an edition change is potentially a smaller deal, you've illustrated it's less of an issue with product, but also the new people playing are very tech-savvy and virtually all of them have played videogames, many of them have played MMOs or MMO-like games, so they're used to new versions of things replacing the old, to things being updated/changed, and so on. They're likely less scared/angry about it than earlier generations too.



This reminds me of when my 13-year old daughter shows me a TikTok video she thinks is funny, I am struck by two things: One, I feel out of touch with the references and associations of younger "kids these days," and two, I can barely process the information - the format and editing is so weird and disjointed, at least to my almost-half-a-century-old brain. I feel like my 80-year old father when I try explaining to him how to use On Demand on his TV (no matter how many times I try to explain it to him, he just can't get it...the cup runneth overfull, I guess).


Ruin Explorer said:


> So if, as WotC keep imply, 5.5E is basically a 1E to 2E or thereabouts level of change, I don't think we're going to see much turmoil. I particularly don't think we'll see even the 1E/2E level of break, because a lot of the 1E fans clearly liked that 1E was "edgy" and weird, and roughly-made, but 5E is slick and modern, and 5.5E/6E will likely also be slick and modern, so there will be no real point of differentiation there. You'll inevitably get some grogs mad about some ridiculous nonsense, like maybe they hate Feats as an article of faith or whatever, but they're not likely to be a major deal.



Someone else mentioned 1E/2E for the 50th, and that makes sense to me - but really, 2E was more of a 1.5E, at least in my view of things. But even so, some will be upset about that, just as some were upset about 3.5. But reasons you and I have both stated, my speculation is that the newer cohort won't be as bothered.

That said, one way I could see them screwing things up if they lean too hard into the "We're older folks, but we're cool and hip and get you, youngsters!" I tease my 13-year old daughter about such things because I like to see her roll her eyes and say, "OK, Boomer", but she knows I do so jokingly, just as I know she knows that Boomers and Gen-Xers aren't synonymous.


----------



## Mercurius

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would bet we will see a 2024 campaign around 'no humanoid is dominated by there race of birth' (I am NOT a copy ad writer but something like that) even though we had good tribes of orcs and good cults of drow as far back as I go (2e mid 90s)
> I also expect it to be some how BOTH 'not your fathers D&D' AND 'the same classic game'




Yes, that makes sense to me - and is a good way to address the various "problematic controversies" in a way that is creatively fruitful and not coming from a moralistic standpoint. Meaning, rather than saying "This is how orcs or drow are now, and if you do it differently you're a bad person," they could say, "Check out this new approach to orcs/drow/gnolls, which is an example of how the game can be infinitely customized and still rather cool."

Of course some will view it as a personal attack on their own stylistic preferences, and others will say WotC didn't go far enough...but I'm not sure there's anyway around that.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> That said, one way I could see them screwing things up if they lean too hard into the "We're older folks, but we're cool and hip and get you, youngsters!" I tease my 13-year old daughter about such things because I like to see her roll her eyes and say, "OK, Boomer", but she knows I do so jokingly, just as I know she knows that Boomers and Gen-Xers aren't synonymous.



Actually,  if you look at the D&D Studio recent hires, they are doing pretty well on the young, hip, and diverse counts.


----------



## delericho

Until recently, I thought we'd probably seen the last of big edition changes - that the 2024 version would be basically the same as the 2014 but with a handful of tweaks and fixes, then another revision in 203x with another batch of small changes, and so on.

Recent events have changed that somewhat, in that the need to rethink the races, in particular, means we're needing a bigger revision than expected. That being the case, I suspect WotC may be rather more extensive in the changes this time than they otherwise would have been (might as well get it all done now...). But thereafter it might well stabilize.


----------



## Minigiant

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have to say 2e (IME) was WAY more house ruled then 5e. I remember a dozen diffrent DMs that had made whole classes up.
> 
> in 3e I saw less of that but I did see 'this feat chain' or 'these three prestige classes'
> 
> 4e and 5e I have seen less then that. Even just me, when I home brew I find myself updating a 3e or 4e class/prestige class/ feat half the time



My point was that 5e is the easiest to houserule and homebrew.

A lot of the splat books of 1e, 2e, 3e,and 4e were built around the sheer work and headache to translate a concept to the ruleset and the space allowed. 
This is because:

The older editions has mechanics that were all over the place, not uniform, and had sorta hidden elements.
The newer editions had mechanics that were linked to each other and thus you couldn't touch one thing without touching or redoing another.

Whereas 5e was designed with space for homebrew and houserule in mind. For example people say the weapons system in 5e is too simple and barebones. However the space made for it is also so simple that you can rip out and replace it with 10 minutes of work and most players/DMs can learn, analyze, and fix in in  quarter of that time. So while a new weapon system may be wanted, there is no pressure for a splatbook for weapons nor a new edition to "fix" 5e's weapons combat for a looooooooooooong time.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> How many years ago was that again? Sure, 5E had a fairly small staff at the start since WotC wasn't sure if it would be successful or not, but they've hired tons of people since then.



To be honest, I no longer remember and am not quite sure how to check. I want to say it took 2-3 years for them to publish the conversion document, so that would have been 2016-2017?

Regardless, as I was given to understand, WotC has _not_ been hiring a bunch of new people in the intervening years. I haven't been paying close attention, though, so I could be simply wrong. Do you have any links as to how their staff has changed?


----------



## DarkCrisis

overgeeked said:


> That's literally how every edition is sold. Of every game. Since the beginning. Except of course the bit about Critical Role.



Exactly.


----------



## Remathilis

DarkCrisis said:


> New D&D players:  "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"
> 
> Old D&D players:  "My sweet summer child" _stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out_ _runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books_ Whispers "Ill never let you go."




"Mostly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. A number of the X & Y splatbook PrCs and feats got redone (and improved) and eventually the convoluted mess that was 3.0 Psionics was replaced by the infinitely better Expanded Psionics, but I use plenty of 3.0 material quite late into 3.5. I also ran huge swaths of Basic and 1e modules in 2e (modded 2e at that) with little problem. The only times I couldn't do straight conversion is when the underlying system changed so radically I couldn't without rewriting the material (IE, fireball changing from Save vs. Spells to Reflex save to Int Attack vs. Reflex Defense to Dexterity Save).


----------



## Yora

GMforPowergamers said:


> my twice a month DM was the younger brother of someone who had played when they were in HS... he was 13 or 14 when he took over DMing for 18-24 year olds...
> 
> we are much older now though



Indeed. Us kids from back in 2000 are going on 40 now.


----------



## Yora

Ruin Explorer said:


> They absolutely did exist.



They certainly do now. In the places where AD&D is still popular, even the existance of a 2nd edition is barely acknowledged.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have to say 2e (IME) was WAY more house ruled then 5e. I remember a dozen diffrent DMs that had made whole classes up.
> 
> in 3e I saw less of that but I did see 'this feat chain' or 'these three prestige classes'
> 
> 4e and 5e I have seen less then that. Even just me, when I home brew I find myself updating a 3e or 4e class/prestige class/ feat half the time



I will have to disagree. 2e was first but I found 4e next. It was the easiest to make new things you could plug a new power in the way other editions allow spells or feats. But I do see less in 5e but I’m not sure why


----------



## Rabulias

EzekielRaiden said:


> To be honest, I no longer remember and am not quite sure how to check. I want to say it took 2-3 years for them to publish the conversion document, so that would have been 2016-2017?



The conversion document's URL says 2015 (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf), and the copyright date within it is 2015. Looking at the metadata of the PDF, the created date is October 14, 2015.


----------



## HammerMan

Ruin Explorer said:


> They absolutely did exist.



my first Con I was 14ish I went with my best friend and she was called names I can not type here and I was told to go pound sand becuse 2e was training weeks for babies real men play the one and only Advanced Dungeons and Dragons… we had been playing for a few months maybe (had the book a bit longer but couldn’t get a group together) the only reason I didn’t quit was because my best friend said “gee must be loser day then for that table” 

Her comebacks are way more curse fueled today.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Rabulias said:


> The conversion document's URL says 2015 (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf), and the copyright date within it is 2015. Looking at the metadata of the PDF, the created date is October 14, 2015.



Alright. So a bit more than a year (13-14 months, depending on how you reckon). Still one of the more important support documents for any edition trying to gather up fans of previous editions, and (as I know I said at the time, though perhaps not on this forum), it's incredibly barebones, to the point that I cannot honestly believe it took more than a few days to write.

More importantly: any evidence to back up the claim that WotC has significantly expanded its staff since then? As I said, I haven't heard anything like that (in fact, if anything, I remember hearing about them letting people go!)


----------



## Staffan

EzekielRaiden said:


> More importantly: any evidence to back up the claim that WotC has significantly expanded its staff since then? As I said, I haven't heard anything like that (in fact, if anything, I remember hearing about them letting people go!)



I know they've been hiring some folks from Paizo. Jason Tondro and F. Wesley Schneider are the ones I can think of off-hand, but I think I've seen some other names as well.


----------



## Parmandur

Staffan said:


> I know they've been hiring some folks from Paizo. Jason Tondro and F. Wesley Schneider are the ones I can think of off-hand, but I think I've seen some other names as well.



Amanda Harmon, as well. And people from Kobold Press (Dan Dillon), and Beadle & Grimm's (Justice Armin), as well as more indie folks (Makenzie De Armas).


----------



## Hussar

A few thoughts.

1.  Lore changes matter a lot less than people seem to think.  All you have to do is compare a 5e Monster Manual to an earlier one.  Virtually every single monster is changed and often changed significantly.  Either the background lore of the race is added to or sometimes completely revised and no one cares.  You never hear about how they changed all this lore going into 5e.  Because they certainly did, but, again, no one cares.  So, all this tempest in a teacup about ASI's and changing this or that race is just the whipping boy du jour and will fade away once people find some other bone to chew on. 

2.  After ten years, it's not unreasonable to think that we could use a refreshed Core 3.  Does anyone really think that's it's unreasonable?  That we've learned so little about the game and game design in the past ten+ years that we can't revise the game?

3.  The OP mentioned how there wasn't much kerfuffle when 3e rolled out.  Umm, there's a pretty large community over at Thunderfoot that might disagree with you there.  Never minding an entire OSR community that rejects 3e completely.  Might not be as large as the Paizo community but, it isn't small.

4.  So long as they don't massively change things, most of the 5e books will still be viable.  Sure, you might have some minor changes to race - but that's really easy to institute.  Heck, it's quite possible that the majority of people won't even notice.  What are the ASI's, without looking it up, for a Halfling?  Sure, you might know it offhand, you D&D nerd you , but, most people have no idea.  Changing a svirfneblin's abilities?  Virtually no one is going to notice.  We're talking about a race that is played at a tiny, tiny fraction of tables.  99.9% of tables won't even know the difference.  And, none of that will impact, say, the modules or splats, which mean that you can still play Hoard of the Dragon Queen after the revision without any difficulties.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> you can still play Hoard of the Dragon Queen after the revision without any difficulties



Well, only the difficulties thst were already there in 2014, at anynrate.


----------



## Mercurius

Parmandur said:


> @Mercurius  here are the numbers from nearly a year ago, it will be interesting to see if we get another update soon:
> 
> "The infographic breaks down stats about the _Dungeons and Dragons_ player base, revealing that the game has achieved more than 50 million players to date. This makes it the seventh year in a row that _Dungeons and Dragons _has seen growth, with the TRPG boasting 33% year-over-year increases, globally."
> 
> View attachment 157075



Yes, of course - I remember that now. For some reason I remembered it as 30 million.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> Yes, of course - I remember that now. For some reason I remembered it as 30 million.



I mean, it was in 2018 or so. Crazy few years.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Hussar said:


> 3.  The OP mentioned how there wasn't much kerfuffle when 3e rolled out.  Umm, there's a pretty large community over at Thunderfoot that might disagree with you there.  Never minding an entire OSR community that rejects 3e completely.  Might not be as large as the Paizo community but, it isn't small.




Oh, good gods yes.  The USENET D&D group was a wave of outraged edition warring at the time.  People called it a powergamer's dream, hated feats, claimed skills were an unnecessary complication--you name it.


----------



## Mercurius

Parmandur said:


> I mean, it was in 2018 or so. Crazy few years.



Yeah, crazy indeed. I think as @Ruin Explorer said, the bubble will inevitably burst, but as I said, it is one thing bursting from the 20 million (or whatever) in 1984, white another from the hypothetical 70-100 million it might be in a few years. If 20 million contracted back to 5 million, then 80 million might contract back to 20 million. 

(Or whatever - the exactly numbers aren't the point).


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, crazy indeed. I think as @Ruin Explorer said, the bubble will inevitably burst, but as I said, it is one thing bursting from the 20 million (or whatever) in 1984, white another from the hypothetical 70-100 million it might be in a few years. If 20 million contracted back to 5 million, then 80 million might contract back to 20 million.
> 
> (Or whatever - the exactly numbers aren't the point).



I don't think we are looking at a bubble: growth will slow, but eventually a new even keel replacement rate will emerge, I reckon.


----------



## Mercurius

Re: the 3E kerfuffle to @Hussar  and @Thomas Shey. My main connecting point with the larger D&D community in 2000 was here and rpg.net, so it is a very different context than Usenet. 

Anyhow, it may be that the kerfuffle that did exist was not only smaller (at least compared to 2008), but more contained within specific venues.


----------



## Mercurius

Parmandur said:


> I don't think we are looking at a bubble: growth will slow, but eventually a new even keel replacement rate will emerge, I reckon.



We shall see. I don't really buy the pragmatism of the idea of endless growth to begin with, and tend to see things move more in cycles - whether circular or spiral. So I can buy that we are "spiraling upward," but there's an inevitable a down turn. But my point is that when things plateau out, that plateau--no matter how far the drop from whatever peak it reaches--will be much higher than its ever been.

That said, the world of 2022 is quite different than it was even a decade ago. And in terms of the internet, I read that in 1995 there 16 million users worldwide, about 0.4% of the population, then 350 million five years later (6%) and over 5 billion today (about two-thirds of the world population). So this also has an impact, in terms of how many people have access to stuff like D&D, not to mention global distribution and such.

I was thinking about how I lived in the UK for a couple years in the late 80s, and completely fell out of touch with my beloved baseball. Back then, you really only had access to world events and news through TV, the radio, and print media, and the UK didn't really cover baseball back in 1986-87. This specific fact isn't relevant in and of itself, but I think the interconnectivity and access to information that the internet provides changes everything - and now, in 2022, two-thirds of the world population has internet access. I mean, how would someone in, say, Kinshasa in 1985 have any way to even know about the existence of D&D? So it could be that perpetual growth is at least theoretically possible now in a way that it wasn't 30-40 years ago, even just 10-20 years ago, due to the ubiquity of the internet.


----------



## TerraDave

Without even finishing the post, much less the thread:

2e was not embraced _that _warmly. Anecdotally I knew of more groups not playing then did. Sales of core books also never got to where they were in the 1980s. 

Forget not T$R.


----------



## Raith5

I am torn on this because on a general level I think they should go through the 5.1e (minor change) route because it has been so successful for so many but at a personal level I would like 6e (major change) because while I like 5e, I have played so much 5e during the pandemic that I am sick of the some issues in 5e and have done it to death - Id love something new.

So I think a 5.5 option is the best thing - feats as core (more character customisation options but be careful of the maths), tweak concentration, more equipment choices, more interesting monsters, a few more classes, more attention to high level play.

I also think than the revised edition will be made with the VTT at forefront of any changes.


----------



## Mercurius

TerraDave said:


> Without even finishing the post, much less the thread:
> 
> 2e was not embraced _that _warmly. Anecdotally I knew of more groups not playing then did. Sales of core books also never got to where they were in the 1980s.
> 
> Forget not T$R.







Couldn't resist, TerraDave


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> We shall see. I don't really buy the pragmatism of the idea of endless growth to begin with, and tend to see things move more in cycles - whether circular or spiral. So I can buy that we are "spiraling upward," but there's an inevitable a down turn. But my point is that when things plateau out, that plateau--no matter how far the drop from whatever peak it reaches--will be much higher than its ever been.
> 
> That said, the world of 2022 is quite different than it was even a decade ago. And in terms of the internet, I read that in 1995 there 16 million users worldwide, about 0.4% of the population, then 350 million five years later (6%) and over 5 billion today (about two-thirds of the world population). So this also has an impact, in terms of how many people have access to stuff like D&D, not to mention global distribution and such.
> 
> I was thinking about how I lived in the UK for a couple years in the late 80s, and completely fell out of touch with my beloved baseball. Back then, you really only had access to world events and news through TV, the radio, and print media, and the UK didn't really cover baseball back in 1986-87. This specific fact isn't relevant in and of itself, but I think the interconnectivity and access to information that the internet provides changes everything - and now, in 2022, two-thirds of the world population has internet access. I mean, how would someone in, say, Kinshasa in 1985 have any way to even know about the existence of D&D? So it could be that perpetual growth is at least theoretically possible now in a way that it wasn't 30-40 years ago, even just 10-20 years ago, due to the ubiquity of the internet.



 bailutsly agreed, I don't believe perpetual growth is possible, let alone likely. However, the game will eventually start ilize at it's natural audience size. And the natural audience size now may in fact be way, way more than 50 million people.


----------



## payn

Mercurius said:


> We shall see. I don't really buy the pragmatism of the idea of endless growth to begin with, and tend to see things move more in cycles - whether circular or spiral. So I can buy that we are "spiraling upward," but there's an inevitable a down turn. But my point is that when things plateau out, that plateau--no matter how far the drop from whatever peak it reaches--will be much higher than its ever been.
> 
> That said, the world of 2022 is quite different than it was even a decade ago. And in terms of the internet, I read that in 1995 there 16 million users worldwide, about 0.4% of the population, then 350 million five years later (6%) and over 5 billion today (about two-thirds of the world population). So this also has an impact, in terms of how many people have access to stuff like D&D, not to mention global distribution and such.



Some really good food for thought here. I was thinking in terms of generational change on the impact of the growth and contraction of hobbies. Im about to jump into my own personal observations so take the rest with a grain of salt. No studies here folks just pure anecdotal experience coming your way.

I'm Gen X and remember my old man not really getting the whole video game thing when I was a kid. I have younger brothers (much younger 12 and 16 years so millennials) who grew up with some pretty sophisticated gaming in comparison. My brothers think its crazy that I only play one or two video games a year now. My old man thinks its nuts I still play them at all. 

I dont know why but I recall a conversation with my grandfather when I was a kid. My old man is huge into sports and still plays competitive fast pitch softball today. My grandfather thought it was crazy that he still played as an adult instead of working and taking care of his family as a grown man. 

I think about animated media and how for a long time in America it was considered kids stuff. Now anime is pretty popular with younger folks and isnt quite the thing you should leave behind it once was. I think I like that. There is too much emphasis on "growing up" and being serious. It always seemed to make people seem so old to me. Tired and joyless and living only vicariously through the young. I kinda like the trend I have been experiencing.

Anyhow, I think many first gen D&D gamers likely stopped playing as it may have been seen as kids stuff. The second and third gen will likely not be held up by these notions. I think this is a common trait amongst hobbies but I have no research to really claim its a thing beyond my own experience. YMMV.


Mercurius said:


> I was thinking about how I lived in the UK for a couple years in the late 80s, and completely fell out of touch with my beloved baseball. Back then, you really only had access to world events and news through TV, the radio, and print media, and the UK didn't really cover baseball back in 1986-87.



What? You missed the Twins winning the '87 world series!!!


----------



## Echohawk

Rabulias said:


> The conversion document's URL says 2015 (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf), and the copyright date within it is 2015. Looking at the metadata of the PDF, the created date is October 14, 2015.



Yeah, my notes have the release date for version 1.0 of that file as 19th October 2015.


----------



## Mercurius

payn said:


> Some really good food for thought here. I was thinking in terms of generational change on the impact of the growth and contraction of hobbies. Im about to jump into my own personal observations so take the rest with a grain of salt. No studies here folks just pure anecdotal experience coming your way.
> 
> I'm Gen X and remember my old man not really getting the whole video game thing when I was a kid. I have younger brothers (much younger 12 and 16 years so millennials) who grew up with some pretty sophisticated gaming in comparison. My brothers think its crazy that I only play one or two video games a year now. My old man thinks its nuts I still play them at all.
> 
> I dont know why but I recall a conversation with my grandfather when I was a kid. My old man is huge into sports and still plays competitive fast pitch softball today. My grandfather thought it was crazy that he still played as an adult instead of working and taking care of his family as a grown man.
> 
> I think about animated media and how for a long time in America it was considered kids stuff. Now anime is pretty popular with younger folks and isnt quite the thing you should leave behind it once was. I think I like that. There is too much emphasis on "growing up" and being serious. It always seemed to make people seem so old to me. Tired and joyless and living only vicariously through the young. I kinda like the trend I have been experiencing.
> 
> Anyhow, I think many first gen D&D gamers likely stopped playing as it may have been seen as kids stuff. The second and third gen will likely not be held up by these notions. I think this is a common trait amongst hobbies but I have no research to really claim its a thing beyond my own experience. YMMV.



Yeah, I hear you - and think this is a relevant thread that plays a major part: the fact that "childish things" are no longer considered only the purview of children (and not even necessarily "childish," at least in a pejorative way).

An anecdote that sheds a slightly different light: I played in a pretty consistent group from 2008-15 (4E, then converting to Next, then 5E). Everyone in the group was Gen X, and most hadn't played D&D since 2E era - high school or college; I think only one other player had played since then, and it was a variety of games.

My point being, this was a group of Gen Xers who mostly hadn't played since the early 90s, and then found themselves playing...4E? I suppose that is unusual, but it is one anecdote, so I imagine that there are a wide variety of configurations. The point I wanted to highlight is that even thought these other folks had left playing when they were 20ish, they all found their way back in their mid-30s to 40s.

So I think there's really several demographics at play:

*Long-term/regular players *- like most people reading this. These are the folks that are "serious" or "diehard," who might take hiatuses but are always involved in some way or another. These are mostly folks who kept playing after the usual "exist ramp" after college ended and "real life" began.
*Long-term/occasional players* - these are folks like those I mentioned. They might have played in the usual middle school to college range, then stopped as they focused on "adulting" and never had the intention of playing again, but then found themselves taking the opportunity when it arose sometime later in life, and might do so again, given the opportunity.
*New/active players* - These are folks new to the game, who started and haven't stopped (yet). The vast majority of these folks are in the middle school-to-college age range (or approximately 10ish to 25ish). It is still TBD which of the other three groups they end up in. 
*Former/retired players *- These are folks who played at some point, and never played again. Like most of those I mentioned if I hadn't started up that group. Conceivable there are many of these folks, especially when you consider the 80s boom, and then all the folks who played since.
My guess is that there are maybe one to several million folks in the first group, a few million more in the second, tens of millions in the third group (assuming that WotC's 50 million only includes groups 1-3), and also tens of millions in the fourth group, 

And to @Parmandur , I suppose any contraction D&D experiences will come when the new/active players--as a group--leave the "high activity range" of age 10-25ish, (or middle school through college). So that might be a trickle for a few years, and then grow more steadily in five or so years from now, but also be offset by growth along the way, and presumably WotC's goal is to keep folks coming in _and _turn as many of group 3 into 1-2 and not 4 as possible.

All just speculative, of course.


payn said:


> What? You missed the Twins winning the '87 world series!!!



I was actually back for that! I remember that team well - Puckett, Hrbek, Gaetti, Blyleven, etc. I was gone summer of '85 to spring of '87. 1987 was the year I got seriously into baseball, even though I was a fan from around 1980ish. But I was (and am) an Angels fan, so missing '86 isn't such a bad thing.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> My guess is that there are maybe one to several million folks in the first group, a few million more in the second, tens of millions in the third group (assuming that WotC's 50 million only includes groups 1-3), and also tens of millions in the fourth group,
> 
> And to @Parmandur , I suppose any contraction D&D experiences will come when the new/active players--as a group--leave the "high activity range" of age 10-25ish, (or middle school through college). So that might be a trickle for a few years, and then grow more steadily in five or so years from now, but also be offset by growth along the way, and presumably WotC's goal is to keep folks coming in _and _turn as many of group 3 into 1-2 and not 4 as possible.



I think WotC has invested so much time and energy into children's and young adults media for a reason: they want to get nostalgia parents in on raising up their children as D&D customers.

Seems to be working for my munchkins...


----------



## UngainlyTitan

DarkCrisis said:


> New D&D players:  "It will be perfectly backwards compatible! All these old books will still see use!"
> 
> Old D&D players:  "My sweet summer child" _stares over at dusty 3.0 books that become mostly redundant as soon as 3.5 came out_ _runs hands lovingly over old 1E/2E books_ Whispers "Ill never let you go."



From 3.0 to 3.5 there was a strong financial incentive to obsolete the 3.0 books and sell the whole line back again to the same audience. The lack of market growth and revenue stream from the splat mill required it. 

Now there is significant revenue from licence arrangements with Roll20 and FantasyGrounds, they are getting subscription revenue from D&D beyond and some very sweet player data. They are dropping an edition change in to a much larger and expanding market. That amounts to a very strong incentive to not upset the apple cart. 
That is why I would expect additive changes with little direct replacement of older content. Power creep but to be honest in my opinion there is less power creep so far than introduced in the average splat in the 3.5 era.


----------



## Jahydin

Pretty sure it will be changes on the scale of what we saw with Monsters of the Multiverse.

The dream for me though? A "Core" ruleset for beginners, streamers, and narration-focused gamers. Then a giant, crunchy supplementary rules tome on the level of 3.5.

Which reminds me, I really need to check out Level Up: Advanced 5E...


----------



## TwoSix

Mercurius said:


> Re: the 3E kerfuffle to @Hussar  and @Thomas Shey. My main connecting point with the larger D&D community in 2000 was here and rpg.net, so it is a very different context than Usenet.
> 
> Anyhow, it may be that the kerfuffle that did exist was not only smaller (at least compared to 2008), but more contained within specific venues.



Or the kerfuffle was just contained within thousands of isolated pockets of game groups, since discussing stuff online was still fairly novel in 2000.  I definitely knew people personally that were not on board with a lot of the 3.0 changes.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

pogre said:


> Man, I am sure I am in the minority on this, but with a couple minor changes I could stick with 5e way past 2024.
> 
> I was really ready for a new edition after 3.0 and 3.5. We enjoyed the game, but it was time for something new.
> 
> I'm not new edition resistant, but I'm not sure I'm close to done with 5e.



I am not being a negative Nelly when I say: why change when some of my books are yet to be used?

I have untapped adventures since we often do homebrew.  We have yet to get far in avernus, saltmarsh or frankly even yawning portal.

I don’t have major rules gripes with 5e.  

They did too well.  I like being “current” to an extent but only so far.  We Played AD&D skipped 2e, 3.5 and played one session of 4!

But 5e has kept our interest…

I think the switch will matter little for casual players who are loose with the rules anyway.  I will just be skipping it barring very compelling surprises.


----------



## Minigiant

TwoSix said:


> Or the kerfuffle was just contained within thousands of isolated pockets of game groups, since discussing stuff online was still fairly novel in 2000.  I definitely knew people personally that were not on board with a lot of the 3.0 changes.



Indeed. 2000-2002 was probably one of the the best time to do an edition change after 2016-2018. As there was no real way to spread negative opinion. 

The magazine was more or less unused for hard community discussion. D&D was too niche for TV. And online conversation was fragmented and mostly used by the young adults due to it being new and novel.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

TerraDave said:


> Without even finishing the post, much less the thread:
> 
> 2e was not embraced _that _warmly. Anecdotally I knew of more groups not playing then did. Sales of core books also never got to where they were in the 1980s.
> 
> Forget not T$R.



We rejected it…but it is the DM did grab the monstrous manual


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> A few thoughts.
> 
> 1.  Lore changes matter a lot less than people seem to think.  All you have to do is compare a 5e Monster Manual to an earlier one.  Virtually every single monster is changed and often changed significantly.  Either the background lore of the race is added to or sometimes completely revised and no one cares.  You never hear about how they changed all this lore going into 5e.  Because they certainly did, but, again, no one cares.  So, all this tempest in a teacup about ASI's and changing this or that race is just the whipping boy du jour and will fade away once people find some other bone to chew on.
> 
> 2.  After ten years, it's not unreasonable to think that we could use a refreshed Core 3.  Does anyone really think that's it's unreasonable?  That we've learned so little about the game and game design in the past ten+ years that we can't revise the game?
> 
> 3.  The OP mentioned how there wasn't much kerfuffle when 3e rolled out.  Umm, there's a pretty large community over at Thunderfoot that might disagree with you there.  Never minding an entire OSR community that rejects 3e completely.  Might not be as large as the Paizo community but, it isn't small.
> 
> 4.  So long as they don't massively change things, most of the 5e books will still be viable.  Sure, you might have some minor changes to race - but that's really easy to institute.  Heck, it's quite possible that the majority of people won't even notice.  What are the ASI's, without looking it up, for a Halfling?  Sure, you might know it offhand, you D&D nerd you , but, most people have no idea.  Changing a svirfneblin's abilities?  Virtually no one is going to notice.  We're talking about a race that is played at a tiny, tiny fraction of tables.  99.9% of tables won't even know the difference.  And, none of that will impact, say, the modules or splats, which mean that you can still play Hoard of the Dragon Queen after the revision without any difficulties.



My preference would have been to make a 6e, incorporating any and all changes they wanted to make and accompanied by a new campaign setting conforming to their new sensibilities. Then I could have happily ignored it and continued with my heavily houseruled 5e game.  Big mid-edition changes bug the heck out of me.  I don't like the majority of what they're doing, and the worst part is that 3rd party publishers making things I do like are likely to "follow the leader" on this stuff.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> From 3.0 to 3.5 there was a strong financial incentive to obsolete the 3.0 books and sell the whole line back again to the same audience. The lack of market growth and revenue stream from the splat mill required it.
> 
> Now there is significant revenue from licence arrangements with Roll20 and FantasyGrounds, they are getting subscription revenue from D&D beyond and some very sweet player data. They are dropping an edition change in to a much larger and expanding market. That amounts to a very strong incentive to not upset the apple cart.
> That is why I would expect additive changes with little direct replacement of older content. Power creep but to be honest in my opinion there is less power creep so far than introduced in the average splat in the 3.5 era.



There is at least one rather lengthy thread here discussing/complaining about the recent direct replacement of older content. I have seen very little indication that any additive changes are on the horizon.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

HammerMan said:


> my first Con I was 14ish I went with my best friend and she was called names I can not type here and I was told to go pound sand becuse 2e was training weeks for babies real men play the one and only Advanced Dungeons and Dragons… we had been playing for a few months maybe (had the book a bit longer but couldn’t get a group together) the only reason I didn’t quit was because my best friend said “gee must be loser day then for that table”
> 
> Her comebacks are way more curse fueled today.



I know you are from New ENgland... please tell me this wasn't a big con nor is it still running?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> There is at least one rather lengthy thread here discussing/complaining about the recent direct replacement of older content. I have seen very little indication that any additive changes are on the horizon.



Here we run into the nomenclature of "differences of small changes". I do not regard changes like new version of the monster or even stuff like the Tasha changes for the ranger as invalidating older content. You can build a Hunter Ranger in my game and even replace Primeval Awareness and keep Favoured Enemy, if you want.
I am quite willing to use a Monster Manual Archmage with full slot progression and spells along side a magic user from the newer books with a multiuse Ranged/Melee Spell attack and a more limited spell list and no spell slots. 
I do not regard that as a change of any significance. As for lore, I have never been bothered by lore over the last 40 years so why should I start now. 
I also regard the controversies here as a storm in a teacup. It is a relatively small number of people with some particular issues. I am not denigrating those issues, they are important to those people to varying degrees. Some will move on and keep their version of the game going, other will play the new version and more will accept some changes, forbid other and houserule some as well. As was ever done. 
In the grand scheme of things, ENWorld forum users in their entirety are not worth WoTC marketing getting out of bed in the morning.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> Here we run into the nomenclature of "differences of small changes". I do not regard changes like new version of the monster or even stuff like the Tasha changes for the ranger as invalidating older content. You can build a Hunter Ranger in my game and even replace Primeval Awareness and keep Favoured Enemy, if you want.
> I am quite willing to use a Monster Manual Archmage with full slot progression and spells along side a magic user from the newer books with a multiuse Ranged/Melee Spell attack and a more limited spell list and no spell slots.
> I do not regard that as a change of any significance. As for lore, I have never been bothered by lore over the last 40 years so why should I start now.
> I also regard the controversies here as a storm in a teacup. It is a relatively small number of people with some particular issues. I am not denigrating those issues, they are important to those people to varying degrees. Some will move on and keep their version of the game going, other will play the new version and more will accept some changes, forbid other and houserule some as well. As was ever done.
> In the grand scheme of things, ENWorld forum users in their entirety are not worth WoTC marketing getting out of bed in the morning.



I don't disagree about WotC's lack of interest in ENWorld, but they have clearly made changes recently intended to replace large amounts of material with new versions.  Whether or not those changes matter to an individual are irrelevant to that fact.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't disagree about WotC's lack of interest in ENWorld, but they have clearly made changes recently intended to replace large amounts of material with new versions.  Whether or not those changes matter to an individual are irrelevant to that fact.



What is stopping you using the older material. What old stuff specifically no longer allowed?


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> What is stopping you using the older material. What old stuff specifically no longer allowed?



Nothing is stopping me, and I am and will continue to use the older material, houseruled as I see fit.

On DDB, WotC has begun moving content that they have replaced (including the entirety of Volo's and Mordenkainen's, among a few other things) into "legacy" content that in the next few days will no longer be available for purchase.  As far as they're concerned, that is clearly a direct replacement of content (and in some cases a removal of such).  There is no reason to believe that WotC won't follow suit with AL and eventually physical product, including the 2014 core books when they get around to replacing them.

That of course doesn't have to affect whether or not a particular person or group can use that content, but it is a clear indication of WotC's intentions, and where they want the community to go.


----------



## Rabulias

Micah Sweet said:


> My preference would have been to make a 6e, incorporating any and all changes they wanted to make and accompanied by a new campaign setting conforming to their new sensibilities. Then I could have happily ignored it and continued with my heavily houseruled 5e game.  Big mid-edition changes bug the heck out of me.  I don't like the majority of what they're doing, and the worst part is that 3rd party publishers making things I do like are likely to "follow the leader" on this stuff.



Barring a 4e/Pathfinder split among the playerbase, 99% of third party publishers will follow the current version of D&D, whether it is 5.5e or 6e. If you are happy with 5e as it stands, I would think your preference would be for 5.5e, as it will be easier to convert that material to 5e than it would be to convert 6e material.

For myself, I am pretty satisfied with 5e as it stands. The power creep of the recent books does not appeal to me. And I see the benefit of simplified, streamlined monsters, but I don't want them to be the only option -- I would like multiple varieties! Easy-to-run monsters for beginners or more casual games, and versions with more options for those who want more complex opponents. Easier-to-run monsters sound like a middle ground between 4e's minion rules and full, complex creatures.

The anniversary edition will attempt to rebalance the power level for all player options. If they succeed and it's still fun, I might embrace the new rules. IMO the 5e chassis makes it easy to tweak the rules, so I can mix and match, using the elements I like. That will be easier with a 5.5e than with a 6e.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I know you are from New ENgland... please tell me this wasn't a big con nor is it still running?



Upstate NY not new endland.  And I doubt it is running (and those old adults were most likely half the age I am now) it was a college thing and not very good.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> Nothing is stopping me, and I am and will continue to use the older material, houseruled as I see fit.
> 
> On DDB, WotC has begun moving content that they have replaced (including the entirety of Volo's and Mordenkainen's, among a few other things) into "legacy" content that in the next few days will no longer be available for purchase.  As far as they're concerned, that is clearly a direct replacement of content (and in some cases a removal of such).  There is no reason to believe that WotC won't follow suit with AL and eventually physical product, including the 2014 core books when they get around to replacing them.
> 
> That of course doesn't have to affect whether or not a particular person or group can use that content, but it is a clear indication of WotC's intentions, and where they want the community to go.



I  think we are going to have to agree to differ, at a minimum for me to regard something as an edition change to PHB and DMG would have to be replaced with some significant changes. Colo's and Mordenkainen's going out of print while the basic rules of the game is defined by the 2014 rule books is not an edition change.
Now if a new PHB and DMG are printed in 2024 that can be legitimately called a new edition but if I and my player can play characters from the 2014 book along side I am not going to be bothered.
It we cannot then we will consider the changes at the time and whether or not to follow them.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Nothing is stopping me, and I am and will continue to use the older material, houseruled as I see fit.
> 
> On DDB, WotC has begun moving content that they have replaced (including the entirety of Volo's and Mordenkainen's, among a few other things) into "legacy" content that in the next few days will no longer be available for purchase.  As far as they're concerned, that is clearly a direct replacement of content (and in some cases a removal of such).  There is no reason to believe that WotC won't follow suit with AL and eventually physical product, including the 2014 core books when they get around to replacing them.
> 
> That of course doesn't have to affect whether or not a particular person or group can use that content, but it is a clear indication of WotC's intentions, and where they want the community to go.



I'm going to question your definition of "large".

I mena, even if you replace Volo's and Mordenkainen's, how big of a change is that actually?  Most of the changes are pretty minor - some language cleanups and whatnot.  I mean, if they change how archmages work, for example, how much will that actually impact most people's tables?  Most creatures DON'T cast spells right now.  Creatures with actual spells are already the minority of creatures in the game.  If we then exclude creatures that have magical abilities that aren't classes as spells already (like a dragon's breath weapon, or an Aboleth's Enslave), we're talking about even fewer creatures.  

To drill right down to it, exactly how many changes are we actually talking about?  "A lot" is pretty vague and doesn't really tell me anything.  I think there's a danger here of seeing a bunch of small changes and thinking, "Wow, they are changing so much" when, in actual fact, most of the changes will not matter at all to most tables at any given time.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> To drill right down to it, exactly how many changes are we actually talking about?



Since you asked:

Races: Compilation of Race Changes from from Monsters of the Multiverse Leaks
Monsters (ongoing Let's Read): D&D 5E - Let’s Read Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse.


----------



## MichaelSomething

WOTC has no incentive to make major changes to the books. Those arn't the money makers. The books are just an IP farm to support merchandise.

Expect things like D&D themed restaurants, a cinematic universe, and a streaming service!


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> Since you asked:
> 
> Races: Compilation of Race Changes from from Monsters of the Multiverse Leaks
> Monsters (ongoing Let's Read): D&D 5E - Let’s Read Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse.



Interesting.  And, honestly, pretty in keeping with what I said.  Most of those changes will have very little impact on most tables.

Looking through those links, most of it is simply clarifying language.  A few bits and bobs and frankly, mostly stuff that no one is actually going to notice.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Interesting.  And, honestly, pretty in keeping with what I said.  Most of those changes will have very little impact on most tables.
> 
> Looking through those links, most of it is simply clarifying language.  A few bits and bobs and frankly, mostly stuff that no one is actually going to notice.



Almost every spellcaster suffered a drastic cut to spells known, and replaced commonly used spells with abilities that are somehow no longer spells.  Yes, its a small percentage of total monsters, but the ones it does affect are in many cases often used or spotlighted in games.  Its a serious blow to process simulation, which as you know is very important to me and already an area where D&D needs more help than it used to.  Combined with a series of major lore changes (most of which I also don't like), and everything WotC is doing points to a future i don't want.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MichaelSomething said:


> Expect things like D&D themed restaurants, a cinematic universe, and a streaming service!



so far we have a movie... and as much as I hope it is seen by general audiences to be awesome, I think that your dream of D&D themed restaurants, a cinematic universe, and a streaming service is premature (not saying WotC isn't ALSO counting there chicks before they hatch they may be)


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Almost every spellcaster suffered a drastic cut to spells known, and replaced commonly used spells with abilities that are somehow no longer spells.  Yes, its a small percentage of total monsters, but the ones it does affect are in many cases often used or spotlighted in games.  Its a serious blow to process simulation, which as you know is very important to me and already an area where D&D needs more help than it used to.  Combined with a series of major lore changes (most of which I also don't like), and everything WotC is doing points to a future i don't want.



5E already isn't a process simulation system, ao it's not a fundamental change.


----------



## MichaelSomething

GMforPowergamers said:


> so far we have a movie... and as much as I hope it is seen by general audiences to be awesome, I think that your dream of D&D themed restaurants, a cinematic universe, and a streaming service is premature (not saying WotC isn't ALSO counting there chicks before they hatch they may be)



How about we start with a D&D themed fast food combo?


----------



## HammerMan

MichaelSomething said:


> How about we start with a D&D themed fast food combo?



I want a FR or GH themes midweek times with special effects for magic.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> 5E already isn't a process simulation system, ao it's not a fundamental change.



Its all a spectrum.  The further away they get from the sim i want, the harder it is for me to fix it.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> Its all a spectrum.  The further away they get from the sim i want, the harder it is for me to fix it.




I know we've had this discussion, but that's in large part because you're trying to hammer nails with a wrench.  I understand your reasons for doing so--and they're legitimate--but waiting around for a game to be more hammer-like rather than leaning into its wrench-ness when that's how its been going for a while is pretty much asking for frustration.


----------



## Hussar

And, I’d point out that the “major” lore changes are in fact far less drastic than 5e already did on release and, again only affect a handful of creatures. 

Looking at those links provided above, I’m really not seeing any major changes. Most tables won’t even notice.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Thomas Shey said:


> I know we've had this discussion, but that's in large part because you're trying to hammer nails with a wrench.  I understand your reasons for doing so--and they're legitimate--but waiting around for a game to be more hammer-like rather than leaning into its wrench-ness when that's how its been going for a while is pretty much asking for frustration.



I know...I know.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> And, I’d point out that the “major” lore changes are in fact far less drastic than 5e already did on release and, again only affect a handful of creatures.
> 
> Looking at those links provided above, I’m really not seeing any major changes. Most tables won’t even notice.



I never liked most of 5e's lore changes anyway, and for the most part they've gotten worse.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Goblinoids are Fay now?  Nah.


----------



## SakanaSensei

DarkCrisis said:


> Goblinoids are Fay now?  Nah.



But like, that's what they are in a lot of the stories that goblins are based on. I do think that "everything is fae now" has maybe gone a little far recently, but the gobbo change doesn't bother me one bit, personally.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mister_Fish said:


> But like, that's what they are in a lot of the stories that goblins are based on. I do think that "everything is fae now" has maybe gone a little far recently, but the gobbo change doesn't bother me one bit, personally.



Faerie has been the original of a huge number of supernatural beings across many cultures around the world for thousands of years.  D&D has (or rather had) it's own way of categorizing existing monsters.  Why make a change like this to a major monster grouping that's been portrayed pretty consistently for nearly 50 years?


----------



## SakanaSensei

Micah Sweet said:


> Faerie has been the original of a huge number of supernatural beings across many cultures around the world for thousands of years.  D&D has (or rather had) it's own way of categorizing existing monsters.  Why make a change like this to a major monster grouping that's been portrayed pretty consistently for nearly 50 years?



To give people a new take on the lineage as they become an increasingly popular PC choice, kind of like the orcish cultural rewrite in A5E, a game I know I've seen you espouse the positives of here on the boards. Sometimes it's ok to change things if the new way of looking at something makes it more interesting to a given subset of people.

I happen to like fae gobs. Sorry you don't.


----------



## teitan

Parmandur said:


> I think you misestimate the demographics of many earlier Editions: WotC has said that the main audience reached for 3E and 4E were still teens and twenty somethings (like I was at the time), but spaces like this tend to overrepresnt longetermers. 5E is more successful at brining more people in, but the fluctuating and primarily younger audience was a constant.
> 
> I would suggest that thinking about 2014 and 2024 D&D as heirs of AD&D is going to be confusing here, because a better comparison is Basic D&D, the model consistently cited by WotC as their strategy moving forwards. Counting OD&D, Basic saw 6 editions between 1974-1994 prior to being folded into AD&D. I expect thst the 2014 material and the 2024 material will work together like Moldvay B/X, Meltzer BECMi, and Allston Rules Cyclopedia Editions of the game. I will still be able to run a 2024 party through Princes of the Apocalyspe. We already have new Monster and race rules playing right next to the old.



Yeah but BX and BECMI/RC aren’t really compatible. They made changes to the classes to stretch them to 36 levels so BX characters, as flimsy as they can be, still outclass BECMI and RC characters up to a certain level. Fighters really are the only class untouched between those variations.


----------



## teitan

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm going to go on record saying that I fear 5e will be very akin to the Nintendo Wii in that it's massively popular but a large amount of the consumers aren't at all interested in chasing that dragon a second time.
> 
> The Wii was one of the most successful consoles of all time in getting new players in on the experience of videogames.  The Wii U was a massive flop giving everyone "slightly nicer more of the same".



The WiiU flopped because it was not marketed properly and people thought it was a peripheral to the Wii. It was a pretty good little system. I still have mine hooked up!


----------



## Parmandur

teitan said:


> Yeah but BX and BECMI/RC aren’t really compatible. They made changes to the classes to stretch them to 36 levels so BX characters, as flimsy as they can be, still outclass BECMI and RC characters up to a certain level. Fighters really are the only class untouched between those variations.



Fair enough, I only know Basic by reputation and the modules.

Still seems to be a more viable comparison for the 5E revision than most of the AD&D line changes, even 3.0>3.5.

And the modules and such remained evergreen across Basic's lifespan.

Maybe:

B/X : BECMI

as

3E : 3.5

Whereas:

BECMI : RC

as

5E : "2024 D&D"


----------



## Parmandur

teitan said:


> The WiiU flopped because it was not marketed properly and people thought it was a peripheral to the Wii. It was a pretty good little system. I still have mine hooked up!



Thst is because you are a scholar and gentleperson, clearly.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Faerie has been the original of a huge number of supernatural beings across many cultures around the world for thousands of years.  D&D has (or rather had) it's own way of categorizing existing monsters.  Why make a change like this to a major monster grouping that's been portrayed pretty consistently for nearly 50 years?



D&D has never been consistent in categorization.  Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type".  It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type.  SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> D&D has never been consistent in categorization.  Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type".  It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type.  SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.



I'm talking about descriptions here, not game mechanic-driven categories.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> D&D has never been consistent in categorization.  Human/Demi/humanoid then humanoid as a "type".  It wasn't until 3e that they even attempted actual categorization - with actual mechanics tied to type.  SO, no, there has been zero consistency for 50 years.



Fun fact: BECMI actually did creature types first, in the Creature Catalogue (purely descriptive), and again in the Rules Cyclopedia (with actual mechanics attached to some). Only learned this recently myself.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm talking about descriptions here, not game mechanic-driven categories.




But even that is basically unrecognizable over time. Kobolds aren’t little dog people. Gnolls aren’t giants anymore. Orcs aren’t a kind of goblin. Halflings today wouldn’t even register as halflings in 1980. Dragons have been massively reworked many times. 

Hell we’ve got a pretty popular column on en world detailing the changes to creatures over time. 

On and on. I’m completely baffled by claims that there was some sort of platonic ideal past that we’ve departed from. Every single element of DnD has changed multiple times over the years.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> But even that is basically unrecognizable over time. Kobolds aren’t little dog people. Gnolls aren’t giants anymore. Orcs aren’t a kind of goblin. Halflings today wouldn’t even register as halflings in 1980. Dragons have been massively reworked many times.
> 
> Hell we’ve got a pretty popular column on en world detailing the changes to creatures over time.
> 
> On and on. I’m completely baffled by claims that there was some sort of platonic ideal past that we’ve departed from. Every single element of DnD has changed multiple times over the years.



Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change?  It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change?  It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.



Somw always have complained when the same thing happened in the past. Sometimes people just don't like something changing. But D&D is very fluid historically. This is small potatoes.


----------



## Echohawk

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change?  It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.



As the saying goes, WotC could give away wads of cash, and someone would complain about how it was folded.

It is perfectly valid for someone not to like the changes to monster in _Monsters of the Multiverse_, but basing that opinion on a mistaken belief that monsters have _ever_ been handled with any level of consistency in D&D's past doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## JEB

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change?  It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.



Speaking personally, I could live with this retcon, but it's definitely a change from the past 48 years of goblinoid lore, and more significantly, one that's represented explicitly in rules as well as lore. So I can see why it bugs some people. I think it would have been better to have the Feywild goblinoids exist alongside classic goblinoids, rather than asking folks to either go with the new lore if they want to stay official, or move to homebrew.


----------



## Sabathius42

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, then explain to me how people can complain about this change?  It may not have always been consistent, but this could be a bridge too far for some.



Old=Crotchety

Not a lot of teens and young adults lamenting modern 5e changes.

In my case I am old...but I adopted "every being can max any stat and adopt every motivation" before 3e rolled around so most changes aren't activating my crochety sensors.

I do find myself not interested in the direction 5e is taking with less gritty storylines and anything goes plotting, but I'm mature enough to realize this game isn't being designed for me anymore.  It's not ruined, it's just evolved to something different.

I'd prefer the game stayed the way I like it to be but I completely understand why it isn't.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Speaking personally, I could live with this retcon, but it's definitely a change from the past 48 years of goblinoid lore, and more significantly, one that's represented explicitly in rules as well as lore. So I can see why it bugs some people. I think it would have been better to have the Feywild goblinoids exist alongside classic goblinoids, rather than asking folks to either go with the new lore if they want to stay official, or move to homebrew.



The main thing it has going for it, though, is bringing Goblins more in line with standard pop culture tropes of what a Goblin is, and differentiates them from Orcs or Kobolds.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> Speaking personally, I could live with this retcon, but it's definitely a change from the past 48 years of goblinoid lore, and more significantly, one that's represented explicitly in rules as well as lore. So I can see why it bugs some people. I think it would have been better to have the Feywild goblinoids exist alongside classic goblinoids, rather than asking folks to either go with the new lore if they want to stay official, or move to homebrew.



That is exactly what I'm saying.  It is a real change to 48 years of lore, that also has a rules aspect.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Sabathius42 said:


> Old=Crotchety
> 
> Not a lot of teens and young adults lamenting modern 5e changes.
> 
> In my case I am old...but I adopted "every being can max any stat and adopt every motivation" before 3e rolled around so most changes aren't activating my crochety sensors.
> 
> I do find myself not interested in the direction 5e is taking with less gritty storylines and anything goes plotting, but I'm mature enough to realize this game isn't being designed for me anymore.  It's not ruined, it's just evolved to something different.
> 
> I'd prefer the game stayed the way I like it to be but I completely understand why it isn't.



Yeah, WotC can do what they want, I guess.  I have nearly 50 years of good material to play with, and an excellent 3PP to work with in the form of Level Up.  I hope there's something worth pulling out of the Spelljammer stuff coming up, but other than that, WotC and I are parting ways.


----------



## JEB

Echohawk said:


> It is perfectly valid for someone not to like the changes to monster in _Monsters of the Multiverse_, but basing that opinion on a mistaken belief that monsters have _ever_ been handled with any level of consistency in D&D's past doesn't make a lot of sense.



Kind of surprised to hear you, as someone very familiar with monsters throughout the editions, suggest that they've been inconsistent throughout the game's entire history. 2E, for example, practically copy-and-pastes the flavor text for many core monsters from 1E. There have indeed been changes with time, but they're generally minor, additive, or based around rules changes, rather than conceptual reworks. (4E, of course, was a notable exception to this.)


----------



## Echohawk

JEB said:


> Kind of surprised to hear you, as someone very familiar with monsters throughout the editions, suggest that they've been inconsistent throughout the game's entire history. 2E, for example, practically copy-and-pastes the flavor text for many core monsters from 1E. There have indeed been changes with time, but they're generally minor, additive, or based around rules changes, rather than conceptual reworks. (4E, of course, was a notable exception to this.)



Some monsters have remained somewhat consistent, but at least as many have not. From 1e to 2e, the approach to monster updates was quite lazy, with much copied flavour text, sometimes even when the underlying mechanics no longer reflected that flavour. The jumps from 2e to 3e, from 3e to 4e and from 4e to 5e had far more extensive changes to many monsters.

Frequently, it is easy to overlook how inconsistently monsters have been presented. Let's take Spelljammer's asteroid spider as an example. If you were to take a quick look at _MC7_ and the recent _Monstrous Compendium Volume One_ you'd probably conclude that since they are both ten-legged spiders living on asteroids, they hadn't changed much.

A closer inspection reveals that the original was a medium-sized predator that used a paralytic poison and could go into a form of suspended animation, while the new version is a gargantuan spider that weaves webs capable of snaring spelljamming ships, which it can surpress the spelljamming capabilities of. The new version doesn't even explicitly have ten legs, although it is illustrated with ten. A close look at most creature across the editions reveals similar changes.


----------



## AnotherGuy

If this hasn't been mentioned in the posts following the OP I'd be very surprised.
DMs Guild did not exist for previous editions - you want 5e splat - go to DMs Guild. I'm sure if you take DMs Guild, Enworld's 5e pamphlet and Level Up + official published and you'd likely end up with the same  or likely even more than what was done/available in previous editions.


----------



## Yora

Sabathius42 said:


> I do find myself not interested in the direction 5e is taking with less gritty storylines and anything goes plotting, but I'm mature enough to realize this game isn't being designed for me anymore.  It's not ruined, it's just evolved to something different.



Maybe not even that. New D&D really just introduce new games, they don't replace existing ones.

I would suspect that AD&D 1st edition and B/X are still being played much more than many recent critics' darlings RPGs.


----------



## Echohawk

JEB said:


> Kind of surprised to hear you, as someone very familiar with monsters throughout the editions, suggest that they've been inconsistent throughout the game's entire history.



I was curious about goblins specifically, so I spent half an hour or so skimming through their write ups. It turns out that they are actually one of the more consistently presented races, and yet...

They have drifted from their original lawful evil alignment (1e/2e) to neutral evil (3e), to just evil (4e), through to 5e's prevarication. 
In OD&D they hated dwarves so much that they would attack on sight. This antipathy gradually faded through editions.
The 1st Edition _Monster Manual_ implies that they may be related to kobolds. This is a relationship that continues to be mentioned throughout 1st and 2nd Edition, until kobolds became something different in 3e.
BX and BECMI give goblins eyes that glow red in the dark. They don't seem to have these glowing eyes in any other version.
Until 3rd Edition, goblin aversion to sunlight is constantly emphasised. Yet from 3rd Edition onward, this seems to have been entirely dropped.
4th Edition implies that goblins may have been the magical creations of the hobgoblins when the hobgoblins ran an ancient empire.
The revelation in_ Monsters of the Multiverse_ that goblins were originally fey makes it clear that goblins themselves are unaware of this distant history. In that sense, this is "additive" lore, in that it doesn't detract from what was previously understood, it just adds another layer. Mechanically, goblins now gain Fey Ancestry giving them resistance to charm. This is a change, sure, but not something that is likely to have a massive impact on how PCs experience goblins in practice.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced that "but this changes everything we know about goblins" is a reason for disliking the recent changes that stands up to close scrutiny. Would the new goblins be more acceptable if they were glowing red-eyed, sunlight averse, compulsive dwarf killers, who were magically created by hobgoblins before they became fey?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Echohawk said:


> I was curious about goblins specifically, so I spent half an hour or so skimming through their write ups. It turns out that they are actually one of the more consistently presented races, and yet...
> 
> They have drifted from their original lawful evil alignment (1e/2e) to neutral evil (3e), to just evil (4e), through to 5e's prevarication.
> In OD&D they hated dwarves so much that they would attack on sight. This antipathy gradually faded through editions.
> The 1st Edition _Monster Manual_ implies that they may be related to kobolds. This is a relationship that continues to be mentioned throughout 1st and 2nd Edition, until kobolds became something different in 3e.
> BX and BECMI give goblins eyes that glow red in the dark. They don't seem to have these glowing eyes in any other version.
> Until 3rd Edition, goblin aversion to sunlight is constantly emphasised. Yet from 3rd Edition onward, this seems to have been entirely dropped.
> 4th Edition implies that goblins may have been the magical creations of the hobgoblins when the hobgoblins ran an ancient empire.
> The revelation in_ Monsters of the Multiverse_ that goblins were originally fey makes it clear that goblins themselves are unaware of this distant history. In that sense, this is "additive" lore, in that it doesn't detract from what was previously understood, it just adds another layer. Mechanically, goblins now gain Fey Ancestry giving them resistance to charm. This is a change, sure, but not something that is likely to have a massive impact on how PCs experience goblins in practice.
> 
> Bottom line: I'm not convinced that "but this changes everything we know about goblins" is a reason for disliking the recent changes that stands up to close scrutiny. Would the new goblins be more acceptable if they were glowing red-eyed, sunlight averse, compulsive dwarf killers, who were magically created by hobgoblins before they became fey?



My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.


----------



## Echohawk

Micah Sweet said:


> My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.



That reason makes far more sense to me than not liking it because it changes decades of goblin lore.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Echohawk said:


> That reason makes far more sense to me than not liking it because it changes decades of goblin lore.



Well, in general I also don't care for retcons that don't add anything valuable to me to the lore of the world, but the other reasons are more important.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.



And that's a fair assessment. You don't have to like every change. A lot of people hate draconic kobolds, elemental giants, and demonic gnolls. 

That said, I think a trend is starting to emerge: the various classic evil humanoids are going to get more diverse origin stories than "born of an evil deity and forced to serve." Kobolds are connected to dragons. Gnolls to fiends. Derro to aberrations. Now goblinoids to the fey. It appears only orcs so far aren't being connected to a larger creature group, and that's probably to prep them for their upgrade to PC race status. (A guess on my part). 

On the one hand, I think it adds a lot more flavor to humanoids to give them connections like that. Kobolds benefited greatly from the blood of dragons theming since 3e, and I find 5e gnolls far more interesting than the older hyena men. Goblins becoming fey+like give them more room to be tricksy and whimsical but also sadistic and cruel. It might also add some more interesting ideas into D&D goblins who have been overshadowed by the chaotic energy of Pathfinder goblins since they became a thing. 

But different strokes and all that.


----------



## TwoSix

Remathilis said:


> On the one hand, I think it adds a lot more flavor to humanoids to give them connections like that. Kobolds benefited greatly from the blood of dragons theming since 3e, and I find 5e gnolls far more interesting than the older hyena men. Goblins becoming fey+like give them more room to be tricksy and whimsical but also sadistic and cruel. It might also add some more interesting ideas into D&D goblins who have been overshadowed by the chaotic energy of Pathfinder goblins since they became a thing.



Yea, I definitely prefer the more overt Faerie origin for goblinkind, it fits better with how I use them.  Goblins are disgusting tricksters and pranksters, with focuses of toilet humor and weird technology.  Hobgoblins are their antithesis, focused soldiers, and more of an Unseelie mirror to high elves.  (In that they are material plane dwelling descendants of the "rank and file" denizens of Faerie.)  Bugbears then become almost literal boogeymen, who leap from shadows to capture children and the weak for their next meal.


----------



## JEB

Echohawk said:


> I was curious about goblins specifically, so I spent half an hour or so skimming through their write ups. It turns out that they are actually one of the more consistently presented races, and yet...
> 
> They have drifted from their original lawful evil alignment (1e/2e) to neutral evil (3e), to just evil (4e), through to 5e's prevarication.
> In OD&D they hated dwarves so much that they would attack on sight. This antipathy gradually faded through editions.
> The 1st Edition _Monster Manual_ implies that they may be related to kobolds. This is a relationship that continues to be mentioned throughout 1st and 2nd Edition, until kobolds became something different in 3e.
> BX and BECMI give goblins eyes that glow red in the dark. They don't seem to have these glowing eyes in any other version.
> Until 3rd Edition, goblin aversion to sunlight is constantly emphasised. Yet from 3rd Edition onward, this seems to have been entirely dropped.
> 4th Edition implies that goblins may have been the magical creations of the hobgoblins when the hobgoblins ran an ancient empire.
> The revelation in_ Monsters of the Multiverse_ that goblins were originally fey makes it clear that goblins themselves are unaware of this distant history. In that sense, this is "additive" lore, in that it doesn't detract from what was previously understood, it just adds another layer. Mechanically, goblins now gain Fey Ancestry giving them resistance to charm. This is a change, sure, but not something that is likely to have a massive impact on how PCs experience goblins in practice.
> 
> Bottom line: I'm not convinced that "but this changes everything we know about goblins" is a reason for disliking the recent changes that stands up to close scrutiny. Would the new goblins be more acceptable if they were glowing red-eyed, sunlight averse, compulsive dwarf killers, who were magically created by hobgoblins before they became fey?



Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:

They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:
> 
> They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
> By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
> You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)



Yeah, contradicting material within the edition is a bit of a bigger deal.  It makes it harder to compartmentalize (which is my primary way of dealing with changes in the game I don't care for, and which has been increasingly more difficult in the last few years).  Of course, being surrounded online by people who apparently love everything WotC's doing doesn't make it any easier.


----------



## Sabathius42

JEB said:


> Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:
> 
> They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
> By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
> You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)



Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Sabathius42 said:


> Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?



The latter.

Which is why the complaints about "fey aesthetics" and so on are rather perplexing. It seems to be more of an imagined future issue than anything that's actually happening.


----------



## Parmandur

Sabathius42 said:


> Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?






Ruin Explorer said:


> The latter.
> 
> Which is why the complaints about "fey aesthetics" and so on are rather perplexing. It seems to be more of an imagined future issue than anything that's actually happening.



Actually...both. Goblinoids on the Material Plane ate Humanoids with Fey Ancestry now, but some of the Goblinoid monster stat blocks are now Fey (Nilbog, etc), with text explaining that some Goblinoids are still in the Feywild.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, contradicting material within the edition is a bit of a bigger deal. It makes it harder to compartmentalize (which is my primary way of dealing with changes in the game I don't care for, and which has been increasingly more difficult in the last few years). Of course, being surrounded online by people who apparently love everything WotC's doing doesn't make it any easier.



I think the biggest thing was there was never the outside pressure to change the lore. You can almost feel the brakes slammed on after the famous "orcs and drow" column. What would be acceptable in 2016 was not in 2020. I think they had to find a way to change directions while speeding along the highway at full speed. 

Lots of legacy media has been facing this problem. Even Paizo has been tackling this. Everyone is finding where the path will go next. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> What would be acceptable in 2016 was not in 2020.



I have to say I think the issue was that a lot of the stuff in Volo's wasn't acceptable in 2016. But as D&D had a much smaller audience, and even as it grew, relatively few people actually read the fluff sections of a DM-only book, few people even noted how wildly creepy the stuff on Orcs was. I think the idea that society changed or standards changed over those 4 year is misguided. What happened is that something which was already off gradually percolated up to the surface and became obviously wrong.

As supporting evidence I'd present the Vistani in 4E vs. the Vistani in early 5E. In 4E, the Vistani were significantly re-jigged to attempt to remove problematic elements. 100% successful? No. But like 80%. Then 5E just straight-up reverted to 2E on this. It's not that standards changed. It's that attention wasn't paid. The fairly-quick but equally quickly dismissed backlash against 5E's portrayal of Vistani kind of shows that.

5E was an apology edition, and part of that "apology" was taking the lore back to some old-skool places without really thinking through The Implications. I haven't read the 2E Orc description in the MM but I'm guessing it's less full of racist dogwhistles than 5E's one is, not more. Not intentionally, sure, but it shows an issue.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> I think the biggest thing was there was never the outside pressure to change the lore. You can almost feel the brakes slammed on after the famous "orcs and drow" column. What would be acceptable in 2016 was not in 2020. I think they had to find a way to change directions while speeding along the highway at full speed.
> 
> Lots of legacy media has been facing this problem. Even Paizo has been tackling this. Everyone is finding where the path will go next. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely.



Yeah, that's it right there.  I don't care for this new pressure at all, and it's making me inclined to dig in my heels.


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> I have to say I think the issue was that a lot of the stuff in Volo's wasn't acceptable in 2016. But as D&D had a much smaller audience, and even as it grew, relatively few people actually read the fluff sections of a DM-only book, few people even noted how wildly creepy the stuff on Orcs was. I think the idea that society changed or standards changed over those 4 year is misguided. What happened is that something which was already off gradually percolated up to the surface and became obviously wrong.



I think perhaps I should have said "what they could get away with".


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I have to say I think the issue was that a lot of the stuff in Volo's wasn't acceptable in 2016. But as D&D had a much smaller audience, and even as it grew, relatively few people actually read the fluff sections of a DM-only book, few people even noted how wildly creepy the stuff on Orcs was. I think the idea that society changed or standards changed over those 4 year is misguided. What happened is that something which was already off gradually percolated up to the surface and became obviously wrong.
> 
> As supporting evidence I'd present the Vistani in 4E vs. the Vistani in early 5E. In 4E, the Vistani were significantly re-jigged to attempt to remove problematic elements. 100% successful? No. But like 80%. Then 5E just straight-up reverted to 2E on this. It's not that standards changed. It's that attention wasn't paid. The fairly-quick but equally quickly dismissed backlash against 5E's portrayal of Vistani kind of shows that.



There have been pretty significant cultural shifts in the U.S. since 2016, and it's not just game rules.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> I have to say I think the issue was that a lot of the stuff in Volo's wasn't acceptable in 2016. But as D&D had a much smaller audience, and even as it grew, relatively few people actually read the fluff sections of a DM-only book, few people even noted how wildly creepy the stuff on Orcs was. I think the idea that society changed or standards changed over those 4 year is misguided. What happened is that something which was already off gradually percolated up to the surface and became obviously wrong.



I don't think there was anything "gradual" about how this issue was presented publicly, and WotC's profit-driven refusal to make a clean break with a new edition is making it much harder to adjust than it otherwise would have been.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ruin Explorer said:


> I have to say I think the issue was that a lot of the stuff in Volo's wasn't acceptable in 2016. But as D&D had a much smaller audience, and even as it grew, relatively few people actually read the fluff sections of a DM-only book, few people even noted how wildly creepy the stuff on Orcs was. I think the idea that society changed or standards changed over those 4 year is misguided. What happened is that something which was already off gradually percolated up to the surface and became obviously wrong.
> 
> As supporting evidence I'd present the Vistani in 4E vs. the Vistani in early 5E. In 4E, the Vistani were significantly re-jigged to attempt to remove problematic elements. 100% successful? No. But like 80%. Then 5E just straight-up reverted to 2E on this. It's not that standards changed. It's that attention wasn't paid. The fairly-quick but equally quickly dismissed backlash against 5E's portrayal of Vistani kind of shows that.
> 
> 5E was an apology edition, and part of that "apology" was taking the lore back to some old-skool places without really thinking through The Implications. I haven't read the 2E Orc description in the MM but I'm guessing it's less full of racist dogwhistles than 5E's one is, not more. Not intentionally, sure, but it shows an issue.



I'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident either. These portrayals were very much about 'winning back' fans of earlier editions who they thought really liked this sort of thing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> There have been pretty significant cultural shifts in the U.S. since 2016, and it's not just game rules.



Sure, but seem my point re: Vistani. It already wasn't okay. People knew already that it wasn't okay. WotC decided "eh who cares" to that. The person who wrote the VGTM stuff on Orcs probably didn't realize how racist what he was writing was, probably didn't realize how perfectly it lined up with some horrific portrayals of certain races, but he definitely had to realize he was taking Orcs back to an older place, and unless he was a truly clueless numpty realized that what he was writing at least lined up with some RL racism.


Micah Sweet said:


> WotC's profit-driven refusal to make a clean break with a new edition is making it much harder to adjust than it otherwise would have been.



No question that has been a problem, agree completely. I'm not saying they had to do a "new edition" on the spot when they realized this stuff wasn't going to fly but I don't think it's any accident Volos is one of the books going OOP, no doubt taking all that text with it forever.


Vaalingrade said:


> I'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident either. These portrayals were very much about 'winning back' fans of earlier editions who they thought really liked this sort of thing.



Oh definitely not an accident, yeah. They were looking for old-school portrayals, and er... maybe they dug a little too deep and too greedily in their quest for them.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, but seem my point re: Vistani. It already wasn't okay. People knew already that it wasn't okay. WotC decided "eh who cares" to that. The person who wrote the VGTM stuff on Orcs probably didn't realize how racist what he was writing was, probably didn't realize how perfectly it lined up with some horrific portrayals of certain races, but he definitely had to realize he was taking Orcs back to an older place, and unless he was a truly clueless numpty realized that what he was writing at least lined up with some RL racism.



Objectively, yes, but that level of background racism was more normal 7 years ago, not thwt we've made huge strides or anything, but...things have changed. People have changed. Inch by inch.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oh definitely not an accident, yeah. They were looking for old-school portrayals, and er... maybe they dug a little too deep and too greedily in their quest for them.



That's the part I don't think was an accident. They heard 'I want a race it's okay to murder just like back in the day', so they used the traditional ways you make a race of people 'okay' to murder. 

It's not like they weren't aware of the 40 year argument over this and just bumbled into it like Laurel and Hardy into a mummy. They saw what certain other games that appealed to their then intended target treated this, figured they weren't enough in the limelight to get much blowback and said 'yes. I want that.'.

Then pop culture said 'Hey, remember D&D? That's nostalgic and profitable. Let's all look in that direction now!' and they got caught putting terrible things in their books.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Vaalingrade said:


> That's the part I don't think was an accident. They heard 'I want a race it's okay to murder just like back in the day', so they used the traditional ways you make a race of people 'okay' to murder.
> 
> It's not like they weren't aware of the 40 year argument over this and just bumbled into it like Laurel and Hardy into a mummy. They saw what certain other games that appealed to their then intended target treated this, figured they weren't enough in the limelight to get much blowback and said 'yes. I want that.'.
> 
> Then pop culture said 'Hey, remember D&D? That's nostalgic and profitable. Let's all look in that direction now!' and they got caught putting terrible things in their books.



Yeah sorry I was enjoying my lame LotR joke a little too much there, but yes fundamentally I agree this wasn't Laurel bumping into a Mummy, there was real intentionality behind making a race you could be excused for killing mindlessly (and which wasn't a bioroid/robot, demon, non-sentient or the like). And yeah then it suddenly wasn't a good look.


----------



## Echohawk

JEB said:


> They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant



If we're including other goblinoids in the comparison, then we would also need to look at the changes to hobgoblins and bugbears between/within other editions. I haven't checked, but I strongly suspect that both of those changed more than vanilla goblins did. (I'm still a bit surprised by how consistent the goblin has remained compared to... well, most monsters really.)


JEB said:


> Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids.



I agree that the sudden change to fey seems like a more radical change than any one of the things on my list. It also comes a little out of left field to me. During a quick perusal, I didn't find any indications or hints in previous lore that goblins might be fey. I don't particularly _mind_ the new fey origin, but it feels sudden.


JEB said:


> You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition



Looking at a full list of changes in _Monsters of the Multiverse_, and following @Leatherhead 's excellent Let's Read thread. I also agree that the only (somewhat) comparable mid-edition changes to monsters would be from 3.0 to 3.5. Third edition relied heavily on crunchy numbers in monster stat blocks, so 3.0->3.5 had many more numbers change. In terms of lore though, early 5e to current 5e now seems to be comparable to 3.0->3.5—small changes all over the place, and a few creatures where, if you look closely, there are much more significant updates.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, that's it right there.  I don't care for this new pressure at all, and it's making me inclined to dig in my heels.



Just as an aside, and hope this doesn't read as an attack, because it was hard for me to come to personally, and took me a while, just because someone or society is pressuring you, does _not_ mean digging your heels in or being difficult is inherently right, honest, smart, decent, admirable or anything like that. It feels like maybe it should be, but it isn't. It's certainly as bad to instinctually dig your heels in as it is to mindlessly capitulate to pressure. You've got to find a way to look at how things might be without the pressure, and see if things make sense.

Once I started doing that it became obvious sometimes I actually see the point, and sometimes, you don't. I think with this issue, whilst the pressure may cause one to want to be contrarian, a cold, sober analysis of things will suggest that's not the best approach.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's not a binary. It's not resist or agree mindlessly. You find your footing, think about it for yourself. Even if you still feel like you disagree, it's likely your disagreement will be more specific/precise.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just as an aside, and hope this doesn't read as an attack, because it was hard for me to come to personally, and took me a while, just because someone or society is pressuring you, does _not_ mean digging your heels in or being difficult is inherently right, honest, smart, decent, admirable or anything like that. It feels like maybe it should be, but it isn't. It's certainly as bad to instinctually dig your heels in as it is to mindlessly capitulate to pressure. You've got to find a way to look at how things might be without the pressure, and see if things make sense.
> 
> Once I started doing that it became obvious sometimes I actually see the point, and sometimes, you don't. I think with this issue, whilst the pressure may cause one to want to be contrarian, a cold, sober analysis of things will suggest that's not the best approach.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is, it's not a binary. It's not resist or agree mindlessly. You find your footing, think about it for yourself. Even if you still feel like you disagree, it's likely your disagreement will be more specific/precise.



Well, I'm not entirely made of stone.  Before Level Up rendered the question moot in my favor, I was coming around to the idea of Tasha's race changes, and most of the other stuff in there seems fine too.  I'm fine with new options as long as they don't (gleefully it seems sometimes) replace the old.


----------



## occam

Echohawk said:


> I agree that the sudden change to fey seems like a more radical change than any one of the things on my list. It also comes a little out of left field to me. During a quick perusal, I didn't find any indications or hints in previous lore that goblins might be fey. I don't particularly _mind_ the new fey origin, but it feels sudden.



There was a hint of it in 4e; goblins had a notable Feywild presence, so they were already thinking along those lines.


----------



## Micah Sweet

occam said:


> There was a hint of it in 4e; goblins had a notable Feywild presence, so they were already thinking along those lines.



Fortunately for me, 4e was blissfully easy to ignore once I was done with it; my instinct to compartmentalize stuff I don't like worked out great there.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

DarkCrisis said:


> Goblinoids are Fay now?  Nah.



Makes sense Goblinoids were Fey related in actual myth. And most Goblinoids are Fey descended not actual fey. What with the whole conquest by their god thing.


----------



## Parmandur

Echohawk said:


> If we're including other goblinoids in the comparison, then we would also need to look at the changes to hobgoblins and bugbears between/within other editions. I haven't checked, but I strongly suspect that both of those changed more than vanilla goblins did. (I'm still a bit surprised by how consistent the goblin has remained compared to... well, most monsters really.)
> 
> I agree that the sudden change to fey seems like a more radical change than any one of the things on my list. It also comes a little out of left field to me. During a quick perusal, I didn't find any indications or hints in previous lore that goblins might be fey. I don't particularly _mind_ the new fey origin, but it feels sudden.
> 
> Looking at a full list of changes in _Monsters of the Multiverse_, and following @Leatherhead 's excellent Let's Read thread. I also agree that the only (somewhat) comparable mid-edition changes to monsters would be from 3.0 to 3.5. Third edition relied heavily on crunchy numbers in monster stat blocks, so 3.0->3.5 had many more numbers change. In terms of lore though, early 5e to current 5e now seems to be comparable to 3.0->3.5—small changes all over the place, and a few creatures where, if you look closely, there are much more significant updates.



The two major factors in Gonlons being Fey:

1.) David Bowie and other pop culture depictions if Goblins, not to mention the folk culture origins 

2.) The continuing cross-fertilization of Magic the Gathering IP with D&D worlds. Magic Goblins are very, very Fey.


----------



## Sabathius42

Parmandur said:


> Actually...both. Goblinoids on the Material Plane ate Humanoids with Fey Ancestry now, but some of the Goblinoid monster stat blocks are now Fey (Nilbog, etc), with text explaining that some Goblinoids are still in the Feywild.



Nilbogs being a fey creature existing to sow havoc makes a lot more sense to me than some random reality warping disease called nilbogism.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Sabathius42 said:


> Nilbogs being a fey creature existing to sow havoc makes a lot more sense to me than some random reality warping disease called nilbogism.



Well, I'm glad WotC has managed to capture the zeitgeist of the majority of ENworld posters.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, that's it right there.  I don't care for this new pressure at all, and it's making me inclined to dig in my heels.




Then I'd suggest getting used to being a participant in a war you probably don't really want to be in.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Thomas Shey said:


> Then I'd suggest getting used to being a participant in a war you probably don't really want to be in.



What does that mean?


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> What does that mean?




There is a very nasty struggle that goes on in some circles between some traditionalists (some of whom are just traditionalists, but some of which are either subconscious or nothing-sub-about-it conscious racists, misogynists, homophobes and more) and people who think some elements of older games are, frankly, repugnant and were only not recognized at the time for what they were for various reasons.  The latter are not going to stop confronting people about it, and the former are going to fight rearguard actions to the bitter end for various reasons of various reasons.  Consider whether you really want to join the former group in that fight, given some of their motives and purposes.

Don't let me misrepresent myself here; in some respects I'm kind of traditionalist myself, but if I find myself on the same side of a fight with racists, I need a lot better a reason than "Its what I'm used to and comfortable with" before I want to be there.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Thomas Shey said:


> There is a very nasty struggle that goes on in some circles between some traditionalists (some of whom are just traditionalists, but some of which are either subconscious or nothing-sub-about-it conscious racists, misogynists, homophobes and more) and people who think some elements of older games are, frankly, repugnant and were only not recognized at the time for what they were for various reasons.  The latter are not going to stop confronting people about it, and the former are going to fight rearguard actions to the bitter end for various reasons of various reasons.  Consider whether you really want to join the former group in that fight, given some of their motives and purposes.
> 
> Don't let me misrepresent myself here; in some respects I'm kind of traditionalist myself, but if I find myself on the same side of a fight with racists, I need a lot better a reason than "Its what I'm used to and comfortable with" before I want to be there.



I'm going to make up my own mind about what changes I like and what I don't, and not simply roll over because the internet says I should, thank you.  I strongly resent the implication here that if you disagree with even parts of the cultural shift of the last few years, then you're on the same side as racists and need to re-think your opinion.

I think you should be able to use older material without being labeled for it.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm going to make up my own mind about what changes I like and what I don't, and not simply roll over because the internet says I should, thank you.  I strongly resent the implication here that if you disagree with even parts of the cultural shift of the last few years, then you're on the same side as racists and need to re-think your opinion.
> 
> I think you should be able to use older material without being labeled for it.




There's a big difference between "I'm going to keep using the material I have that I don't see as negative" and "I'm going to push back on the change."  Some people will argue with you about the former, but I'm talking about the latter.  That's a case of deciding if that's _really_ the hill you want to die on.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Thomas Shey said:


> There's a big difference between "I'm going to keep using the material I have that I don't see as negative" and "I'm going to push back on the change."  Some people will argue with you about the former, but I'm talking about the latter.  That's a case of deciding if that's _really_ the hill you want to die on.



Well, I'm talking about the former.  That's where I stand.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, I'm talking about the former.  That's where I stand.




It has the virtue it at least doesn't put you shoulder to shoulder with people you probably don't want to be.


----------



## DarkCrisis

MonsterEnvy said:


> Makes sense Goblinoids were Fey related in actual myth. And most Goblinoids are Fey descended not actual fey. What with the whole conquest by their god thing.



I'd say it depends on the world you are playing in.

Am I playing on Earth where Norse and Celtic Mythology are a thing?  Or am I playing in Faerun or Krynn or something where some evil god created the goblins?

But yes.  WotC can change whatever they want.  And Evil Gods didnt create any form of warlike race and everything comes from the realm of the faeries instead and got corrupted.  Good lord, look how the "fixed" Lolth..... 

In for a penny, in for a pound.


----------



## Staffan

Ruin Explorer said:


> 5E was an apology edition, and part of that "apology" was taking the lore back to some old-skool places without really thinking through The Implications. I haven't read the 2E Orc description in the MM but I'm guessing it's less full of racist dogwhistles than 5E's one is, not more. Not intentionally, sure, but it shows an issue.



I remember reacting pretty strongly to the passage about alignment in the 5e PHB. Specifically: "The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh. and are thus inelined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"

Fortunately, this bit has been memory holed in more recent printings as well as on D&D Beyond.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

DarkCrisis said:


> I'd say it depends on the world you are playing in.
> 
> Am I playing on Earth where Norse and Celtic Mythology are a thing?  Or am I playing in Faerun or Krynnor something where some evil god created the goblins?
> 
> But yes.  WotC can change whatever they want.  And Evil Gods didnt create any form of warlike race and everything comes from the realm of the faeries instead and got corrupted.  Good lord, look how the "fixed" Lolth.....
> 
> In for a penny, in for a pound.




What do you mean Lolth is the same as always from what I know. 

Goblin's are largely the same they just have different origins now. It helps differ them from Orcs more now who were created by a god. The Goblins instead were conquered by a god.


----------



## DarkCrisis

MonsterEnvy said:


> What do you mean Lolth is the same as always from what I know.
> 
> Goblin's are largely the same they just have different origins now. It helps differ them from Orcs more now who were created by a god. The Goblins instead were conquered by a god.




According the lastest Drizzt books: In Faerun Lolth was good.  The Drow acting evil corrupted her.  Currently she's turned her back on it all and her demons secretly run things in her name.  She still grants spells if a priestess asks but inst requiring prayers and sacrfices etc because she just doesnt care one way or the other.

This is what is about to cause the big civil war in Menzo as the head priestess now know the real history of the drow and her demons run things in her name since she cant be bothered to care, and if this info gets out well.... big changes for the Drow.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ha ha.

She's less incompetent simply not answering her followers than she is micromanaging them to mutual destruction.


----------



## Parmandur

Staffan said:


> I remember reacting pretty strongly to the passage about alignment in the 5e PHB. Specifically: "The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh. and are thus inelined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"
> 
> Fortunately, this bit has been memory holed in more recent printings as well as on D&D Beyond.



Yeah, that aged poorly.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> What do you mean Lolth is the same as always from what I know.
> 
> Goblin's are largely the same they just have different origins now. It helps differ them from Orcs more now who were created by a god. The Goblins instead were conquered by a god.



Yeah, the new lore is largely additive. The not necessarily evil Duergar are less a change from MToF, and more "MToF is the standard Dwarves racist views about their deep underground cousins." Evil Duergar tyrants are still doable, but their people are more complex moral agents.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

DarkCrisis said:


> According the lastest Drizzt books: In Faerun Lolth was good.  The Drow acting evil corrupted her.  Currently she's turned her back on it all and her demons secretly run things in her name.  She still grants spells if a priestess asks but inst requiring prayers and sacrfices etc because she just doesnt care one way or the other.
> 
> This is what is about to cause the big civil war in Menzo as the head priestess now know the real history of the drow and her demons run things in her name since she cant be bothered to care, and if this info gets out well.... big changes for the Drow.



Hmm interesting. Will look into this.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, contradicting material within the edition is a bit of a bigger deal.  It makes it harder to compartmentalize (which is my primary way of dealing with changes in the game I don't care for, and which has been increasingly more difficult in the last few years).  Of course, being surrounded online by people who apparently love everything WotC's doing doesn't make it any easier.



But that's a bit unreasonable don't you think considering that in the space of 5e, previously, we'd had two or even three editions pass.  Not expecting changes to lore within an edition is a bit trickier when your edition is going to last more than 10 years - if you consider the update an update and not a new edition (which I'm SURE will become a thing to argue about for the next decade) - then it might be insisting that lore be frozen in place for 20 years?  That's not reasonable.


----------



## Hussar

But, this whole goblin thing really does sort of line up with what I said before.

Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters?  I mean, sure, you might like to read about it or whatnot, but, does anyone actually care?  Are goblins suddenly not usable in Lost Mines of Phandelver because now they have a Fae origin?  Does anyone have to rewrite the module in any way, shape or form?  Would I suddenly need to rewrite Caves of Chaos because goblins are, many, many generations ago, descended from Fae?  

This is my point about tempest in a teacup.  Frankly, who cares?  It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game.  You can run exactly the same modules, in exactly the same way before and after.  It's just a nifty bit of flavor text that might lead to more stuff down the line.  I imagine that if they release new modules featuring goblins, they might play up the Fae aspect.  But, again, there's a million different ways to do that.

It's really funny to me.  Paizo completely rewrites goblins and gets nothing but a huge pat on the back for it.  WotC does far, far less to change goblins and they are abandoning fans.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Hussar said:


> It's really funny to me.  Paizo completely rewrites goblins and gets nothing but a huge pat on the back for it.




You were clearly _not_ hanging around PF-centric spaces when this happened.


----------



## SakanaSensei

The number of people I've seen praise A5E that has orcs driven by passion, celestial tieflings, halflings with claws and a burrowing speed, and so many more things (it's a really creative take on a lot of fantasy races, highly recommend even if you don't want all that crunch) and simultaneously be mad at floating ASIs and adjustments to monster lore is higher than expected, I'm similarly perplexed. Is it just because it's made by the site and gets a pass on Old Guard sensibilities because it's an in-crowd product? 

Is it because they're just ignoring the lore for the crunch they want, which is the exact thing they could be doing with WotC product but aren't because... reasons?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, I'm glad WotC has managed to capture the zeitgeist of the majority of ENworld posters.



And ENWorld is a lot more conservative than D&D posters as a whole. Largely because we're a lot older.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> But, this whole goblin thing really does sort of line up with what I said before.
> 
> Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters?  I mean, sure, you might like to read about it or whatnot, but, does anyone actually care?  Are goblins suddenly not usable in Lost Mines of Phandelver because now they have a Fae origin?  Does anyone have to rewrite the module in any way, shape or form?  Would I suddenly need to rewrite Caves of Chaos because goblins are, many, many generations ago, descended from Fae?
> 
> This is my point about tempest in a teacup.  Frankly, who cares?  It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game.  You can run exactly the same modules, in exactly the same way before and after.  It's just a nifty bit of flavor text that might lead to more stuff down the line.  I imagine that if they release new modules featuring goblins, they might play up the Fae aspect.  But, again, there's a million different ways to do that.
> 
> It's really funny to me.  Paizo completely rewrites goblins and gets nothing but a huge pat on the back for it.  WotC does far, far less to change goblins and they are abandoning fans.



If no one cares, you really have to wonder why they decided to do it then.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> If no one cares, you really have to wonder why they decided to do it then.



Because the amount of people whogo "oh, neat, I can work with that" outnumbered anyone bothered by the change, and probably by a lot.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mister_Fish said:


> The number of people I've seen praise A5E that has orcs driven by passion, celestial tieflings, halflings with claws and a burrowing speed, and so many more things (it's a really creative take on a lot of fantasy races, highly recommend even if you don't want all that crunch) and simultaneously be mad at floating ASIs and adjustments to monster lore is higher than expected, I'm similarly perplexed. Is it just because it's made by the site and gets a pass on Old Guard sensibilities because it's an in-crowd product?
> 
> Is it because they're just ignoring the lore for the crunch they want, which is the exact thing they could be doing with WotC product but aren't because... reasons?



Speaking for myself, there are two reasons:

1. A5e doesn't actually have floating ASIs, they're determined by your background, and the in-born traits of your heritage are provided for in that part of the origin far better than WorC ever did.

2. A5e isn't a setting, with its own lore (it has settings, but it isn't one in and of itself).  The D&D multiverse is a setting unto itself, and the lore WotC is changing is replacing existing lore.  They are changing the story,, which is what i cared about. Every weird option in A5e for a given heritage is just that, an option, and called out as such.


----------



## JEB

Remathilis said:


> Lots of legacy media has been facing this problem. Even Paizo has been tackling this. Everyone is finding where the path will go next. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely.



As an example: Wizards eliminating alignment entirely early in 2021 (and obviously in a hurry, if you look at Candlekeep), but rethinking that decision and restoring it - with more obvious nuances - by the end of the year. It's a work in progress.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters?



Yes, clearly. (Especially when origin lore gets reflected in game mechanics.)


----------



## Campbell

Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.


----------



## JEB

Campbell said:


> Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.



Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.

Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> Yes, clearly. (Especially when origin lore gets reflected in game mechanics.)



See, you say "clearly" here.  But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual.  So much got rewritten.  And no one cares.  

What mechanics are we talking about here?  After all, 2e to 3e suddenly changed the fact that you no longer had a "goblin" as a monster.  A goblin is a Warrior NPC class.  A goblin is identical to a human warrior, mechanically.  Which is identical to an orc or a hobgoblin.  Mechanically, they were all exactly the same.  About the only difference was a couple of HP.  

Now, with Fae origin, goblins are harder to charm?  So, this is considered a serious change?  Why?  It's far, far less of a change mechanically than what we had going from 2e to 3e.  Heck, what was a 2e goblin's Strength score?  Oh, right, they didn't have one.  

So, no, I would say that it isn't clear at all.  This is a change that in no way impacts anything.  You can run exactly the same adventures and, frankly, it will never, EVER come up in your game unless you want it to.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.
> 
> Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).



But... you've just gotten told that this wasn't true by someone who has spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this isn't true.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> See, you say "clearly" here.  But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual.  So much got rewritten.  And no one cares.



You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.

Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> But... you've just gotten told that this wasn't true by someone who has spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this isn't true.






Echohawk said:


> From 1e to 2e, the approach to monster updates was quite lazy, with much copied flavour text, sometimes even when the underlying mechanics no longer reflected that flavour.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.
> 
> Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).



People quibbled.  There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.

I guess I should have been more clear.  Sure, some people care.  Again, "many threads"?  What many threads.  You mean that once in a while thread you see talking about a couple of the changes like orcs or drow?  Because I don't recall a whole lot of threads talking about the other 99% of the monsters that got rewritten.

What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care.  It makes zero difference to how the game is played.  Does not impact any of the previous 5e adventures.  Sure, it updates a couple of books.  Again, who cares?  It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game.

Are you actually going to try to tell me that your players would hate D&D because it now says, "Goblin Medium Humanoid (fae)" (or whatever the text is)?  Are you trying to tell me that your players could actually tell you, right now, without looking it up, what monster type a goblin is and how that matters in the game?

Is the number of people who care zero?  No, obviously not.  Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day?  Yuppers.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> People quibbled. There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.





Hussar said:


> Is the number of people who care zero? No, obviously not. Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day? Yuppers.



So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."


----------



## Echohawk

Hussar said:


> What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care.



If anyone has claimed either that the majority of D&D players do, in fact, care deeply about the changes, or that the majority of D&D players _should_ care deeply about the changes, I missed that. I see a few people who are saying that this is a major issue *for them*. And that's okay. It's fine for people to be passionate about or protective of D&D lore, especially on forums dedicated to the discussion of all things D&D.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
> 1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
> 2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.
> 
> Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."



Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...



How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.



But it bears precisely on how much significance can be read into to a batch of kvetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> But it bears precisely onbiw much significance can be given to a batch of kbetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.



So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.



Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.



If the pushback is respectful, and intended to further discussion and understanding, rather than an attempt to shut down a line of discussion altogether? Sure.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> If the pushback is respectful, and intended to further discussion and understanding, rather than an attempt to shut down a line of discussion altogether? Sure.



Who says it isn't...? But either way, there are dozens of us here, dozens!


----------



## Malmuria

Mercurius said:


> The player base is different - much larger, younger, and *generally more casual.*
> There are far few products in 5E than in previous editions at a similar point, at least going back to 2E.
> So my question, or rather open-ended speculation, is how will WotC handle an edition change/revision differently from in the past, and how will the player base respond?




My guess is that they will err on keeping the product line *as simple as possible*.  A big chunk of your audience are people who don't pay close attention to each release, keeping a running log of change in mechanics, or are widely read in lore.  Keeping the old core books in print, or keeping Vgtm or mtof in print, is just confusing for casual consumers.  In fact, a major edition change is confusing for casual consumers.  Thus, the anniversary edition will be largely compatible with the current edition, unless they want to every adventure 5e to go out of print.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Who says it isn't...? But either way, there are dozens of us here, dozens!



If someone is suggesting that complainers are hypocrites because they only complain about some changes and not others, or that complainers are so few in number as to be irrelevant, or that even the complaints themselves are unimportant, that's an attempt to intimidate and shame complainers into silence. And it certainly isn't showing respect for their point of view, or seeking to understand that point of view.


----------



## Staffan

Campbell said:


> moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.



There's a difference?


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> If someone is suggesting that complainers are hypocrites because they only complain about some changes and not others, or that complainers are so few in number as to be irrelevant, or that even the complaints themselves are unimportant, that's an attempt to intimidate and shame complainers into silence. And it certainly isn't showing respect for their point of view, or seeking to understand that point of view.



Well, it is a bit hypocritical no?

"I think that canon and lore is very important and that you should not change things in the game" is a VERY different stance from "I only think canon and lore are important when it affects me personally, otherwise, change whatever you like, I don't care".  

Having had to listen to that second one for the past fifteen years or so, my tolerance is pretty close to zero.  Having people come and take big steaming dumps in EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION dealing with D&D, endlessly, without cease, tends to make me really, really salty.  We've been hearing this song and dance now for DECADES.  So, yeah, I'm not really seeking to understand the point of view anymore.

Someone doesn't like change X.  Ok, fair enough.  No problem.  I totally get that.  There are all sorts of things I don't like or would like to see in D&D.  My three most favorite classes in D&D are paladins, binders and warlords.  Paladins have been completely rewritten.  Binders had their junk stolen by warlocks and warlords got completely thrown under the bus.  Now, I could keep bitching and moaning about this.  And, I'll be the first to admit, I did a fair bit of that about warlords in the early days of 5e.  But, at some point, I just have to realize that nope, I'm not going to get what I want and move on.

I mean, good grief, it's never, EVER stopped.  All through 3e I had to listen to people bitch and complain about how the game I liked was ruining D&D.  Then 4e came along and LOTS MORE people, with a lot bigger axe to grind, endlessly bitched and complained about how 4e was ruining D&D.  Now, every freaking announcement thread or discussion of the future is littered with the same thing - WOtC is destroying D&D and hates its fans.

But, no, I'm supposed to be the one to be understanding and respectful.  I'm just so sick and tired of it.  It never, ever stops.  I get not liking something.  Totally understand that.  DO NOT UNDERSTAND the endless bitching about it over and over and over again.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Staffan said:


> There's a difference?



Yes. Greyhawk is more swords and sorcery, and has Kingdoms and Nations in the area that gets the most attention as opposed to the Sword Coasts City States. Also about half of them are evil in Greyhawk


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> "I think that canon and lore is very important and that you should not change things in the game" is a VERY different stance from "I only think canon and lore are important when it affects me personally, otherwise, change whatever you like, I don't care".



"Nothing should ever change" is a very rare and extreme point of view among folks who like canon. (I've seen it from maybe one person on these boards, not a regular.) Usually folks are tolerant to varying degrees of canon changes, as long as it's primarily additive and doesn't create a contradiction with past canon (or at least a contradiction that can be explained). The better the change can work with past canon, the less complaining; the less compatible, the more complaints you get. (This is why reboots tend to be poorly received, since they're fundamentally incompatible.)

Also worth noting that if someone had no strong feelings about a particular element of canon, it's likely less that they're giving permission to do whatever, and more like it's off their radar. If you didn't know that merrow used to be sea ogres and not corrupted merfolk, you aren't likely to even notice the change.

In short: people can like canon and still be fine with some changes. People are complicated, and it doesn't make them hypocrites.



Hussar said:


> I'm just so sick and tired of it. It never, ever stops. I get not liking something. Totally understand that. DO NOT UNDERSTAND the endless bitching about it over and over and over again.



Being irritated by complaints is understandable, but it doesn't make it fine to intimidate and shame those that do the complaining. Keep in mind that the ones who asked for changes to problematic lore were complaining as well, and their complaints absolutely irritated people... would it have been OK for those complainers to be bullied into silence by the ones they irritated?

If you can't ignore the complaints, then just block the complainers and be done with it. You won't see them, they won't see you. Seems like that might be the best solution to your problem.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Staffan said:


> There's a difference?




And here’s the modern problem.  No, not every setting is the same and they absolutely should not be.

This is why a lot of Dragonlance fans are currently unhappy.  They are trying to make it more generic so it fits into the same grey box as every other setting.


----------



## TwoSix

DarkCrisis said:


> This is why a lot of Dragonlance fans are currently unhappy.  They are trying to make it more generic so it fits into the same grey box as every other setting.



I’m not saying they’re not, but do we have enough information outside the UA to make that determination?


----------



## DarkCrisis

TwoSix said:


> I’m not saying they’re not, but do we have enough information outside the UA to make that determination?



The toning down of Kender (yeah yeah Kender) and changing the Tower of High Sorcery and how the 3 different robed mages works is a prime example.

I’m actually anxious to see if they mention that Orcs (this Half-Orcs) and Drow don’t exist in Krynn. Or that Draconians are strictly evil during the War of the Lance time period.


----------



## Vaalingrade

While I'm happy for the people who are happy to have an official update to their setting... maybe not all settings should come back if they need to be so extensively overhauled to fit with modern sensibilities.


----------



## Echohawk

DarkCrisis said:


> Drow don’t exist in Krynn.



_DLS4: Wild Elves_ has something to say about this claim.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Echohawk said:


> _DLS4: Wild Elves_ has something to say about this claim.




Some things werent fleshed out for a while and "drow" and "dark elf" got intermingled.  In DL, "Dark Elves" and "Drow" are "evil elves" and has nothing to do with black skinned elves that live underground.

And yes some publications do mentioned dark skinned drow elves because also again that stuff wasnt really fleshed out yet.

The closest you will get are some that come on Starjammers etc.  But natively Krynn does not have black skinned underground evil elves.  "Drow" and "Dark Elf" just mean "evil elves".


----------



## Staffan

DarkCrisis said:


> And here’s the modern problem.  No, not every setting is the same and they absolutely should not be.



I'm not saying there shouldn't be a difference. I'm saying that the difference between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is really, really small.

It's like quibbling over the taste difference between Pepsi and Coke, when there's also orange soda, lemonade, coffee, or beer on the menu.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DarkCrisis said:


> According the lastest Drizzt books: In Faerun Lolth was good.  The Drow acting evil corrupted her.  Currently she's turned her back on it all and her demons secretly run things in her name.  She still grants spells if a priestess asks but inst requiring prayers and sacrfices etc because she just doesnt care one way or the other.
> 
> This is what is about to cause the big civil war in Menzo as the head priestess now know the real history of the drow and her demons run things in her name since she cant be bothered to care, and if this info gets out well.... big changes for the Drow.



That's such a Forgotten Realms take, I don't mean that in a bad way! It's definitely more interesting than earlier approaches.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Staffan said:


> I'm not saying there shouldn't be a difference. I'm saying that the difference between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is really, really small.
> 
> It's like quibbling over the taste difference between Pepsi and Coke, when there's also orange soda, lemonade, coffee, or beer on the menu.




The difference are not very small unless you are simply grading it by "has heroes, magic, and monsters."


----------



## Ruin Explorer

JEB said:


> If someone is suggesting that complainers are hypocrites because they only complain about some changes and not others, or that complainers are so few in number as to be irrelevant, or that even the complaints themselves are unimportant, that's an attempt to intimidate and shame complainers into silence. And it certainly isn't showing respect for their point of view, or seeking to understand that point of view.



I mean, this doesn't really make sense. First off, let's not pretend "intimidate and shame" doesn't mean "bully". I hope you won't quibble with that.

The hypocrite point, yes, that's a rather weak argument, and yeah could be argued to be simply an attempt to get people to shut up. It's not really a rational position.

However, both the other points have some validity, whether you're comfortable with it or not, and claiming they're "bullying" (which you are) is itself pretty funny and arguably what you're complaining about - an attempt to shut people up by saying they're just being bullies - which some would see as an attempt to intimidate and shame lol (I laugh but it's absolutely a double-edged sword you're swinging here). Specifically:

1) "There are few complainers" - This is a fair point in many situations. It's not "bullying" to point it out. On the flipside, there being few complainers doesn't mean the complainers are wrong. You often see this with changes to the law - very often, a change might have no obvious impact to a layman, but a huge impact to a specialist who understands the consequences. However, that doesn't appear to apply here. Nonetheless, pointing it out is not bullying, but pointing it out doesn't mean you're automatically right. It does however mean that where things are simply a matter of taste/aesthetics, it's not likely to be a major problem.

2) "The complaints are unimportant" - This is no more "bullying" than suggesting the complaints are important. It's a discussion of opinions of the relative merits of things. The idea is to argue your case sufficiently persuasively that people are persuaded. People not being persuaded doesn't mean you're wrong, of course.

And I think the POV respect/understanding issue is just another double-edged sword. So that could be applied very widely.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DarkCrisis said:


> The difference are not very small unless you are simply grading it by "has heroes, magic, and monsters."



That's not really true. That box would encompass all D&D settings and virtually all fantasy RPGs, science-fantasy RPGs, urban fantasy RPGs, and so on.

It's all about zoom.

Both settings fit in with the high-level "D&D settings" box.

Zoom down to the next level say, "Kitchen Sink D&D settings" box, and they're both still in it. Whereas stuff like Birthright and Dark Sun has been excluded, as, interestingly, has Dragonlance.

Next "World-specific medieval/renaissance-inspired Kitchen Sink D&D settings", they're still in it, but say, Spelljammer and Planescape are no longer in it.

We can probably zoom again to say "World-specific, primarily Western-style-culture focused medieval/renaissance-inspired Kitchen Sink D&D", and now we're probably down to GH, FR, and Mystara in terms of official settings.

I'm sure we could keep going, but hopefully you see the point.


----------



## JEB

Ruin Explorer said:


> 1) "There are few complainers" - This is a fair point in many situations. It's not "bullying" to point it out. On the flipside, there being few complainers doesn't mean the complainers are wrong. You often see this with changes to the law - very often, a change might have no obvious impact to a layman, but a huge impact to a specialist who understands the consequences. However, that doesn't appear to apply here. Nonetheless, pointing it out is not bullying, but pointing it out doesn't mean you're automatically right. It does however mean that where things are simply a matter of taste/aesthetics, it's not likely to be a major problem.



Sure, it can be apparently true that "there are few complainers" - though plenty of folks could be complaining about any particular problem, out of sight of this particular forum - but how often is that point raised as a way to further discussion and understanding? I'm having trouble seeing that as anything but an attempt to make the complainers feel small and irrelevant.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 2) "The complaints are unimportant" - This is no more "bullying" than suggesting the complaints are important. It's a discussion of opinions of the relative merits of things. The idea is to argue your case sufficiently persuasively that people are persuaded. People not being persuaded doesn't mean you're wrong, of course.



It's a very small step from "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant." And if you want to debate the relative merits, then you'd engage with the relative merits, not refocus the discussion on the grand cosmic significance of the complaints themselves. I mean, is a family argument over finances less "important" than arguments about global warming? Sure, but suggesting that the family argument isn't "important" enough to be worthwhile is just rude at best.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

JEB said:


> Sure, it can be apparently true that "there are few complainers" - though plenty of folks could be complaining about any particular problem, out of sight of this particular forum - but how often is that point raised as a way to further discussion and understanding? I'm having trouble seeing that as anything but an attempt to make the complainers feel small and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> It's a very small step from "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant." And if you want to debate the relative merits, then you'd engage with the relative merits, not refocus the discussion on the grand cosmic significance of the complaints themselves. I mean, is a family argument over finances less "important" than arguments about global warming? Sure, but suggesting that the family argument isn't "important" enough to be worthwhile is just rude at best.



Re: "there are few complainers" being relevant, is that people often have exaggerated ideas about how widely-held their complaints are, and often to make arguments on the basis that their complaints are widely-held (for example, I saw someone trying to argue that "most people" disliked a movie in a series, when that movie was very successful financially and critically, quite recently - it was obvious that the "most people" existed solely in his mind). Pointing out that this is not the case is obviously valid, and trying to suggest it's merely an attempt to "hurt feelings" is, whilst kind of funny, not very valid.

This is particularly relevant when things like aesthetics are being argued, and most of what's argued about D&D is, in fact, aesthetics. I.e. artistic taste. If you are arguing that a specific artistic taste "should" be followed, whether that's a style of brushwork or having D&D not regain all HP on a rest by default, then it obviously matters whether that's a widely-held preference.

Of course you can make more interesting arguments by admitting that it is not perhaps a widely-held taste, but that if it were, perhaps would lead to the game having a more interesting aesthetic, but that requires being realistic and not feeling offended because someone (correctly) points out your opinion is not widely-held.

Re: "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant", your own argument illustrates a serious problem with what you're saying, because context matters. It's not at all rude to say someone's argument over their family finances is small potatoes when the context is something wider. Thus your general point has no apparent weight to it here. Context is king. If the context of the argument is solely a small-scale thing, then, yes, obviously, saying "Well it doesn't matter on the larger scale" is something of a non-sequitur. I think reading it as "bullying" whenever it happens is a tad precious and self-pitying (which is not to say it never is!), but this is all about context.

And let's be real - we've all seen threads about a medium-context or broad-context topic derailed by someone's obsession with a very specific and essentially narrow-context/largely irrelevant point. In those cases it's absolutely appropriate to suggest the narrow-context issue "doesn't matter" in the broader context. But in a narrow-context-specific discussion, it would not be appropriate to barge in and dismiss it because of the larger context.


----------



## Mercurius

Most things - including opinions - exist on a spectrum, from one extreme to the other. In the case of "pro and con WotC," these two extremes can be caricatured as:


WotC sucks - everything new sucks, I hate what they've done to D&D, at least now, rather than back in Ye Olde Days, when it was better.
WotC is great - everything they create is golden, and all change should be embraced and gloried in, no matter what it is or does.

(Actually, this either/or X-axis spectrum is part of the problem - as I'll illustrate in a bit)

Now obviously literally no one holds either view, but most tend to constellate towards one end or the other. Meaning, if the former is "0" and the latter is "10," everyone is somewhere in the 1-9 range, but _most _people are 3-7.

But the problem arises - not unlike in other contexts - when we _act _as if people we disagree with are more extreme than they actually are, which creates a strong polarization of two camps or tribes. "Wait, you don't agree with me and those I agree with on every little nuance?! You're one of _them!!!!"_






So everyone from 1-4 is treated as a 0 by those in the 6-9 range, and everyone from 6-9 is treated as a 10 by those in the 1-4 range (and woe are the 5s, as they either stay out of it, or are pushed to one side or the other, depending upon who they are talking with). 

This is a cultural problem that has been exacerbated over the last few years. In my life time at least, discourse of all kinds has never been so polarized, and it leaks into every little aspect of cultural discourse, even something as relatively inconsequential as D&D. Perhaps even more damaging is that there's a tendency to inflate relatively small things to larger proportions than they probably should be, so every little thing becomes part of a larger conflict resulting from said polarization.

One way to address this problem is by uprooting what I feel is an underlying shared delusion: the belief that there are two tribes (whether that belief is conscious or not; meaning, even if we realize there aren't two tribes, we tend to _act _as if there are). So the solution is the realization and enactment of the following: *There aren't two tribes, but countless variations; and more so, the spectrum isn't simply on an X-axis, but there's also a Y-axis. *Meaning, sometimes people who seem to be over _there_ because they're not _here, _are actually in a different part of the "Y-axis."

Or sometimes a person who is frustrated about certain aspects of what WotC is doing, but not others. Meaning, not only is the two tribes erroneous, but actual individuals hold nuanced views. And sometimes people disagree with certain things not for the reasons we think they disagree ("because they're one of them!").

So we have someone saying, "I don't like a lot of the recent D&D art" (or whatever), and another responds, "You're a hater! Go back to your 1970s-era man-cave and enjoy your bigoted art!" And the first person responds, "Wait, who said anything about bigotry? And I'm 34 years old and never saw the 70s!" Or we have someone saying, "I generally like the direction that WotC is going," and another says, "You're trying to erase history and push out anyone who likes older stuff! You think everything WotC creates is great, no matter what!" And the first person says, "Wait, I'm just saying that it is more good than bad - we've got lots of settings, a good amount of product but not too much, and billions of new D&D players..." 

And around and around we go.

Maybe we can find a middle ground: where we realize there aren't two tribes, but countless variations. Maybe we can all enjoy the fact that our beloved game is thriving, even if we don't like everything WotC puts out. Maybe we can also tolerate some difference of agreement, and recognize that even if we like where the game is going, it is making others feel left out or forgotten about - and it probably isn't because they're bad people or hold wrong views.

The in-fighting doesn't get us anywhere. We all share a love of D&D, and D&D is a vast and varied thing. There's room for all of us, and the actual Dave Johnsons of the world are very rare. The vast majority of fellow D&D players are basically good people, even if we don't agree with them on everything. 

I apologize if I sound preachy, I just feel that we endlessly end up in these back-and-forth dynamics and miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## DataDwarf

Malmuria said:


> ... unless they want to every adventure 5e to go out of print.



Don't give them any ideas. I'm pretty sure if they could reprint the old adventures with "streamline monsters" and "updated stories" and sell them to everyone again they would.

_Looks at CoS and ToD_


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> If someone is suggesting that complainers are hypocrites because they only complain about some changes and not others, or that complainers are so few in number as to be irrelevant, or that even the complaints themselves are unimportant, that's an attempt to intimidate and shame complainers into silence. And it certainly isn't showing respect for their point of view, or seeking to understand that point of view.



Well, in the grander scheme of things, we have encountered to take any online discussion with a giant grain of salt. Nothing here is representative.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Sure, it can be apparently true that "there are few complainers" - though plenty of folks could be complaining about any particular problem, out of sight of this particular forum - but how often is that point raised as a way to further discussion and understanding? I'm having trouble seeing that as anything but an attempt to make the complainers feel small and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> It's a very small step from "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant." And if you want to debate the relative merits, then you'd engage with the relative merits, not refocus the discussion on the grand cosmic significance of the complaints themselves. I mean, is a family argument over finances less "important" than arguments about global warming? Sure, but suggesting that the family argument isn't "important" enough to be worthwhile is just rude at best.



The reason to relativize the complaints is to understand better what WotC has done, and may do in the future. I have seen the argument thst WotC would surely want to aloud X, because of all the complaints they got about Y...but then they do X. It is helpful to sift and judge, to understand.


----------



## Malmuria

Forms of dnd complaining that I find annoying

people who assume they are in the majority and feel entitled that the current edition/products of dnd match their preferences
related to the above, people who refuse to try other games
unsubstantiated and decontextualized claims about what "old school" or "traditional" dnd involved (e.g. debates about racial asi)
unsubstantiated claims that wotc 'doesn't care about long term players'


----------



## Micah Sweet

Malmuria said:


> Forms of dnd complaining that I find annoying
> 
> people who assume they are in the majority and feel entitled that the current edition/products of dnd match their preferences
> related to the above, people who refuse to try other games
> unsubstantiated and decontextualized claims about what "old school" or "traditional" dnd involved (e.g. debates about racial asi)
> unsubstantiated claims that wotc 'doesn't care about long term players'



So, basically anyone who doesn't like the current direction of the game?


----------



## Malmuria

Micah Sweet said:


> So, basically anyone who doesn't like the current direction of the game?



Oh I should add to that list: assumptions about the "direction" of the game  

But seriously... what annoys me sometimes is a tone of resentment and entitlement, rather than the content of the complaint.  It makes discussing wotc's product schedule the focus of conversation in the hobby (many times a focus for proxy conversations for other things).  It crowds out discussing even other dnd editions, let alone other games.

btw, many of the above also apply to newer players making assumptions about older editions or who refuse to consider diversifying their game library.


----------



## Hussar

DarkCrisis said:


> The toning down of Kender (yeah yeah Kender) and changing the Tower of High Sorcery and how the 3 different robed mages works is a prime example.
> 
> I’m actually anxious to see if they mention that Orcs (this Half-Orcs) and Drow don’t exist in Krynn. Or that Draconians are strictly evil during the War of the Lance time period.




This is actually a pretty good example. 

We have no idea how many people are happy or unhappy about the changes. So why start from the position that many people are unhappy? Why not just say “I am unhappy about the changes”?

Note, I’m not thrilled about the changes either. But I know right now that Draconians won’t be strictly evil. That writing is on the wall pretty clearly. 

Yet, the idea of non-evil draconians is not new. That’s been around for almost twenty years now. Long before Dragonborn. 

So should I dig in my heels to fight a losing battle? Or just accept that my tastes are likely out of step and now it’s up to me if I want to do the work changing it back?

Because here’s the thing. Non-evil draconians supports everyone better than all evil ones do. If you want all evil draconians that’s no problem. Just convince your table that that’s how things are. For other tables they can make that choice too. 

So instead of WotC telling everyone the right way to play, they are leaving it up to individual tables. 

Isn’t that a better way to do it?


----------



## DarkCrisis

Hussar said:


> This is actually a pretty good example.
> 
> We have no idea how many people are happy or unhappy about the changes. So why start from the position that many people are unhappy? Why not just say “I am unhappy about the changes”?
> 
> Note, I’m not thrilled about the changes either. But I know right now that Draconians won’t be strictly evil. That writing is on the wall pretty clearly.
> 
> Yet, the idea of non-evil draconians is not new. That’s been around for almost twenty years now. Long before Dragonborn.
> 
> So should I dig in my heels to fight a losing battle? Or just accept that my tastes are likely out of step and now it’s up to me if I want to do the work changing it back?
> 
> Because here’s the thing. Non-evil draconians supports everyone better than all evil ones do. If you want all evil draconians that’s no problem. Just convince your table that that’s how things are. For other tables they can make that choice too.
> 
> So instead of WotC telling everyone the right way to play, they are leaving it up to individual tables.
> 
> Isn’t that a better way to do it?



They could be non-evil AFTER the war.  

These are creatures made via an evil goddess using her evil clergy to cast highly evil magic to make corrupted creatures that were pressed into service to fight a war.

Sure you and your DM can say Draconians are also good and fight the good fight during the War that WotC wants to center things on, but that again changes fluff of the war to a massive degree, which why even have it or the War of the Lance at all.

Me, I can't imagine say playing a LotRs game as an Uruk Hai.  It makes zero sense to the established world might as well just play in Faerun.


----------



## Vaalingrade

DarkCrisis said:


> They could be non-evil AFTER the war.
> 
> These are creatures made via an evil goddess using her evil clergy to cast highly evil magic to make corrupted creatures that were* pressed into service* to fight a war.
> 
> Sure you and your DM can say Draconians are also good and fight the good fight during the War that WotC wants to center things on, but that again changes fluff of the war to a massive degree, which why even have it or the War of the Lance at all.
> 
> Me, I can't imagine say playing a LotRs game as an Uruk Hai.  It makes zero sense to the established world might as well just play in Faerun.



Found the issue.

She made sapient beings and then pressed them into service. None of this requires they be evil, just pawns of evil.

Of course, we then again get into values dissonance, as you have to encourage murdering the conscripts in order to see the cool things they do when they die.


----------



## Hussar

DarkCrisis said:


> They could be non-evil AFTER the war.
> 
> These are creatures made via an evil goddess using her evil clergy to cast highly evil magic to make corrupted creatures that were pressed into service to fight a war.
> 
> Sure you and your DM can say Draconians are also good and fight the good fight during the War that WotC wants to center things on, but that again changes fluff of the war to a massive degree, which why even have it or the War of the Lance at all.
> 
> Me, I can't imagine say playing a LotRs game as an Uruk Hai. It makes zero sense to the established world might as well just play in Faerun.




Again, you are preaching to the converted here. I totally agree and think that good draconians are a very bad idea. And if I ever run a DL campaign I’d likely not have them or maybe just a one off if a player asks really nicely and bribes me with pizza. 

But that’s my table. I’m not really willing to declare that that should be true for all tables. I’m actually quite happy that WotC is leaving it up to individual tables. 

Isn’t dm empowerment what 5e is all about?

You can’t really empower dms while at the same time tell them that they are doing it wrong. So the compromise is you support everyone a bit. 

Granted I do think the latest kender are mind numbingly boring. But then I can always add back in kender pockets. That’s the point here. Everyone is now being expected to make settings their own. 

At least that’s how I see things. Not that I’m particularly happy with changes or unhappy. I’m okay with the idea that while I might not like some of the changes, that just means someone else likely is.


----------



## Staffan

DarkCrisis said:


> The difference are not very small unless you are simply grading it by "has heroes, magic, and monsters."



Was going to respond to this but @Ruin Explorer said it better.


----------



## Hussar

Honestly the biggest difference between FR and Greyhawk is simply volume. 

How many pages of information is there about FR compared to Greyhawk? 

As far as the rest though? They’re not really all that different.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Honestly the biggest difference between FR and Greyhawk is simply volume.
> 
> How many pages of information is there about FR compared to Greyhawk?
> 
> As far as the rest though? They’re not really all that different.



There are flavor and texture differences.

A heaping plate of enchiladas and a big burrito have the same material, but provide a different experience.


----------



## Staffan

Parmandur said:


> There are flavor and texture differences.
> 
> A heaping plate of enchiladas and a big burrito have the same material, but provide a different experience.



A better comparison would be a Whopper and a Big Mac. There are certainly differences between them, and it's totally valid to prefer one over the other. But if given a choice between a burger, a plate of sushi, or a pizza, it doesn't much matter if the burger on offer is a Whopper or a Big Mac.


----------



## Mercurius

Hussar said:


> Honestly the biggest difference between FR and Greyhawk is simply volume.
> 
> How many pages of information is there about FR compared to Greyhawk?
> 
> As far as the rest though? They’re not really all that different.



Isn't this similar to just about anything, where it depends upon how you set the "microscope" and/or one's interest level/knowledge?

For the former, I mean, both are kitchen sink fantasy settings for D&D - but that's at a macro-level. Dialing in the scope, more and more differences stand out, and differences in flavor and atmosphere emerge.

As for the latter, to me - as a non-country music fan - all country music sounds basically the same. I mean, I can pick out and enjoy Johnny Cash, but if I turn on a pop country station, it all sounds the same (and not very pleasing to my own sensibilities). 

But if you ask me about the different flavors of funk music, I can give you a verbal dissertation on its variations and history. For me, there's a world of difference between, say, Funkadelic and Graham Central Station and the Headhunters.

Now if I asked a friend to browse through the _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting _and the _Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, _she might say, "are these the same world?" But if she read them cover-to-cover she'd pick up differences, and if she explored the various available materials over the years, they would become even more differentiated....and even more so if she played in a campaign in both, with a DM who really "got" the respective settings.

The point being, I hear what you are saying - but only from a very macro level and/or from the perspective of a "non-connoisseur" of D&D settings, or fantasy in general. But if you dial in the scope and/or acquire a palate for fantasy and D&D settings, they stand out in greater contrast. I would say this is especially true if we take Gygax's Greyhawk (WoG box set) and Greenwood's Realms (gray box) - one _is _Gygax's mind, the other _is _Greenwood's mind.

As an aside, this is why I loved teaching world-building to a group of high school students some years ago. I didn't frame it as, or connect it to D&D or fantasy in any way. It was amazing how different each world was - and how each expressed the uniqueness of the student. Now if I had said, "create a world of fantasy adventure," the differences would smooth out somewhat. Many of them would have been influenced by the LotR films or Harry Potter or video games. But they'd still all have their own unique flavorings.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> Of course, we then again get into values dissonance, as you have to encourage murdering the conscripts in order to see the cool things they do when they die.



Don’t worry all the thugs and petty criminals Batman puts in the hospital are all bad people.  Now all of the soldiers on the other side of the war are monsters… no good people no neutral people just bad.  


Wouldn’t want to make the TTRPG force you to role play interacting with individuals


----------



## Parmandur

Staffan said:


> A better comparison would be a Whopper and a Big Mac. There are certainly differences between them, and it's totally valid to prefer one over the other. But if given a choice between a burger, a plate of sushi, or a pizza, it doesn't much matter if the burger on offer is a Whopper or a Big Mac.



No, the Mexican analogy is more appropriate, I feel. Someone who hates Mexican food (probably because they hate rainbows and Sunsets or something) isn't going to see a difference between a plate of New Mexico Enchiladas and a wet Burrito, but enthusiasts could go on and on about the differences and subtlties.


----------



## Hussar

See, I look at it like this.

If I wanted to run an adventure set in Sharn, it would likely be a very different adventure if I ported it into Greyhawk or Waterdeep.  Eberron and the other two setting are just so different. 

But, I can take Ghosts of Saltmarsh (or, in fact the older modules all of those modules are based on) and move Saltmarsh to the Sword Coast without changing much more than proper nouns.  Virtually nothing changes.  Conversely, I can take classic Greyhawk adventures like Cult of the Reptile God or the Slavers series and plonk it down into Forgotten Realms, and, again, other than changing proper nouns, there really isn't much that needs to change.

Are they different settings?  Sure.  No problems with that.  But, they really aren't all that different when you drill down to it.  Heck, look at the first three Paizo Adventure Paths - Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tides.  All three have conversion documents for plonking these adventures into Forgotten Realms and it really doesn't take a lot of work.  Mostly just changing proper nouns.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> See, I look at it like this.
> 
> If I wanted to run an adventure set in Sharn, it would likely be a very different adventure if I ported it into Greyhawk or Waterdeep.  Eberron and the other two setting are just so different.
> 
> But, I can take Ghosts of Saltmarsh (or, in fact the older modules all of those modules are based on) and move Saltmarsh to the Sword Coast without changing much more than proper nouns.  Virtually nothing changes.  Conversely, I can take classic Greyhawk adventures like Cult of the Reptile God or the Slavers series and plonk it down into Forgotten Realms, and, again, other than changing proper nouns, there really isn't much that needs to change.
> 
> Are they different settings?  Sure.  No problems with that.  But, they really aren't all that different when you drill down to it.  Heck, look at the first three Paizo Adventure Paths - Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tides.  All three have conversion documents for plonking these adventures into Forgotten Realms and it really doesn't take a lot of work.  Mostly just changing proper nouns.



Right, just a pile of rice & beans with meat and a tomato sauce.


----------



## Hussar

Yuck.  Who puts tomato sauce on a burrito?  

The point being though, whether it's a soft taco or a burrito, it's still Mexican food, right?  There are considerably more differences between sushi and a taco or burrito than there is between a taco and a burrito.  To terribly mangle the metaphor.

Let's be honest here.  You are likely using mostly (with a few exceptions) the same monsters in FR as Greyhawk.  It's not like you have totally separate Monster Manuals.  The classes play in either setting without modification.  There are no setting specific rules like insanity  (like you would see in say, Ravenloft).  Most of the races work pretty much the same - there isn't an enormous difference between a mountain dwarf in FR or Greyhawk.  

IOW, if you strip out the proper nouns, there aren't a lot of differences.  And, I say this as a HUGE Greyhawk fan. I ADORE Greyhawk.  I really do.  There's just so many fun bits in it and, unlike Forgotten Realms, there isn't a mountain of lore behind it meaning that it's much, much easier to color in the blank spaces how I want to, rather than following someone else's creation.

But, let's be honest here.  FR and Greyhawk are a lot closer to each other than any other setting.  I'm rather stuggling to think of any adventure that would work in one setting that wouldn't work or would be terribly out of place in the other setting.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Yuck.  Who puts tomato sauce on a burrito?
> 
> The point being though, whether it's a soft taco or a burrito, it's still Mexican food, right?  There are considerably more differences between sushi and a taco or burrito than there is between a taco and a burrito.  To terribly mangle the metaphor.
> 
> Let's be honest here.  You are likely using mostly (with a few exceptions) the same monsters in FR as Greyhawk.  It's not like you have totally separate Monster Manuals.  The classes play in either setting without modification.  There are no setting specific rules like insanity  (like you would see in say, Ravenloft).  Most of the races work pretty much the same - there isn't an enormous difference between a mountain dwarf in FR or Greyhawk.
> 
> IOW, if you strip out the proper nouns, there aren't a lot of differences.  And, I say this as a HUGE Greyhawk fan. I ADORE Greyhawk.  I really do.  There's just so many fun bits in it and, unlike Forgotten Realms, there isn't a mountain of lore behind it meaning that it's much, much easier to color in the blank spaces how I want to, rather than following someone else's creation.
> 
> But, let's be honest here.  FR and Greyhawk are a lot closer to each other than any other setting.  I'm rather stuggling to think of any adventure that would work in one setting that wouldn't work or would be terribly out of place in the other setting.



Salsa is a sauce (very literally the same word, etymologically) usually made from tomatoes (though there are others, obviously).

Sure, someone who wants Mediterranean (Eberron) or Thai (Ravnica, say) isn't going to see a big difference between the two dishes with the same ingredients (by and large), because they want something else. But someone who loves Mexican food can carefully consider each diffrence the preparation can make, and lovingly contemplate it.


----------



## Malmuria

But is Greyhawk a sandwich?


----------



## Parmandur

Malmuria said:


> But is Greyhawk a sandwich?



In one sense, Greyhawk is not a "Sandwich." In another sense, Greyhawk is * THE* Sandwhich. In a third sense, * ONLY* Greyhawk is a Sandwich.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> Salsa is a sauce (very literally the same word, etymologically) usually made from tomatoes (though there are others, obviously).
> 
> Sure, someone who wants Mediterranean (Eberron) or Thai (Ravnica, say) isn't going to see a big difference between the two dishes with the same ingredients (by and large), because they want something else. But someone who loves Mexican food can carefully consider each diffrence the preparation can make, and lovingly contemplate it.



Oh, fair enough.  But, when someone comes along and says, "Yup, burritos and tacos are both Mexican dishes" they're not wrong.

Ok, that's enough abusing that poor metaphor.   

The point being, as I said before, your character in Greyhawk very likely isn't terribly different from your character in FR and is quite probably doing very, very similar things.  The fact that it's pretty easy to interchange stuff between the two shows how similar they are.  A GH Drow is not terribly different from an FR Drow but is significantly different from an Eberron Drow or a Dragonlance Dark Elf.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Hussar said:


> The point being, as I said before, your character in Greyhawk very likely isn't terribly different from your character in FR and is quite probably doing very, very similar things.



where I agree with your premise (GH and FR have a lot in common) I disagree with this way of saying it.  By this metric you need to go gonzo weird for a setting to be different. Even then is a spell jammer background that different from a FR or GH? once in game are you not still some form of treasure hunting/dungeon delving? 

I will take a background and concept I used for a 2e ranger in FR.

I grew up in a small town. I was bullied by a fellow farmer who's dad was a bit (and only a bit) better off then my family, and we both competed for the same girl... neither of us got her. She went off and became an 'adventurer' what ever that means. My goal was to learn to be the best farmer and then take over the family business... until one day the farm was destroyed. the town was attacked by a mad mage his goblins and undead.  I was bearly 20 and only escaped because another wizard helped get me out. I'm pretty tough (grew up on farm), and I know how to survive off the land, but I would not say I am a warrior.  Now I know what 'adventurer' means... because I am one, a wander, a vagubond, a man with no land to call his own. I have 2 short swords a bit of skill and just want to earn enough money to go back to the more simple life.

I can play that as a 1st-3rd level ranger in any edition in 7/10 of the campaign settings TSR/WotC put out.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Oh, fair enough. But, when someone comes along and says, "Yup, burritos and tacos are both Mexican dishes" they're not wrong.
> 
> Ok, that's enough abusing that poor metaphor.



Yes, exactly, that's why it's a good metaphors! See also further popular Mexican dishes Exandria, Gloriana, and Midgard.


Hussar said:


> The point being, as I said before, your character in Greyhawk very likely isn't terribly different from your character in FR and is quite probably doing very, very similar things. The fact that it's pretty easy to interchange stuff between the two shows how similar they are. A GH Drow is not terribly different from an FR Drow but is significantly different from an Eberron Drow or a Dragonlance Dark Elf.



Sure, sounds like a feature rather than a bug...but I like Mexican food.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Did you know that Taco Bell recently brought back the Mexican Pizza??


----------



## Vaalingrade

MichaelSomething said:


> Did you know that Taco Bell recently brought back the Mexican Pizza??



Finally, some good news in the 20's!


----------



## Hussar

GMforPowergamers said:


> I grew up in a small town. I was bullied by a fellow farmer who's dad was a bit (and only a bit) better off then my family, and we both competed for the same girl... neither of us got her. She went off and became an 'adventurer' what ever that means. My goal was to learn to be the best farmer and then take over the family business... until one day the farm was destroyed. the town was attacked by a mad mage his goblins and undead. I was bearly 20 and only escaped because another wizard helped get me out. I'm pretty tough (grew up on farm), and I know how to survive off the land, but I would not say I am a warrior. Now I know what 'adventurer' means... because I am one, a wander, a vagubond, a man with no land to call his own. I have 2 short swords a bit of skill and just want to earn enough money to go back to the more simple life.



Let's be honest here though.  That's a very, very generic background.  Sure, of course that will fit into pretty much any setting because, well, "bad wizard" and "goblins" and "undead" exist in virtually any setting.  And, again, I wasn't referring to backgrounds really.  I was more referring to what you're going to be doing as an adventurer.

For example, trying to heist a Lightning Rail Train while leading a gang of velociraptor riding halflings is probably not something you can really do in Forgotten Realms, for example.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> Yes, exactly, that's why it's a good metaphors! See also further popular Mexican dishes Exandria, Gloriana, and Midgard.
> 
> Sure, sounds like a feature rather than a bug...but I like Mexican food.



Oh, sorry.  I certainly didn't mean that Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk being largely interchangeable was a negative thing.  It's not.  There's enough difference there that it's fine to like one or the other.  Each setting emphasizes different things after all.  The point being, kitchen sink generic settings are kitchen sink generic settings.  There's nothing WRONG with that.  Absolutely nothing wrong.  

But, I don't think it's particularly useful to try to claim that these aren't kitchen sink generic settings.  There's all sorts of pros and cons to having a kitchen sink setting versus a much more focused one.  Totally get that.  There's no value judgement here on my part at all.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Oh, sorry.  I certainly didn't mean that Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk being largely interchangeable was a negative thing.  It's not.  There's enough difference there that it's fine to like one or the other.  Each setting emphasizes different things after all.  The point being, kitchen sink generic settings are kitchen sink generic settings.  There's nothing WRONG with that.  Absolutely nothing wrong.
> 
> But, I don't think it's particularly useful to try to claim that these aren't kitchen sink generic settings.  There's all sorts of pros and cons to having a kitchen sink setting versus a much more focused one.  Totally get that.  There's no value judgement here on my part at all.



Yeah, and those are popular, largely because generic kitchen sink Settings make good fodder for homebrew heneric Settings, the most popular way to play D&D. The more toys in the toy box, the better.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, and those are popular, largely because generic kitchen sink Settings make good fodder for homebrew heneric Settings, the most popular way to play D&D. The more toys in the toy box, the better.



Oh, absolutely.  Being able to mix and match is definitely a big draw.  

As much as I like more unique settings, it does make it that much more difficult to fiddle with the tighter the setting is.


----------



## Sabathius42

An interesting take on the idea of how "samey" two settings are is to imaging a character from one setting randomly teleported to the second.  A bard from Greyhawk would have a fair basic understanding of the world mechanics of Faerun but would be mystified at the absence of clerical magic in Dragonlance or even worse the absence of a gold economy and steel in DarkSun.

Of the "major" settings FR and Greyhawk are the closest siblings.  Except maybe Critical Role World, but I don't know anything about that to comment on it.


----------



## Staffan

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, and those are popular, largely because generic kitchen sink Settings make good fodder for homebrew heneric Settings, the most popular way to play D&D. The more toys in the toy box, the better.



I had an Insight a while back about generic/patchwork settings – specifically Golarion, but it also applies to some degree to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. These settings are designed so that whatever adventure you come up with, as long as it fits within a certain core D&D-ness, you can find a place for that in the setting. Gothic Hammer Horror stuff? That's in Ustalav. Travel through jungles to explore ancient ruins? Mwangi's down there. Pirates? My man, let me introduce you to the Shackles. Genies and deserts and stuff? Have you ever been to Katapesh?

This works well for Paizo's goals, because their primary thing is making adventures. The whole point of making Pathfinder in the first place was "We're good at adventures, but the game we're making adventures for is out of print and we care neither for the successor's rules nor the terms under which we can support it, so we're making a clone of the game so we can keep making adventures."

A more distinctive setting probably doesn't support all that stuff, but it is instead better at providing things that make you go "That's awesome, I want to do something with that." Dino-riding halflings robbing the train on the lightning rail? Warforged being exploited as a tireless workforce, creating tensions with meatbags? Cyran refugees exposed to bigotry, and some responding by trying to carve out a new kingdom for themselves? Spy/diplomat intrigue in the divided city of Thronehold? Murder on the Orien Express? Fighting aberrations side by side with noble orc heroes? A church ruling a country and needing to balance its holy mission with the often dirty business of governing? Those are all cool ideas that jump out at me when I read the Eberron books, and don't really work in other settings.

In other words, kitchen sinks are for "I have a neat idea, and here's a place where I can do it" while distinctive settings are for "Here's a cool thing, that gives me a neat idea."


----------



## Remathilis

Staffan said:


> I had an Insight a while back about generic/patchwork settings – specifically Golarion, but it also applies to some degree to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. These settings are designed so that whatever adventure you come up with, as long as it fits within a certain core D&D-ness, you can find a place for that in the setting. Gothic Hammer Horror stuff? That's in Ustalav. Travel through jungles to explore ancient ruins? Mwangi's down there. Pirates? My man, let me introduce you to the Shackles. Genies and deserts and stuff? Have you ever been to Katapesh?
> 
> This works well for Paizo's goals, because their primary thing is making adventures. The whole point of making Pathfinder in the first place was "We're good at adventures, but the game we're making adventures for is out of print and we care neither for the successor's rules nor the terms under which we can support it, so we're making a clone of the game so we can keep making adventures."
> 
> A more distinctive setting probably doesn't support all that stuff, but it is instead better at providing things that make you go "That's awesome, I want to do something with that." Dino-riding halflings robbing the train on the lightning rail? Warforged being exploited as a tireless workforce, creating tensions with meatbags? Cyran refugees exposed to bigotry, and some responding by trying to carve out a new kingdom for themselves? Spy/diplomat intrigue in the divided city of Thronehold? Murder on the Orien Express? Fighting aberrations side by side with noble orc heroes? A church ruling a country and needing to balance its holy mission with the often dirty business of governing? Those are all cool ideas that jump out at me when I read the Eberron books, and don't really work in other settings.
> 
> In other words, kitchen sinks are for "I have a neat idea, and here's a place where I can do it" while distinctive settings are for "Here's a cool thing, that gives me a neat idea."



Agreed 100%. Kitchen sink settings can handle a lot of different types of adventures all within its large borders, at the cost of unique mechanical expression. Specialized settings give a better expression of theme, at the cost of diversity. You can jump from horror to war story to urban intrigue in a setting like Faerun, Exandria or Golarion easily, but you won't find the same support for any of them that you would playing Ravenloft or Eberron or Ravnica. On the reverse, it's rather hard to do anything with Ravenloft that isn't horror, or use Theros for anything but sword and sandal epics. If I bought a module that is fairly generic (ye olde Keep on the Borderlands), it works fine on Oerth or Golarion, but not Eberron or Krynn without extensive rewriting.


----------



## Parmandur

Sabathius42 said:


> An interesting take on the idea of how "samey" two settings are is to imaging a character from one setting randomly teleported to the second.  A bard from Greyhawk would have a fair basic understanding of the world mechanics of Faerun but would be mystified at the absence of clerical magic in Dragonlance or even worse the absence of a gold economy and steel in DarkSun.
> 
> Of the "major" settings FR and Greyhawk are the closest siblings.  Except maybe Critical Role World, but I don't know anything about that to comment on it.



Exandria is a very Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms world grown from a Nentir Vale seedling.


----------



## Parmandur

Staffan said:


> I had an Insight a while back about generic/patchwork settings – specifically Golarion, but it also applies to some degree to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. These settings are designed so that whatever adventure you come up with, as long as it fits within a certain core D&D-ness, you can find a place for that in the setting. Gothic Hammer Horror stuff? That's in Ustalav. Travel through jungles to explore ancient ruins? Mwangi's down there. Pirates? My man, let me introduce you to the Shackles. Genies and deserts and stuff? Have you ever been to Katapesh?
> 
> This works well for Paizo's goals, because their primary thing is making adventures. The whole point of making Pathfinder in the first place was "We're good at adventures, but the game we're making adventures for is out of print and we care neither for the successor's rules nor the terms under which we can support it, so we're making a clone of the game so we can keep making adventures."
> 
> A more distinctive setting probably doesn't support all that stuff, but it is instead better at providing things that make you go "That's awesome, I want to do something with that." Dino-riding halflings robbing the train on the lightning rail? Warforged being exploited as a tireless workforce, creating tensions with meatbags? Cyran refugees exposed to bigotry, and some responding by trying to carve out a new kingdom for themselves? Spy/diplomat intrigue in the divided city of Thronehold? Murder on the Orien Express? Fighting aberrations side by side with noble orc heroes? A church ruling a country and needing to balance its holy mission with the often dirty business of governing? Those are all cool ideas that jump out at me when I read the Eberron books, and don't really work in other settings.
> 
> In other words, kitchen sinks are for "I have a neat idea, and here's a place where I can do it" while distinctive settings are for "Here's a cool thing, that gives me a neat idea."



More than just publishers, DMs can easily plug in traditional fantasy narratives (which remain perennially popular for good reasons) handily in Greyhawk, Exandria, Midgard, the Forgotten Realms, or Golorion. Runequest or Eberron, say, require more invention and explanation to players.


----------

